Fausta’s Blog

David Hogberg of Investor’s Business Daily interviews Paul Ryan:
GOP’s Ryan Dissects ObamaCare, Lays Out ‘Roadmap’ To Health

IBD: President Obama said his overhaul will “bring greater competition, choice, savings and efficiencies to our health care system.”

Ryan: It will do the opposite of all three of those. It will mean less competition and less choice because it narrows the options consumers will have to get health insurance. It puts everybody on a glide path to go into an exchange where people will have three choices of policies — gold, silver and bronze. It standardizes health insurance and takes underwriting out of health insurance, which is how many insurers compete. At the end of the day you’ll have a few big insurers selling different versions of the same color. With the kinds of mandates and rules they impose on insurers, the small and medium-sized insurance companies simply can’t compete because they don’t have the economies of scale. What you’ll simply have are these handful of really large insurers simply becoming claims processors for federally run health insurance.

One example. There is a medium-sized insurer in Milwaukee that has 2,200 employees, 1,600 in Milwaukee. They sell in the individual market and they have the biggest share of policies with health savings accounts. If this bill becomes law, they’ll have to close because of the rules and regulations. That means they lay off the 1,600 people in Milwaukee and send out cancellation notices to their 1.3 million policyholders.

The only ones that will survive are the really big companies. That will make prices go up. And what’s so insidious from an entitlement standpoint is it’s an open-ended entitlement that says to everyone who makes under $100,000, if your health care expenses exceed 2% to 9.8% (depending on income level), don’t worry, taxpayers will pay the rest of it. That is an invitation of cost explosion.

Go read the rest of the interview.

Scott Brown delivers the Republican weekly address (YouTube here), and on Washington at its very worst:

“In speech after speech on his health care plan, the President has tried to convince us that what he is proposing will be good for America. But, how can it be good for America if it raises taxes by a half trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement? In addition, how can it be good if it takes another half a trillion dollars away from seniors on Medicare, and still includes all the backroom deals you have been hearing about for months?

Eternity Road on The value of ignorance

‘They Just Want This Over’

itting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”

According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

Stupak: Dems say Abortions save Money: Stupak Threatened by Ethics Inquiry

The Slaughter Solution, And Other Tactics For Passing Health Reform

If you watch cable news this weekend (which, if you a normal and well-adjusted person, you probably won’t), you’ll likely hear a lot of discussion about the so-called Slaughter Solution, a procedural manuever that House Democrats are considering in hopes of making it easier to pass health care reform. NRO’s Daniel Foster and Slate’s John Dickerson have posted detailed explanations, but the gist is this: Rather than vote up or down on the Senate bill (which many House Democrats don’t like), the House would instead vote to pass a reconciliation bill that amends the Senate bill. Attached to the reconciliation bill would be a rule that says that once it’s passed, the original Senate bill is automatically considered passed too.

The result is that House Democrats get to vote for the reconciliation fixes but can say that, technically, they never voted to pass the bad Senate bill.
…
So, as I understand it, if this strategy works, here’s what will happen. First, the House will vote on the reconciliation bill that 1) includes the student loan bill 2) amends the Senate bill and 3) triggers the passage of the Senate bill in the House. After that happens, the Senate will have the option to vote on the reconciliation bill, thus passing both the student loan legislation and the changes to the health bill.

Is this even Constitutional?

Meanwhile, the press bellyaches that they are “bored with Barack“

I’m suspecting some journalistic rope-a-dope here because in the end, it’s all about furthering the progressive agenda and the MSM will always team with liberalism… they quintessentially define and represent it.

Indeed.

Abuse Scandal in Germany Edges Closer to Pope

— A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.
…
The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

Here’s a graphic on the history of the abuse case.

And, as the article shows,

In Munich case, a priest from Essen, “despite allegations of sexual abuse, and in spite of a conviction — was repeatedly assigned work in the sphere of pastoral care by the then-Vicar General Gerhard Gruber,” who worked under Benedict when he was the archbishop.

