Archive for the ‘National Issues’ Category

« Older Entries |

Williams with Sowell – Government-Run Health Care

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

YouTube Preview Image

LibertyPen November 01, 2009Economics professors Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell discuss what citizens can expect from government-run health care. http://www.libertypen.com

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Roberts: Scene at State of Union ‘very troubling’

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

Mar 9, 2010

10:09 PM EST

Tampa Bay Online


By JAY REEVES
Associated Press Writer

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address was “very troubling” and that the annual speech to Congress has “degenerated into a political pep rally.”

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question about the Senate’s method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can’t answer because of judicial ethics rules.

“I think the process is broken down,” he said.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court’s nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court’s decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

“With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words “not true” as Obama continued.

In response to Roberts’ remarks Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs focused on the court’s decision and not the chief justice’s point about the time and place for criticism of the court.

“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,” Gibbs said. “The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.

Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students’ questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn’t know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.

While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.

“Maybe it’s because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer,” Roberts said. “I’d hate to think it didn’t matter.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Final ‘reform’ push: twisting arms

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

[This story is older than the other posts but I posted it because it is insightful]

By MICHAEL TANNER

Last Updated: 1:57 AM, March 10, 2010

Posted: 1:21 AM, March 10, 2010

President Obama’s attempts to ram health- care reform through an increasingly reluctant Congress are starting to resemble a really eventful episode of “The Sopranos.”

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa’s bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

They’ve already bought votes with pork and special deals — the “Louisiana purchase” ($300 million to bolster that state’s Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the “Cornhusker kickback” ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida’s “Gator Aid” (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson’s vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

APStupak: Dissenting Democrat being smeared by the left.

AP
Stupak: Dissenting Democrat being smeared by the left.

Nor were the Obamans willing to let a little thing like election laws stand in the way. They rewrote Massachusetts law to allow for an appointed senator to hold office for several months, hoping to get the bill through before the special election that Scott Brown ultimately won. Their plans spoiled, they even considered holding up Brown’s seating to let the appointed senator continue to vote on health care — until public outrage forced them to back down.

And, of course, there has been an unprecedented willingness to ignore congressional rules — from the failure to appoint a “conference committee” to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills, to their current plans to use the reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster.

Expect the tactics to get even dirtier now.

Those who support the president can expect favors. No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship.

Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) is also on the undecided list. And, purely by coincidence no doubt, the Justice Department just announced that it is dropping an FBI investigation that has been swirling about the congressman. Gosh, if only Charlie Rangel were one of the undecideds.

Those who oppose the president can expect the political equivalent of a horse head between their sheets.

Some of this is just traditional electioneering: On-the-fence Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln is getting a primary challenger with some backing from the national Democratic machine.

But some of it is much nastier. Massa’s story may have credibility issues, but other opponents of the bill are also starting to feel the heat. For instance, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose opposition to abortion funding has become one of the bill’s biggest hurdles, is now seeing attacks on his ethics.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently questioned the legality of the low rent that a conservative Christian group charges Stupak for his DC apartment. She even noted ominously that disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford stayed at the same building. The liberal blog Daily Kos has picked up on the charges and suggested that both the IRS and the House Ethics Committee investigate.

“Politics ain’t beanbag,” as Mr. Dooley noted. Presidents have always twisted arms and made deals. And when two-thirds of voters are opposed to your plans, you may have no choice but to play hardball.

But when Obama promised to change the way Washington does business, we didn’t think he meant making it a “family” business.

Michael Tanner is a Cato In stitute senior fellow.

New York Post

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

The Dem leadership doesn’t have the votes, knows it will fail and thus is setting up Stupak and Co. as the scapegoats

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

Democrats Stop Trying To Win Over Stupak, Pro-Life Dems

By Ed Carson Thu., March 11, ‘10    4:48 PM ET


Democratic leaders have given up trying to satisfy Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and the dozen or so House Dems who want strict language barring abortion funding in the health care bill, AP reports.

