All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
March 19, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Great to have you here.
I am your guiding light, America's truth detector and the doctor of democracy.
L. Rushmore live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address.
L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Okay, forget everything that you have heard today about they've got the votes, or they're just two votes shy, or they're just one vote shy.
Forget Clyburn saying, Yep, we've got the votes.
We're voting on Sunday.
We're going to have health care by two o'clock Sunday afternoon.
The truth of the matter is, and no less than Obama's own network, MSNBC just announced it.
Democrat leaders say they do not have the votes.
But it's even more profound than that.
There are 40 undeclared Democrats.
40 Democrats who have not declared how they're going to vote.
There is no way anybody knows that they're five short or one short or two short or what have you.
There are 40 undeclared votes.
And if this thing is to pass on Sunday, if they're going to have this vote on Sunday, Pelosi's going to have to get over two-thirds of that 40 voting yes.
There are 40 undeclared, 40 undecided.
Now the conventional wisdom is that somebody telling you they're undecided is just buying time and trying to avoid hassles, that they actually are going to vote yes, but it could just as easily be they're going to vote no and they don't want to get hassled because of that, too.
It could go either way.
Now, as I mentioned, so there are 40 people, 40 members are undeclared.
And House leaders just said they don't have the votes.
Even Obama at his uh declaring war on the insurance industry rally at George Mason University just this morning.
Said, if this vote fails, if this bill fails, so it's still in his mind, it could fail.
Pelosi's out there.
Remember, she's telling people go ahead and quit their day jobs.
They're gonna have health insurance.
Now that the complaining about people being job locked, have to keep a job they don't like just to get health insurance, forget that.
We're gonna pay your health insurance for you.
Now here's some things in the reconciliation package, the reconciliation fixes, that will not be part of the bill if they vote Sunday and Obama signs it.
This is the demon pass thing.
I've told you about the increase, almost one percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on investment income, capital gains.
There are even deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, which will mean fewer and less attractive Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors.
And as I mentioned yesterday, take a look at Walmart or Walgreens in the state of Washington.
They're not accepting any new Medicaid patients starting April 16th.
I mean, that's the future.
There are increases in the employer penalties for not complying with the mandates, which will hit all businesses with more than 50 employees.
Uh it's it's it's deadly.
Now, what's in the Senate bill?
What's in the Senate?
The Senate Democrats Health Bill cuts Medicare by 463 billion dollars.
And by the way, folks, you should know this.
Stennie Hoyer has sent a memo to all Democrats in the House.
Do not get into a discussion about specifics of the CBO report.
Do not get into specifics.
The reason is if they get into specifics, they're gonna have to admit that everything they're saying is untrue about how much it costs and how much premiums are going down and how much the deficit's going down because none of that's true.
Hoyer is pinning out a memo to staff members to tell their member, their leaders, and their members of Congress.
Do not get into a debate with anybody about what's in the CBO report.
Just focus on deficit reduction.
In other words, Hoyer has sent a memo out to his members saying, just lie.
Just lie and say this reduces the deficit, but get into no specifics.
You keep walking, you don't stop, and you do not get into a detailed discussion of CBO numbers.
They don't want a detailed discussion of any of the details here.
They lose if that happens.
They don't want it.
And that's why people are focusing on these details today.
The the sum total, the sum total of uh of of Medicare cuts in the Senate bill is five hundred and twenty-three and a half billion dollars.
That's the total.
And that's what will pass.
That means the Senate bill will be separated if they vote on this reconciliation thing Sunday.
Senate bill will be separated.
It'll be sent over to the to the Senate to be certified there, then on to Obama.
The reconciliation package will not be part of it.
The reconciliation package may never see the light of day.
Here are the way the cuts break down.
202.3 billion dollars in cuts to seniors' Medicare health plans, including massive cuts targeting the extra benefits and reduced cost sharing that seniors receive through Medicare Advantage.
156.6 billion dollars in cuts to inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals, inpatient folks, there's no expanded care anywhere.
Especially for UCs and citizens.
There are massive cuts, and this $523 billion is being taken away from Medicare and is being spent elsewhere.