The priest, identified only with the initial “H,” was moved to Munich in January 1980, where he was supposed to undergo therapy, a decision that was taken “with the approval of the archbishop,” according to the archdiocese’s statement. Benedict was archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1982.

In June 1986, the priest was convicted of sexually abusing minors and given an 18-month suspended sentence with five years of probation, fined 4,000 marks and ordered to undergo therapy.

the sex abuser is now free, and his identity is still concealed.

There is no justice. None at all.

Colombia produces 600 tons of cocaine anually, which is what has funded the FARC’s terrorist war against the country.

Columbia [sic]: Documentary reveals truth behind FARC

A powerful new documentary has revealed the violent face of Columbia’s outlawed armed group FARC. Peruvian woman director Judith Velez’s 64-minute film, called ‘Liberenlos ya!’ charts FARC’s evolution from its creation in the 1960s as a Marxist guerrilla group through to its involvement in drug trafficking and kidnappings.

The documentary on the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia was made together with Peruvian journalist Pablo O’Brien does not have a narrator and consist of a series of interviews with witnesses and experts.

“I wanted to achieve maxiumum objectivity, without interjections and commentaries from outsiders,” Velez told Adnkronos International (AKI).

The film has a didactic approach and pays “great attention to the topic of human rights” in delivering a two-fold message, Velez said.

“First, revolutionary armed struggle, despite its seductive appeal, especially to the desperately poor, cannot provide a solution to Latin America’s problems.”

“Second, in Europe, there’s too much romanticism surrounding revolutionary groups like the FARC, which has found support in Europe simply owing to a lack of information about the group.”

The film draws on previously unpublished documents and images, such as that of the very youthful Pedro Antonio Marin, FARC’s historic leader later known by his battle names of Manuel Marulanda or Tirofijo (sureshot) who died in 2008.

Here’s some footage (in Spanish) of the documentary:

Anyone with information on how to get/whether this has been translated into English?

h/t the Baron

A heck of a way to cut down the length of a speech,

Chile’s Inauguration Jolted by Aftershocks
Piñera Sworn In Quickly as Quakes Send Dignitaries Out of Hall, Serving Notice That Agenda Will Focus on Recovery

Three large aftershocks from last month’s massive earthquake struck just as Chile’s new president took power, delivering a tangible reminder that the forces that dominated his predecessor’s final days will also shape Sebastián Piñera’s new conservative administration.

Mr. Piñera, a 60-year-old billionaire elected on a pledge to run Chile like a business, was traveling by car to his inauguration in the port city of Valparaiso late Thursday morning when one 6.9 magnitude quake hit. Two more struck later, prompting officials to rush through the swearing-in ceremony, cancel the postinauguration luncheon, and evacuate the congress building of assembled dignitaries, who included Spain’s Crown Prince Felipe and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe.

Outside, in an impromptu press conference, Mr. Piñera’s first act as president was to announce a tsunami warning. “Citizens who live on the coast, please follow the preventive tsunami alert,” Mr. Piñera said. “The most important thing right now is making sure everyone is safe,”

There were no reports of tsunamis or fatalities from the aftershocks, and the alert was lifted in the early afternoon.

It’s a testament to Chile’s infrastructure that a 6.9 earthquake did so little damage, particularly after the prior two recent earthquakes – the 8.8 earthquake two Saturdays ago, and the 6.0 aftershock last week.

The Journal made an error in the caption for the above photo, where they say,

At the inauguration, Bolivian President Evo Morales, left, President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, center, and Peru’s President Alan Garcia, right, joked that the aftershocks gave them “a moment to dance.”

The man on the right (but only in the photo, not politically) is Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador.

As readers of this blog know, the Colombian Supreme Court rejected Alvaro Uribe’s bid for running for a third term in office. The democratic system worked.

Today the Wall Street Journal has an article on how,
A Latin Role Model
Colombia’s political class follows the rule of law.

Mr. Uribe will now leave office in August after eight years that mark him as one of Colombia’s, and the world’s, most consequential modern leaders. Inheriting a ruthless insurgency, he emphasized military strength and professionalism that has restored order and security to most of the country. Kidnapping and murders rates have dropped sharply, and it is now safe to travel on most highways. By improving the investment climate, he has helped modernize an economy that was backward for too long.

