Political roundup: 1-12-10
From 'round the world of politics....
Rangell says ObamaCare is in trouble
For what it's worth, one of the leading liberal lights in the House (and one of those taking part in the closed door meetings on ObamaCare) Charlie Rangell says that health care "reform" is in trouble.
“We’ve got to get a bill that’s more compatible to the House,” Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. “Forget
all the other questions. Two-hundred-eighteen [votes] is the most
important issue we are dealing with… We have serious problems on both
sides of the Capitol. Serious problems.”
Rangel’s comments come a day after Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said health reform is “hanging by a thread.” ...
Well, we can only hope. But in the meantime...
Senator Nelson says he may not vote for ObamaCare
You remember Senator Ben Nelson...the Democrat from Nebraska that provided the 60th vote in the Senate in order to overcome the filibuster of the health care bill. He's also one of the senators who "sold" (or rented?) his vote in that case, by getting Nebraska a free pass on paying for Medicaid expansion. And of course, he's the same guy who's been in hot water with voters back home ever since.
Well now he says he's not a lock to vote for the final bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he's not yet "100 percent certain" he can vote for health reform legislation.
Nelson, who gave Democrats a crucial
60th vote to end debate on its healthcare bill and pass it, said he's
hopeful he can support whatever final legislation comes before the
Senate, but can't be sure.
“I hope so, but I’m not 100 percent certain of it," Nelson told The Chadron Record in an interview last Friday.
The stakes are so high Democrats won't rule
out taking as long as a month to certify the election results—should
Brown win—to prevent a Republican from assuming the seat until the Senate completes its work on Kennedy's hallmark legislation.
Playing by the rules, as usual...
White House's new math says "stimulus" saved 2 million jobs
The White House is at it again, using the new idea of jobs "created of saved" as a means to measure whether or not the stimuls bill was a success. Of course the notion of being able to measure whether or not a job was "saved" (much less having the government do it) is totally new to this administration. In fact, these numbers are regularly trumpeted by the White House soon after bad unemployment numbers are reported - which last week showed 85,000 jobs lost in December and an unemployment rate still stuck over 10%.
Thus the rationale for the "new math".