They're taking it away from senior citizens, spending it elsewhere in the new entitlement.
This is in the Senate bill.
Not not this reconciliation stuff.
This is what what has been passed last Christmas Eve in the Senate.
$39.7 billion in cuts to home health reimbursements.
$22.1 billion in additional cuts to hospitals by slashing reimbursements designed to assist hospitals that serve low-income patients.
$20.7 billion in cuts to the Medicare Improvement Fund.
Uh $13.3 billion in yet to be determined Medicare cuts from the hands of an unelected federal board.
I mean, look at I'm going to stop with the numbers because it they get blurred after a while.
But and we're talking about a couple of different things, reconciliation and the Senate bill.
We start talking about these numbers.
The bottom line is there are no expanded services.
There are no smaller premiums.
There nothing that they're saying about this.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, none of it is true.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
And remember, again, the Senate leaders said House leaders said today, they don't have the votes yet.
Clyburn went out and said he's got the votes, he doesn't have them.
There are 40 undeclared House Democrats on this.
So there's there's no way any of these accurate whip counts that say one vote short, two votes short, five votes short.
Nobody knows what they're talking about.
All this is just PR put out by the Democrats.
Media is lapping it all up, trying to create an inevitable.
It's a done deal.
It's like I said, the people predict they're going to win.
Okay, let's not play the game then.
If you think you're gonna win, you win.
It's over.
Nope, not gonna do it that way.
It's never happens that way in real life.
But that's what they're trying to do.
Just get us to stop playing the game.
It ain't gonna happen.
James Cleburn this morning, MSNBC, F. Chuck Todd said the soonest you can call a vote as far as the pledge you guys made is two o'clock Sunday.
But is it fair to say that you won't call the vote until you know you have the votes, or will you possibly call the vote even if you're not quite sure?
Nancy Pelosi will make that call.
But I'm very hopeful that by the time we get to two o'clock on Sunday uh afternoon, we will see our pathway forward.
You know, a lot of momentum has built over the last day or so, and from what I hear, the wind will continue to blow out our backs throughout the day.
Now that's this morning.
Uh he's the whip.
He's talking about this like he's looking at it from a far from what I hear.
Uh a lot of momentum built over the last day or so.
From what I hear, the wind will continue to blow on our backs very often.
He's the whip.
He is the wind.
He's the wind that's supposed to be blowing at everybody's back.
They don't have them yet, folks.
Do not doubt me.
Last night, Charlie Rose asks Clyburn, does this CBO report close the deal for you to get the 216 votes?
I think so.
Uh I really am believe that the people who were very leery about what This would do to the country's debt and deficit.
Are very pleased with this.
It makes it easier.
As well as on the progressive side, they wanted more people covered.
And we'll be almost doubling the size of community health centers.
Not true.
Not true.
Don't forget Stanley Hoyer has a memo to all Democrats.
Don't discuss details of the CBO report.
Don't discuss.
Just say it cuts the deficit.
Just say it cuts the deficit.
Don't focus because they don't want anybody looking at the real CBO numbers.
People have looked at the real CBO numbers, even though they're just estimates.
It's a disaster.
Folks, it is a disaster.
It would cost over two trillion dollars.
Jeffrey Anderson Weekly Standard, CBO's most recent analysis is out.
It's not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence.
It's over $2 trillion, and not $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction.
I'm sorry.
We are being fully totally lied to about it.
It includes 2010 as the initial year.
As most people are well aware, 2010 has not been underway for some time.
Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year in its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House Bill in the middle of 2009, but under strict instructions from Democrat leaders and over strong objections from Republicans.
The CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.
If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year the bill could easily or possibly be in effect.
The CBO says the bill's 10-year cost would be 1.2 trillion.
So it's no wonder they don't want to focus on any of the details in the CBO report.
So Charlie Rose then said to Clybro, see you have said, and you've compared health care to the civil rights bill, and in the context that it wasn't done in one fell swoop.
That civil rights came to America legislatively over a period of time.
How are you going to do that in health care?
You know, you looked at what we did in civil rights in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it did not have voting in it.