A break on abortion would remove a major obstacle for Democratic leaders in the final throes of a yearlong effort to change health care in the United States. But it sets up a risky strategy of trying to round up enough Democrats to overcome, not appease, a small but possibly decisive group of Democratic lawmakers in the House.

***

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the leadership will press ahead without reworking the abortion provision, which opponents say falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage. He predicted some of the anti-abortion lawmakers in the party will end up voting for the overhaul anyway.

Trying to find language that would satisfy the Stu-pack and make its way through Democrats’ convoluted reconciliation process may have proved too high a hurdle. Or maybe this is just a negotiating tactic.

However, without the dozen or so Stupak Democrats, it’s very, very hard to see how Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rounds up a majority. She’ll need to get roughly the same number of Democrats who voted no on the House bill in November to vote yes this time — without any other defections. But this is the one group of Democrats who can go to voters in the fall and say they never voted for ObamaCare. Many of them represent districts that John McCain carried in 2008. Several others hail from areas where President Obama’s approval ratings are likely under 50%.

IBD’s Sean Higgins e-mailed this possible reason for the move:

The Dem leadership doesn’t have the votes, knows it will fail and thus is setting up Stupak and Co. as the scapegoats.

At this point they have to throw somebody under the bus just to get this over with, so why not the few Dems that the feminists, abortion-rights lobby and the netroots already hate? Unlike the Blue Dogs, other more liberal Dems could probably win the Stupak crowd’s seats, right?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

It’s official now: ObamaCare will fund abortions if it passes

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

Opinion

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
03/11/10 4:25 PM EST

Bart Stupak, D-Mich, has been leading pro-life efforts to change ObamaCare, but Democratic leaders won’t play ball. (AP photo)

House Democrats have given up on fixing the Senate ObamaCare bill’s abortion problem, the Associated Press reports:

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said Thursday that the leadership will try to secure the necessary 216 votes to pass the bill without reworking the divisive abortion provision.

The Senate version of health care reform would loosen current rules about federal money going to pay for abortions. The House version did not, and as a result a number of pro-life Democrats supported it. Because abortion cannot be fixed through an accompanying reconciliation bill, it looks like pro-life Democrats are out of luck with three bad options. They will either kill ObamaCare with their “no” votes, go back on their word and disappoint constituents by voting “yes,” or else watch it become law without their support.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Did you know that the HC bill would force half of the newly insured 15 million into Medicaid? Which most doctors don’t accept!

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Obama’s Rationing Plan

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

The Editors

March 11, 2010 4:00 A.M.

National Review Online


President Obama recoils when his adversaries call his health-care plan a “government takeover” or suggest it will lead to bureaucratic rationing of care. He insists it would do nothing of the sort and dismisses such criticism as unfounded partisan rhetoric.

The president’s defensiveness is understandable: He knows that his plan is unpopular, in large part because the public deeply distrusts the federal government he wants to put in the driver’s seat. Among voters’ greatest concerns is that a health-care bill approved by Congress would lead to arbitrary government cost-controls that would make it more difficult for patients to get care when they need and when they want it.

Which is why the president’s latest health-care gambit is puzzling.

At the eleventh hour, President Obama has put yet another new idea on the table — the so-called federal Health Insurance Rate Authority — which will only deepen the fears of an anxious electorate, and rightfully so, because the express purpose of this authority is to give the federal government final say over the premiums private health insurers can charge their customers.

Perhaps the president simply could not resist the short-term political value that endorsing such an idea would open up for him. His “closing argument” for passage of his health-care plan certainly gives credence to this theory: His latest stump speech can be summarized as a demagogic harangue against the profits of private health insurers, which he now blames for practically every failing in American health care.

Or perhaps he felt he needed to shore up enthusiasm among House liberals. After all, he is asking them to support passage of the Senate bill, and many liberals find that measure insufficiently activist for their taste.

But whatever the motive, rolling out this idea at this time will almost certainly make the average voter even more suspicious of what Democrats are up to.