But the manner of his departure shows that his most important achievement may have been to boost Colombian confidence in its democratic institutions. With Mr. Uribe’s approval above 65%, the legislature passed a law that would have let him run for a third term he undoubtedly would have won. But the court ruled against the law on procedural grounds regarding the collection of petition signatures needed to introduce the law and the way the bill moved through Congress. It also said that the law violated the constitution.

It is a huge achievement in our hemisphere, and we are all thankful to Uribe for his accomplishments.

Detlef and Melina will be at Princeton tomorrow, so here they are, dancing to Soledad,

Friend of this blog Jazz Shaw writes about What I Learned at the Tea Parties

I’ve now met with more than a dozen groups in both Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, and my suspicions have been almost unanimously confounded rather than confirmed. We’ve been greeted by surprisingly large groups of citizens who were polite and obviously very well informed on the issues of the day which concern them. The tone has been far more energized and excited than hysterical. And any expectations of a friendly, conservative base reception were quickly dismissed. They asked questions – very tough questions in many cases – and listened patiently to the answers.

The topics of interest came as a bit of a shock also. As part of my duties I help with crafting the candidate’s stump speeches. Again, not wishing to sound overly jaded, but for the usual Republican gatherings I know what works. I always include the key buzz phrases: “respect for life” and “keep and bear arms” along with all the rest. They are the reliable barn burners which always bring the house down. Imagine my dismay when these tried and true stump winners were met with either silent nods of approval or polite smatterings of applause. It’s not that the audience didn’t agree… it’s just not what they came to hear.

Another part of the speech caught the crowd’s interest instead. The congressional hopeful spoke of his career as a high school history teacher. (For the record, after these speeches I generally have to scurry around and remind people that he teaches at a private Catholic school and isn’t affiliated with the teachers union.) He talked about stressing to his students the importance of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th amendment. That is what brought the crowd to their feet. We had to pause and wait for the ovation to die down. They knew their history and were focused on what they saw as the proper function and authority of the federal government. (And let’s have a moment of brutal honesty here… how many of you had to flip open another tab on your browser to be reminded of what Article 1 Section 8 says?)

These groups do not just hand out their endorsements lightly, either. They don’t toss up the banner of every candidate with an “R” after their name. Thus far they seem to be paying a lot more attention to the state Conservative Party than the GOP. A couple of them have endorsed Libertarians over Republicans.

The point is, meeting with tea party supporters has been a surprising experience. It’s not politics as usual and the old rules about Red vs. Blue and D vs. R don’t apply. Like any large gathering, you’ll find a couple of people with some more fringe outlooks, and that seems to be who the television cameras focus on. (We had one couple at a recent meeting who were obviously birthers and wanted to ask about Obama’s birth certificate, but they were quickly shushed by the rest of the crowd.) But for the most part, each group seems to carry its own distinct flavor and topics of interest. The one thing they seem to have in common is that they are unhappy with the current leadership in D.C. and they have come to play a serious game. If you think you already know the tea party movement, there’s a good chance you don’t. It’s kind of like trying to say you know the ocean. It’s big, it’s powerful, it’s rarely the same twice, and you never know exactly what it’s going to do next.

For those of you who don’t recall your Constitution, Article 1 section 8, on the powers of Congress, reads,

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here’s the 10th Amendment,

Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the Tea Partiers are serious about these.

Today’s podcast at 11AM Eastern,
The European Parliament’s resolution, Cuba: MEPs condemn “avoidable” death of Orlando Zapata

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on Thursday strongly condemning the “avoidable and cruel” death of Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata and voicing its concern at the “alarming state” of another prisoner, Guillermo Fariñas. MEPs also repeat their call to the Cuban government for the “immediate and unconditional” release of all political prisoners and urge the EU to begin a “structured dialogue” with Cuban civil society.