It was a year later before we got voting, and it was three years after that before we got housing.
And so I believe that what we're doing here is laying a solid foundation which over time will have complete universal access uh to quality health care by all Americans.
And there you have it.
We're laying the foundation.
We will have complete universal access to quality health care by all Americans down the road.
Kucinich has opened up.
Husinich has said that he was assured a robust public option's coming.
In Obamacare 2.
Obama himself, let's go back and revisit this.
March 24th, 2007 in Vegas, talking to the Service Employees International Union.
This is a uh a campaign stop.
And remember now, these are his boys.
These his buddies.
These are the people to whom he speaks the truth.
My commendment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.
I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort.
But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.
There's going to be potentially some transition process.
I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.
But we're going to do it.
Meaning we're going to get rid of private sector health insurance.
Go back to 2003 at an AFL CIO conference while campaigning for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama said this.
I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal health care plan.
A single payer health care plan.
Universal health care plan.
That's what I'd like to see.
Yet he's out there saying, Oh, these people are throwing every scare tactic at the world.
It's a government takeover of health care.
It is a government health takeover health care, and Granny is going to die.
Granny always dies at some point.
We all do.
It's going to be hastened under this bill.
And it is a government takeover.
They're lying through their teeth.
Here's here's Barney Frank, July 27, 2007, National Press Building.
A reporter for singlepayeraction.org had this exchange with the banking queen.
Congressman, real quick, why is single-payer off the table?
You guys have been on the vote.
I wish you weren't.
I'm all for it.
I'm a big sponsor.
You've been a co-sponsor of single-payer for a very long time.
Don't you think we should scratch everything and start anew with single payer?
No.
Why shouldn't we start with single payer new?
Because we don't have the vote for it.
I wish we did.
I think if we get a good public option, it could reach a single payer, and that's the best way to reach single payer.
I think the best way we're going to get a single payer, the only way is to have a public option and demonstrate his strength in power.
So that's an elevator uh b uh bell you hear in the background.
Barney's trying to go up or down.
I don't know which way on this particular occasion.
Uh but uh ladies and gentlemen, they're they're laying it out here.
That's back in 2007.
Here's Jan uh uh.
It's 25A, and I can't find it, but I know I've got it here.
Jan Shikowski, uh she's a Democrat Congresswoman from Illinois, and she has said basically the same thing.
And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete.
That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business.
I said he was right.
The man was right.
I uh I here's what I told him.
I said, excuse me, sir, the goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance act.
And I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.
Our objective is to wipe out the private health care industry.
Jan Shakowski, Democrat from Chicago, from Illinois, and that was uh April of last year.
So they're open and honest about what they really want to do, and they're doing it.
And this is what they're telling people like Kucinich and others to get their votes.
We'll take a break.
You've heard it from their own words.
Back after this.
Open line Friday, and back to the phones we go.
This is Nancy, Incline Village, Nevada.
Great to have you, Nancy.
Hi.
Hi, how are you today?
Very well, thank you.
I'm calling about the Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
The House Republicans can still stop this health care bill right through the Constitution.
Um section five provides that the yay's and nays of the members of either house on any question shall at the desire of one-fifth of those present be entered on the journal.
In other words, the Republicans can require that there be an up or down recorded vote on the health care bill, regardless of the slaughter rule.
Now, the so you're talking about the Senate bill that they're trying to deem to have passed.
You're saying the Republicans can demand with 20% a vote up or down on the Senate bill.
Yes, sir, they can.
I called my House representative to ask them to do this, and I was told that the House leadership is taking the position that another section supersedes this.
The leadership is quoting also Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.
But I am a retired attorney.
I worked for the Department of Justice for many years.
I practiced appellate law.
I was involved in a lot of cases uh regarding statutory and constitutional interpretation, and I can tell you that they're wrong.
There's a general rule of statutory interpretation which provides that a specific section of the law will overrule a general section and will control the issue.
Therefore, the specific section of Article 1, Section 5, which says you can require an up or down vote, in this case is going to trump the general part, which says that they get to make their own rules.