Once upon a time, the president seemed to believe that the rise in health-care costs was a function of many complex forces in the health sector. And that is why he hailed last year’s “deal” with doctors, hospitals, medical-device companies, drug companies, and insurers as a milestone in his “bend the cost-curve” drive.

Now, however, he is saying that the solution to costs is much simpler than that. All that’s needed is a federal authority to set insurance-premium rates, and painless cost control will soon follow.

But what happens if the premiums the government allows are insufficient to cover the medical costs of an insurer’s enrollees? After all, the federal government isn’t saying that insurers can diminish their coverage. To stay solvent, insurers will almost certainly argue that the government has to do something about the underlying costs of care. And, given the track record, the government’s predictable response will be to extend price controls even further into the health sector, perhaps by allowing all insurers to piggyback on Medicare’s regulated rates for doctors, hospitals, and others. But these kinds of price controls aren’t painless. They only work to hold down costs by driving out willing suppliers of services. Demand would be unchanged — if anything, demand will be stronger than it would have been without artificially deflated prices. The natural outcome is that, in time, there would be fewer hospitals, clinics, and physicians willing to take care of patients at the government’s arbitrarily low reimbursement rates.

The worst fears of the American public would then be confirmed. Government cost-control — even in the form of harmless-sounding “premium caps” — leads inexorably to waiting lists and inferior care.

The president and his allies are not principally on a mission to improve Americans’ health care — they are on an ideological mission to expand the power of government over Americans’ lives. This latest presidential power grab confirms that fact.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Report: Parlimentarian Deals Blow to Democrats’ Health Care Strategy

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

AmSpecBlog

The American Spectator

By on 3.11.10 @ 2:57PM

The Senate parliamentarian has delivered a blow to Democratic efforts to pass health care legislation by ruling that President Obama would have to sign the Senate health care bill into law before the Senate could modify it through reconciliation, according to a report by Roll Call, citing Republican sources.

While this wouldn’t make it impossible for Democrats to pass a health care bill, if the report is accurate, it would make the route to passage more difficult, because House members would have to take a leap of faith in voting for a Senate bill that they don’t like, based only on the assurances from the Senate that they would act to fix the bill once it gets signed.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Our Reset Reset Foreign Policy

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

Thursday, March 11, 2010
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
by Victor Davis Hanson

Almost every element of Barack Obama’s once-heralded new “reset” foreign policy of a year ago has either been reset or likely soon will be.

Consider Obama’s approach to the 8-year-old war on terror. Plans made more than a year ago to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay by January 2010 have stalled. Despite loud proclamations about trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, in a civilian court in New York, such an absurd pledge will probably never be kept.

Talk of trying our own former CIA interrogators for being too tough on terrorist suspects has also come to nothing. And why not put an end to the second-guessing of anti-terrorism protocols since the Obama administration, in a single year, has quadrupled the number of assassinations by Predator drones of suspected Taliban and al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan? After all, the targeted killing of hundreds of suspects is far more questionable than waterboarding three confessed killers.

The Obama administration seems to have embraced the once widely criticized Bush-Petraeus strategy in Iraq of gradual withdrawal in concert with Iraqi benchmarks. Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden in Orwellian fashion claims that our victory in Iraq may be one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.” Was it not a defeatist Biden who not long ago advocated the trisection of Iraq into separate nations?

And after months of waiting, Obama finally sent more troops to Afghanistan, adopting a surge strategy that looks a lot like Bush’s 2007 escalation in Iraq — this after he once assured the country that Bush’s surge, in a tactical sense, “wasn’t working.”

Almost all of the once derided Bush anti-terrorism protocols are still in place — wiretaps, intercepts, tribunals, and renditions. And given that there were more foiled radical Islamic terrorist plots in 2009 than in any year since 2001, President Obama will probably stop his outreach speeches to the Islamic world and his serial recitations of American sins.

