HIDING HEALTH BILLS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
|
| |
Alert: It may be a new year, but congressional Democrats are planning the same old sorts of sleazy tactics in
their bid to take over America's health care system. Congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate,
should not let them get away with it. Transparency and ethics should be Republican rallying cries, and
obstruction on those grounds should be a point of pride.
By now it's almost trite to complain that President Obama repeatedly has broken his campaign pledge to
"broadcast [health care] negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices
are." That doesn't make the complaint invalid. For legislation that could so profoundly and personally affect
the daily lives of every American, Congress and the White House should be more transparent and more
accessible than ever before. Instead, the process has been secretive and sordid throughout.
The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in
the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on
Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by
leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to
study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are
still finding jokers in the deck 11 days later.
All these shenanigans have driven approval for the government health care bills even lower in public polls
than the strong majorities that already opposed them a month ago. Yet that hasn't fazed congressional
leaders. Now comes word from multiple sources that not only will Congress refuse to televise the usual
Conference Committee to reconcile the two chambers' versions of the bill, but it won't allow a formal
conference at all. Instead, a chosen few negotiators will concoct the final version out of sight, without formal
rules governing the process and without a single Republican at the table. (The Washington Times)
|
| |
The Time To Defeat ObamaCare Is Now
|
| |
| |
Alert: About 175 House Democrats participated in a conference call with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
Democratic leaders designed to identify members' concerns as negotiations begin on merging the House
and Senate healthcare bills.
Talks on merging the two healthcare bills, President Barack Obama's top legislative priority, began this
week. The two bills must be melded into one and passed again by each chamber before Obama can sign it.
House members questioned how to resolve different tax provisions in the bills and competing approaches
on preventing the use of federal funds for abortion, along with ways to hold down costs for middle-class
Americans, participants said.
"There are concerns people are having when they are hearing from constituents about these issues,"
Representative Rosa DeLauro told reporters after the meeting.
The overhaul would lead to the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system in four decades.
Both bills would extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, create exchanges
where individuals can shop for insurance plans and halt practices such as refusing insurance to people
with pre-existing conditions.
Democrats must keep each member of their fragile 60-vote Senate caucus together to muscle the bill
through over unified Republican opposition, meaning the final version is expected to hew closely to the
Senate bill on crucial points.
The competing tax approaches to raise money for the changes and the different structures of the exchanges
are emerging as two of the most difficult problems, House members said.
Many House Democrats and labor unions strongly oppose a Senate proposal, backed by Obama, to tax
high-cost insurance plans. One potential resolution would be raising the threshold at which the tax kicks in
to try to ensure it does not affect middle-class Americans.
NO DECISIONS
House leaders said it was too early to say whether they would be forced to yield on the issue.
"They want to know, has anything changed, have any concessions been made, and we said 'no,'"
Representative George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, told reporters.
"Obviously, no decisions have been made on any of this."
The House bill would create a national exchange to purchase insurance, while the exchanges would be
state-based under the Senate bill. House members said the national exchange would provide more
protection for consumers in the market.
"The national exchange is something that people want to make sure of, that builds in the mechanism for
lowering cost, for accountability, for competition," DeLauro said.
Members also asked about the abortion language in the two bills. The Senate bill includes a provision,
negotiated by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, that is less restrictive than the House measure.
A large bloc of House Democrats forced the tougher restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion
before they would back the House bill, which passed on November 7 with only two votes to spare.
A House aide said a provision in the Senate bill pushed by Nelson that exempted Nebraska from paying for
an expansion of Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor, also came up in the meeting.
Pelosi told members she would fight to ensure all states were treated equally under the final bill, the aide
said.
Nelson said on Thursday he was talking to Senate leaders about changing the Medicaid provision and
ensuring all states were treated the same.
House members return from a holiday recess next week and Democrats will meet on Tuesday to discuss
their strategy. Obama will meet with House Democrats later in the week.
The U.S. Senate does not return to Washington from its holiday break until January 20. (Reuters)
|
| |
Bailout 'bonuses' raise questions
|
| |
Alert: World Net Daily Reports - Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator and a key member of the
Senate Banking Committee, has refused to answer questions regarding recent revelations about "bonuses"
made to officials of financially troubled Citibank.
Less than a year ago, Schumer, the second ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban
Affairs Committee, played a central role in approving a federal bailout plan which used $60 billion in
Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to help the nation's third-largest bank avoid a collapse.
In November, it was learned that Citibank attorneys had been examining "loopholes" in the terms relating to
the federal bailout to see if "bonuses" to key executives still could be awarded.
Sources inside Citibank said TARP regulations regarding "compensation" packages covered the bank's "top
100" executives.
"We had to submit the (compensation) packages of the top 25 (executives) for review," said the Citibank
executive who spoke on background. "Numbers 26-100 also were subject to review (but the bank was not
required to arbitrarily submit those packages)."
It was here, WND learned, that Citibank began exploiting the TARP loopholes.
While the exact number of company officials affected has not been determined, it has been learned that a
substantial number of executives numbers 26-100 have received "bonuses" in excess of $1 million.
But the "bonuses" were not awarded in the form of a "bonus" but in the form of an "increase" in base salary.
One Citibank executive who saw his base pay tripled explained that he believed the base salary increase
exploited a loophole in TARP funding.
To tack the cash onto his package as a "bonus" might have waived red flags to federal regulators. To
increase the base salary was less conspicuous, he said.
An official in the office of Citibank chairman Vikram Pandit confirmed the actions, but insisted it was all legal.
"We have not violated any federal laws. What we did was no different that anyone else in the industry," said
the official who requested that his name not be published.
When asked how many other banks received more than $60 billion in taxpayer bailout money? The executive
answered:
"We have repaid almost half the federal bailout and expect to pay it all off in early 2011. So, far the federal
government has received more that $5.8 billion in interest and will get almost $8 billion interest when the
loan is repaid."
This comes as Citibank remains the only major bank which has seen credit card interest rates triple to
29.9% (the maximum allowed by law) on accounts which had been in good standing. That move, announced
in September 2009, preceded another move that saw the bank cancel without prior notice credit card
accounts whose incentive programs were no longer considered to be profitable.
The difference between Citibank and other banks hit hard by the world-wide economic collapse (ie: Bank of
America) is that Citibank has refused to negotiate with its customers any reduction or modification of its new
credit card regulations.
All of which was known to Senator Schumer.
Several calls to Schumer's Washington DC and NYC offices resulted in silence.
"We were away on vacation..but now we are back. We will get back to you later today," explained Josh Vlasto,
Schumer's press secretary.
That was January 5.
Since then, silence.
Subsequent phone calls to Vlasto and Schumer's director of communications, Brian Fallen, were unreturned.
According to online reports, Citibank and Bank of America were major contributors to Schumer's "leadership
PAC."
The reports reveal each bank gave $20,000.
Similar calls to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., also went unanswered.
Coincidentally, Dodd, facing a difficult re-election bid in 2010, announced his retirement last week.
Schumer, who is up for re-election in 2010, is likely to replace Dodd as Senate Banking Committee chair if
he wins a third term in Congress.
|
| |
| |
| |
|