Well, now have you explained this to them as authoritatively as you just have to me in my audience.
Well, yes, I tried to tell them that, and they said, well, um, the House leadership is taking this position.
Uh it if the congressional leadership is taking this position, are we gonna take Nancy Pelosi's word for what the Constitution says when John Deaner and the Republicans can get out there and actually require a vote?
Well no, I I I understand uh but they did get a vote on whether or not the slaughter solution would be would be used at all, and they shot that down, of course.
That that uh they got thirty minutes of debate on that, and then that vote was mincemeat.
Yeah, but that's a different legal issue.
If if they pass a law where the Republicans have requested an up or down vote, or uh any any twenty percent of the house request an up or down vote, the law wouldn't be voidable, it would be void, it would be illegal and unenforceable.
Um and the reason I'm calling is I I tried to call my own representative.
I don't feel like the word got through, and I hope the Republican House is listening and that they will not take Nancy Pelosi's word on this and that they will actually make a formal request under Article 1 Section Five.
Run me through it again, because this is news to me.
Article one, section five.
What does somebody uh I guess you're talking about Boehner, but any Republican could do what?
Anyone who can get together twenty percent of House membership can require an up or down vote because it does say the yays or nays of the members of either house on any question shall at the desire of one fifth of those present be entered on the journal.
They can force the names to be taken down and the up and down vote to be given.
Hmm.
I am of course not a constitutional scholar nor constitutional lawyer, and I'm gonna have to defer to people who are, but you um you're an assistant U.S. attorney, Department of Justice.
I was an assistant U.S. attorney, I was the chief assistant U.S. attorney.
I worked in appellate law specifically for several years.
I also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for law enforcement at the Treasury Department.
Huh.
Okay.
Uh impressive.
I'm glad you got through.
I really am.
Uh because they do they are listening.
They do listen.
And I there there is a uh the the cow de factor with Pelosi.
Uh there's no question.
In more ways than one, my way.
Hey, we're back, Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network Constitutional Scholars are at this moment looking into this.
Uh and uh we got well I got a hold of F. Lee Levin, Andy McCarthy is also looking into this.
A fascinating phone call from uh woman in Incline Village, Nevada.
You Yeah, her name is Nancy.
You there, Flea?
I'm here, boss.
All right.
Article one section five uh was all Greek to me in terms of procedure.
What was she actually suggesting?
Well, she's saying that twenty percent of the members can demand that a vote be taken on a bill.
Now, let me ask you something.
If that were the case, don't you think the Republicans would have done that already?
Well, I don't know.
I mean I'm I'm I'm literally when I say this is a Greek to me, it's Greek to me.
No, that's why you have a House Rules Committee, and the House Rules Committee makes determinations over what bills will be voted on and what bills will come to the floor and what amendments there will be.
Um I mean you can call for a voice vote, yes and nays on a bill that's presented to the House.
But twenty percent can't force a bill to come out and be voted on.
So she is mistaken or is she just uh Well, I believe she's mistaken, but let's pretend that she's right.
All right.
Yeah, go at it that way because a lot of people are fired up about this.
So Yeah, all right.
Well let's let's let's suggest that she's right.
And you go into court and what do you say in court?
You say, well, the Republic you know, t twenty percent of them wanted to vote on this bill and they couldn't, which I don't think that's the way that that that works.
And if I'm wrong, then we have two hundred years of mistakes going on.
But twenty percent of the republic or twenty percent of the members say this needs to come to a vote.
And uh so the court says, uh, so what?
That's their problem.
They didn't do it.
That's not our problem.
What do you want us to do?
So in other words, what's the relief?
Well, wait a minute.
Where uh I've uh you've already lost me by going to court.
The way I understand what she's saying is let's just say Boehner can can say if he's got twenty percent of the house is we want you to vote on the Senate bill.
Yeah, but I'm saying it doesn't work that way.
They can say we want a twenty per c we want a yay or nay vote, and you hear them do it on the floor.
I want to hear the roll call, I want to hear the yas or nays, not just a voice, you know, uh uh j we want to take the names down on a particular on a particular bill that's before the house.