Our efforts to reach out and negotiate directly with Iran failed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton effectively acknowledged the impasse, citing the unexpected de facto military coup by the Revolutionary Guard. In any case, does anyone believe that more Obama speeches, videos, new diplomacy and imposed deadlines will halt an Iranian nuclear bomb?

President Obama was once a fierce critic of the former administration’s Mideast policies. A year ago, he thought new outreach to the Palestinians and rebuke to the Israelis might lead to a breakthrough. It did not. In a Time magazine interview with Joe Klein, Obama confesses of the 70-year struggle: “I’ll be honest with you. This is just really hard.”

Obama assumed we could borrow a trillion dollars from the communist Chinese and then turn around and lecture them on Tibet, human rights, and international trade and currency — sort of like a debtor admonishing his lender about his bank’s shortcomings. Now the Chinese claim that their relations with America are “seriously disrupted,” as they seek to dethrone the dollar as the global currency.

I don’t think there will be anymore grand deals with the Russians either, the sort that saw the United States withdraw anti-missile defense accords with Poland and the Czech Republic in hopes of halting the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, Russia and China are blocking American efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.

For all the outreach to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman is still causing trouble in Latin America. Continued…

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Voters Trust GOP More Than Democrats on 8 Out of 10 Issues

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

CNSNews.com


Wednesday, March 10, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, talks with Sen. John Cornyn, D-Texas, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 9, 2010, as they walk to McConnell’s office, following the weekly caucus luncheons. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

(CNSNews.com) – Republicans appear to be winning the battle of ideas, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey of American voters that found the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on eight out of 10 policy issues.The survey, released on March 5, shows that Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on issues ranging from the economy to abortion.

The issue at the forefront of Americans’ minds – although not at the top of Congress’ agenda – is the economy, where a plurality of the public, 46 percent, trust Republicans, the survey found.

Only 41 percent of Americans trust Democrats more on the economy, marking a major turnaround during a year of rising unemployment despite nearly $800 billion in federal stimulus spending. At the start of President Barack Obama’s first term, January 2009, Democrats enjoyed a nine-point lead over Republicans on the issue.

Republicans are also trusted more, and by a similar margin, on what has become Obama’s and the Democrats’ signature issue: health care. Forty-five percent of Americans trust Republicans on health care issues, while only 42 percent put their faith in Democrats.

That gap widens among independents, who trust Republicans 45-to-29 percent over Democrats.

On taxes, Republicans hold an 11-point lead over Democrats, 48 to 37 percent. This gap has narrowed since February, the survey found, when Republicans enjoyed a 16-point advantage.

Republicans have a 10-point lead on national security issues, despite the fact that the Obama administration has continued many Bush-era policies and has increased U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

Rasmussen found that 47 percent of Americans place their trust in Republicans on national security issues compared with only 37 percent who trust Democrats.

Republicans have a smaller advantage on the more narrow issue of the war in Iraq, with 42 percent of the public trusting the GOP and only 38 percent putting more faith in Democrats.

Neither party earns much trust on the issue of immigration, though Republicans hold a slight advantage there as well. Thirty-nine percent of Americans have more faith in Republicans, while 34 percent place more trust in Democrats on the issue.

(A separate Rasmussen Reports poll found that 67 percent of Americans think that illegal immigrants place a “significant strain” on the federal budget.)

Americans also trust Republicans over Democrats by a small margin on Social Security, with 42 percent saying they trust the GOP and 38 percent saying they trust Democrats.

Surprisingly, Rasmussen reported an identical split on a different social issue: abortion.

Previous surveys had shown Republicans with a wide margin on the contentious issue; a margin which has shrunk to a mere four-point divide. Forty-two percent of Americans told Rasmussen they trusted Republicans more on the issue, while 38 percent said they put more trust in Democrats.

Democrats enjoyed a lead over Republicans on two issues: education and government ethics.

Americans reported that they trusted Democrats more than Republicans – 41 percent to 38 percent – on education issues, a finding that Rasmussen reported had swung back from a four-point Republican advantage in its previous survey.