Related reading:
Latin American Herald Tribune Euro Parliament Condemns Death of Cuban Dissident
Monsters and Critics Cuba denies role in dissident death, detains more dissidents
Babalu Andy Garcia slams Willy Toledo, and One moment, two men
Penultimos dias Óscar Arias alza la voz por Fariñas

Good-bye, hot pastrami on rye:

The latest nanny state idiocy coming to an eating establishment near you, if you’re in New York, banning salt in restaurant cooking:

“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

$5 says Felix never worked in a restaurant in his life.

Hit & Run asks,

$1,000 a pinch? $1,000 a grain? If the bill passes—which we can only hope it won’t, since it is the ravings of a madman in legislative form—it looks like the folks at most-expensive.net are going to have to revisit their entry on the world’s most expensive salt.

I can’t wait for the day when Felix and Michael Bloomberg insist that restaurants individually provide their patrons with someone to cut up their steak.

Here’s the text of the letter that the 41 Senate Republicans sent Harry Reid telling him they will oppose waiving any violations of the “Byrd Rule” in moving parts of the health care bill through reconciliation:

March 4, 2010
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-221 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0001

Dear Leader Reid:

We understand from press reports and comments that you and the Speaker have made that the House and Senate will use the budget reconciliation process to overhaul our nation’s health care system, which represents 1/6th of our economy. We urge you to not use reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the majority of Americans.

The American people have been paying close attention to the health reform debate; they understand the issues being discussed and they have expressed broad opposition not only to the substance of the health reform bills, but also to the process by which those bills have been developed. According to a February 24 CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans believe Congress should either start over on an “entirely new bill” or not do health care reform at all this year. A Gallup survey released February 25 showed that the majority of Americans oppose using reconciliation to expedite passage of health reform legislation through the Senate.

Overhauling our health care system will affect every single American and is simply too important to be passed without broad bipartisan support. Yet, it is clear that the only reason you are considering using the budget reconciliation process to pass this unpopular bill is because you have not been able to attract any Republican support for your comprehensive health bill.

We recommend you rethink your plans of expediting such legislation through Congress over the strong objections of the American people. We urge you to listen to the advice of Senator Robert C. Byrd, who was quoted in the Washington Post on March 22, 2009:

I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.

Using the reconciliation process to enact major legislation prevents an open debate about critical issues in full view of the public. Health reform and climate change are issues that, in one way or another, touch every American family. Their resolution carries serious economic and emotional consequences.

The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation — a process intended for deficit reduction — to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.

We agree with this assessment—misusing the Senate rules in this way would be a tremendous “disservice” to the American people and it is “an outrage” that we should resist.

In that regard, to endeavor to ensure that the reconciliation process is not used to fast-track an unpopular bill through Congress, we wish to inform you that we will oppose efforts to waive the so-called Byrd Rule during Senate consideration of any reconciliation bill concerning health reform. The Byrd Rule, as you know, was created by Senator Byrd to ensure that reconciliation bills were not used to enact policy changes, the primary purpose of which is not specifically related to the federal budget. As it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, we can ensure that any provision that trips the Byrd Rule will be stripped from the bill, which will require that the bill be sent back to the House for further consideration and additional votes.

We urge you to abandon the use of reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Instead, we encourage you to work with us on a series of bipartisan bills that provide a step-by-step approach to reducing the cost of health care for Americans.

Senate sources also sent a video of Senators DeMint, Wicker, Coburn, and Thune—all former House members— talking about the Dems being responsible for passing the bill through the reconciliation tactic,

UDPATE
Two from Ace:
Constitutional Slaughter: Democrats Attempting Rule Change in House That Would Pass Senate Bill Without An Actual Vote on the Senate Bill,
and More on the Blatantly Unconstitutionally, Recklessly Illegal Slaughter “Rule:” Citizens Would Have Standing to Challenge, which links to Leon Wolfe at Red State,

Having determined that they lack the votes in the House to pass the Senate bills as-is, House Democrats are attempting one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional power grabs ever witnessed – a maneuver to deem the Senate bill ALREADY PASSED by the House by rule, despite the fact that it clearly has not. Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.

And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact.

This is extremely troubling.