So we want yes or nays on reconciliation.
You'll get it, but you can't have yes or nays on a bill that the rules committee hasn't presented to the floor.
Oh, okay.
So there yeah, okay, because the Senate bill is technically they're deeming it to be passed, so it's not really a bill.
They're pretending it doesn't exist.
That's correct.
So look, there's no easy way around this.
I I'm I'm getting callers to my show with 4,000 ideas, uh, everything from amending the Constitution to that that rule there simply means and how it's been practiced traditionally over the last 200 and some years is a member can get on the floor and say, take down the yas or nays, or we want to hear the votes, or give me a roll call on that, or something.
If 20 percent, and they usually say okay, because if 20 percent is not hard to get to get that done.
But it's not that 20 percent can force a bill to the floor.
And that's what you would be doing.
You would be saying 20 percent say uh no, we want to vote on the Senate bill, up or down.
And I know that's the same.
But I remember her saying, though, that in her opinion that the rules committee ruling would not take precedent.
But she's misreading the Constitution.
That's not how it works.
It's not a question of precedent if it doesn't work that way.
Twenty percent of the House members can't call up a bill.
Twenty percent uh of them can demand a vote on a bill that's called up.
And the only bill is the slaughter solution, or the the reconciliation amendment.
Well, that's exactly why they're doing it this way.
Right, okay.
So the Senate bill can be obviated, avoided, and uh and and pretended exist at all costs.
Yeah, and and you know, they they have all kinds of smart people, Republican parliamentarian types on Capitol Hill, and I can assure you that if it was as easy as that caller just said, it would have been done already.
Okay.
Well, a um uh nevertheless, a lot of interest has been sparked in this, uh, and I appreciate uh you trying to that's good because we need to kick ass and stop this.
Well, I know, and that it's all about Sunday.
It's all about sending the Senate bill.
So thanks thanks for the clarification on this, Flea.
All right, God bless.
Mark R. Levine of the uh landmark legal foundation.
He was the chief of staff to Ed Meese at the as attorney general during the Reagan administration.
And stopping the bill is exactly what this is all about.
Now, here's a post from Romesh Ponuru at the uh National Review's corner blog, and it's from yesterday, a whip count going around K Street has fewer than 30 undecided, with Pelosi needing two thirds of them, don't believe Democrats who say they're within five.
Well, it was just a half hour ago, forty minutes ago now, that uh NBC, the Obama network, announced that there are 40 undecided Democrats, not 30, and that she needs two-thirds of those.
Clyburn said this morning they've got the votes.
House Democrat leaders quickly ran out and said, No, we don't have the votes.
Uh it it's it's not over just because they make predictions of how this is going to end up does not mean that that's how it's going to end up.
And let me run through again, I did this at the open of the program, because even I, ladies and gentlemen, got confused watching media this morning.
I thought I had this all figured out, and I'm watching and reading media, and I'm saying, wait, wait, something's wrong here.
Because what I was reading was that the reconciliation package, the amendments, if you will, that the House Democrats are being promised to get to their the secure their yes votes was going to be part of the deemed to have passed Senate bill and sent to Obama, and that when Obama signed it, that the Senate bill plus these changes would become law.
And I got that impression because people two things.
They were saying it, and A, they were treating this reconciliation like it was more important than the Senate bill.
And my instincts, what I thought I knew said, no, no, no, no, the reconciliation bill's not nearly as important.
I, my instincts were right.
Here is what is happening.
Once the House passes reconciliation, I hate that word, because it it is not accurately describing what's going on here.
This is an amendment package.
This is the is the House changing what they don't like about the Senate bill in a separate piece of legislation.
They are not going to vote on the Senate bill.
They're going to vote on their changes.
They're going to have deemed the Senate bill to have passed as they vote on reconciliation.
That's what they're trying to get 216 votes for this package of changes.
What the House Democrats need to know is that they're not voting on that Sunday in reality.
They are voting on the Senate bill.
They are being misled to and lied by their own leadership.
If their own leadership is promising them all these special deals, like the Bismarck bank and whatever else that these people are being given, those are those are not going to see the light of day until the Senate agrees with them.