Americans also said they had more faith that Democrats would run a more ethical government than Republicans. From the “likely voters” surveyed, 35 percent put more faith in the Democrats compared to 28 percent who trusted Republicans more to run an ethical government – 27 percent said they did not know who they trusted to run government ethically.

For these results, two surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted by Rasmussen Reports Feb. 27 – March 2, 2010. The margin of error for each survey was plus or minus three percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

Club Med: Are Dems Using Medicare Payments To Silence Doctors?

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010


Politics and Markets Blog

Club Med: Are Dems Using Medicare Payments To Silence Doctors?  It’s an annual Capitol Hill tradition: Automatic Medicare physician rate cuts loom, lawmakers suspend them for another year. But with a 21% cut set for March 1, Democrats only delayed it for a month. And Senate Dems only plan to extend that through August. What’s going on? Some Republicans and doctors say Democrats are using the “doc fix” to keep the AMA supporting the health overhaul.

From IBD’s Thursday issue


“Doctors have been held hostage to get them to play ball on the broader health care reform package,” said Sage Eastman, spokesman for Michigan’s Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. “As health care reform has been delayed, so has the doc fix.”

“It’s being used as a club to get the AMA to keep endorsing reform,” said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, which opposes the overhaul.

The AMA endorsed Democratic health plans last year, when there seemed to be a quid pro quo to back ObamaCare if Congress permanently repealed Medicare payment cuts that lawmakers annually suspend.

But that repeal is a budget buster, so Democrats dropped it from the overall health bill to make the numbers seem to work. Anti-deficit fervor makes a long-term stand-alone fix especially tricky in an election year.

“A 21% cut would be a terrible mistake,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. “But this is largely a matter of being fiscally responsible. A permanent doc fix would require us to come up with a lot of money.”

Democrats may have decided that a stick works better than a carrot — and is a lot cheaper.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

BLUE DOGS CAVING on ObamaCare

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

BLUE DOGS CAVING on ObamaCare; MELT THE PHONES
Teri Peters
MY picks : Call every Dem Please


http://tinyurl.com/yk586hs

Start With The House .. Make those cell phone bills count.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Harry Reid’s Filibuster Flip-Flop

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

National Republican Senatorial Committee

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 @ 06:03 PM


Talking Points Memo reported that Senator Harry Reid spoke earlier today to a group of “progressive” reporters, pundits, and bloggers in which he blamed Republicans for obstructionism – apparently ignoring that until recently, Democrats had a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. Reid then announced that he would be moving forward with “filibuster reform” legislation.

In fact, according to TPM, Reid even claimed that GOP “obstructionism” was to blame for his much-maligned decision to yank – and ultimately scale-down – a bipartisan jobs bill last month. GOP obstructionism?  Here’s what actually happened last month, as reported by Politico:

  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led colleagues and the White House to believe he supported a bipartisan jobs bill — only to scuttle the plan as soon as it was released Thursday over concerns it could be used to batter Democratic incumbents, according to Senate sources.  Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) worked for weeks with Reid’s blessing and frequent involvement to craft an $85 billion jobs bill, a measure that seemed destined to break the partisan logjam that has ground the Senate to a halt.  But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley, replacing it with a much cheaper, more narrowly crafted, $15 billion version.  (Lisa Lerer & Glen Thrush, Reid’s About-Face Stuns Dems, White House, Politico, 02/11/10)

But that wasn’t even the most egregious aspect of Reid’s remarks today. In announcing that he will move forward with filibuster reform legislation, voters are reminded that Reid has made countless statements over the years defending the use and importance of the filibuster. Reid went so far as to declare in his own book, The Good Fight, that “without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.” And while the Democrats were in the minority in 2005, Reid also said on the Senate floor that “the filibuster is an important check on executive power and part of every Senator’s right to free speech in the United States Senate.”

So what’s changed Senator Reid, other than the fact that Democrats are now in the Majority?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »

« Older Entries |