Obama is not going to be signing those into law.
All Obama's going to sign is the Senate bill.
And this vote Sunday, the House Democrats have to know that that's what they're voting on.
Because after they vote, now they think they're voting on reconciliation.
And that's what Pelosi's telling them they're voting on.
And in their minds, they are.
They don't want to vote on a Senate bill.
They want to be able to say they didn't cast the vote.
Oh, yeah, I was deemed to have passed.
But after they vote, whenever they vote, Pelosi is then going to separate the Senate bill, take it out, break it out.
That will alone be sent over to the Senate, and whoever's running it, either Biden or Byrd, the pro tem, will certify it.
Pelosi will certify it for the House.
After the Senate certifies the Senate bill and the Senate bill only, that gets sent to Obama.
He will sign it in five seconds and throw the biggest party you have ever seen.
And we will have national health care.
We will not have any of the amendments, the reconciliation that the House voted on.
They have to go over to the Senate.
And they will do so separately.
And there is where the Republican senators are saying, look, you House Democrats, we're not going to make this easy for you to get these promised changes.
You're not going to get all these amendments, so don't vote for reconciliation and think you're going to get away with telling your constituents that you voted for reconciliation under the assumption that these amendments would be enacted.
If you vote for reconciliation, House Democrats, you are knowingly voting for the Senate bill.
Wartz and all.
You are not voting for these changes you've been promised.
So Obama's up there, he's waiting at the White House to sign the Senate bill the minute Pelosi and Biden or whoever over there certifies it.
And he flies off or throws his party or whatever.
He's not going to wait around.
There's not going to be debate next week on the reconciliation package.
There is going to be debate next week on these changes.
Obama's not going to wait around for the Senate to act on that before he signs this.
And this is what got me confused.
I'm hearing news media people, even if they vote Sunday, this ain't over.
Oh no, it goes over to Senate and all these debates have No, it doesn't.
The Senate bill is going to be separated.
Obama's going to sign it, and we've got national health care.
And we're in a horrible bill.
The Senate bill is rot gut horrible.
So what needs to happen here is that these House Democrats have to know somebody's going to have to sit them down and tell them that they are in fact voting for the Senate bill when they vote reconciliation.
They think they're voting for their changes to keep their base happy or to keep their re-election chances looking strong.
They think that they're voting X, Y, and Z, but they're not.
They are in effect voting for the Senate bill, because that's all that will Obama will see.
And then the Republican senators are saying, okay, every one of you House Democrats that got a special deal, a bribe, or a promised job, we're going to know who you are.
We're going to know what you got, and we're going to tell everybody what you got, and we're going to prevent you from getting it.
We're going to stop every one of these things as best we can.
We're going to hog the process.
We're going to use amendments.
You may need only 51 votes over here in the Senate to get this stuff, but we're going to make sure that you don't get very many votes, period, on any of these things.
That's what Colburn has said.
That's what McConnell has said.
They're going to do everything they can.
If you, if that's why Coburn said yesterday, you better be prepared.
If you're a House Democrat and you vote for this, you better be prepared to defend the bribe that you got.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh here, the cutting edge of societal evolution on open line Friday, 800 282-2882.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, and particularly Nancy from Incline Village in Nevada, uh, I we're we're not I I'm not trying to referee an argument here and say that anybody's right or wrong.
I I'm very appreciative of Nancy's call.
I'm very appreciative of her effort here to find a way to stop this.
And I think everybody who is is looking into this uh in any way, shape, manner, or form is to be applauded.
And I appreciate her calling in here.
And uh we got a lot of people that are looking at this.
It does appear that uh you you can't call for an up or down vote on a bill that doesn't exist.
And right now in the House, the Senate bill doesn't exist.
That's what this is all about.
We got a Senate bill.
Everybody knows we're voting on a Senate bill, but they're hiding it.
They're using reconciliation.
We could call for an up and down vote on that, which is what they want, when they've got the votes, but you can't call for a vote on a bill that hadn't been presented.
And the Senate bill hadn't been presented, and it's not going to be presented.
But I I didn't we we didn't put Mark on to uh uh knock down Nancy.
I don't want anybody thinking that.
We're just here at the EIB network, we're always trying to get to the truth.
And when I don't understand it, I'm not gonna pretend I do and act like I understand it.
I'm gonna find out people that know more about it than I do and have them explain it to you, and that's what it is.
Now, here's something Politico has as an exclusive.
This doc fix.
This doc this is another what the hell is the doc fix?
Well, here's a story involving it.
Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, repeal those cuts permanently, but they are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform.
The plans uh the doc fix actually undercut the Democrats' message that reform lowers the deficit.
And this is according to a memo obtained by Politico, and they've got a PDF copy of it here that uh that you can link to.
Democrats removed the the doctor fix from the reform legislation last year because it's $371 billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit.
The Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the dock fix from the bill, the Democrats are playing a shell game because they're gonna put it back in later, which is happening.
They've uncovered a secret memo.
They're gonna do the dock fix in a separate piece of legislation, and abortion.
Federal funding for abortions is coming in a separate bill.
Mark my words.
I heard Pelosi today talking about the law of the maybe it was yesterday, the law of the land is that there are no federal funds available for abortions, and that is the law of the land.
Well, it's gonna happen in a second bill.
Just like this dock fix is gonna happen on a separate bill.
Hell, there's gonna be more than second bills.
There's gonna be third, fourth, fifth, and tenth and twentieth bills.
They get this to single payer.
That Obama said in 2003 and 2007 that he wants, that Kucinich said he was promised yesterday that we're gonna get.
That Kleiburn said on Charlie Rose last night, oh, yeah, yeah, we're gonna do it just like we did civil rights in stages.
But we're gonna get it.
Barney Frank, we don't have the votes for single payer right now, but we're gonna get them.
Jan Chikowski, Democrat of Illinois, our purpose is to shut down private insurance and go to single payer.
Well, all of those things are not in this reform package, but the steps that lead us there are when you have to have insurance, when it's mandated, mandated that you buy it, and a fine is incurred, and 12,000 new IRS agents to police this, if you are fined if you don't buy it, and the fine is much less than what it would cost you to buy the policy.
What are you gonna do?
You pay the fine.
And then when insurance companies are required to cover you only from the moment you get sick or have an accident, and then no pre-existing condition can cause you to be denied coverage.
Well, we're no longer talking about insurance.
We're talking about welfare.
And when we have the public option, when we eventually get that, the government does not ever have to show a profit, so there's no way a private insurance industry can compete with it.
So no matter how you look at this, Chikowski has telegraph for us, what's gonna happen?
Bye-bye, private insurance industry.
And Obama declared war on them, full open warfare today in his speech at George Mason University is rally to get this going.
So it's clear what's ahead of us.
It's clear everybody knows it.
It's it and and uh the deficit reduction that they're lying about doesn't exist.
Hoyer, with another memo today that's been uncovered to members of the Democrat Party.
Do not get into a discussion about specific CBO numbers.
Do not get there.
Especially what they say on page two.
Don't go there.
Just keep talking about deficit reduction.
It reduces the deficit, it reduces the deficit, it reduces the deficit.
So the simplest way to explain what's happening here is that not one Democrat in a leadership position in the House or in the Senate or in the White House is telling anybody the truth.
Not one truthful thing is being said about the cost, about the result, about the purpose, about the scope of this bill.
Not one truth is being told, and memos are going out from Democrat leaders in the House to members to not tell the truth.
And don't get caught, don't get sucked into a conversation where you might have to discuss specifics because you'll be caught in the lie if you do.
So keep lying, is their message.
Former Colorado Governor Roy Roomer this morning in Washington, D.C. I'm gonna name names.
Yeah, I unfortunately get on the radio sometimes and rush limball.
He's on too many stages, I can't avoid him.
I think this is poisonous to have everybody just drill daily upon the irrationality of the extremes.
Brainwashing really can be effective.
I'm worried about it.
Governor, you need to direct your attention to the White House if you're worried about lying.
We'll be back, folks.
▲
Export Selection