Reading is Fundamental

Before yesterday, I had never heard of the Congressional Research Service. I think I am probably not alone but I am hoping that more and more people will come to know them almost as well as the Congressional Budget Office because if recent leaks of information contained in their reports are true, well they might be my new favorite entity in Washington, D.C. The CRS is a non-partisan think tank of sorts that serves a shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress. The CRS, created in 1914 during the Wilson administration, provides analytical support in all levels of the legislative process. One of the most intriguing tasks with which they are charged is the preparing of confidential memoranda, briefings and consultations. The content of these "confidential" reports is often hard for the American public to find and access as they do not become a part of the public domain until a member of Congress releases them.

You may be asking yourself why the lesson on the Congressional Research Service - well I just thought that people should be aware that while it appears there is in fact a facet of Washington that continues to be non-partisan in its review of legislations, the reality is that the results of these evaluations are intentionally kept secret so as to allow members of Congress to continue to leave the American public in the dark and manipulate the data for their own purposes.

In August 2009, a CRS report was responsible for illustrating the fact that HR 3200 did not expressly prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under the new healthcare reform bill. President Obama was quoted saying, "Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table." The reality? The CRS report showed that there was no language in the bill that the "Health Insurance Exchange" would have any restrictions on non-citizens (whether legally or illegally present or in the United States temporarily or permanently). There is a subsection within the bill that mentions that no benefits for affordability payments are to be made to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States however since there is no specific language that establishes a verification or enforcement process (as in other Federal programs) it seems that there were gaping holes in the President's logic early on in the process of railroading this bill past the American public's opposition.

Now this week two pieces of information were brought to light through additional CRS reports. The first item is extremely disturbing. The healthcare reform bill passed contains a loophole that would not prevent "a qualified health plan in a health insurance exchange from providing coverage for drugs prescribed to treat ED to a non-incarcerated beneficiary who was previously convicted of rape, child molestation or other sexual offense." Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to the bill in the final days of negotiations but it was summarily struck down by Democrats afraid that changing any portion of the language would delay or even (gasp!) prevent the bill's passage during Reconciliation.

I don't even think that I can begin to wrap my head around that idea. Is there really someone out there who thinks that its a good idea to give child molesters and rapists Viagra? If Congress can summon the heads of major companies before them to testify as to the validity of their accounting procedures that blatantly show that the healthcare sham of a bill will cost them money then why can the American public not require every member of the Senate that had a hand in the blocking of this amendment be brought before a panel and explain why they think that adjusting this language would have prevented the bill's passage. Is there a major lobbying group of child rapists that is funding re-elections? Everyone of their constituents should call their offices immediately and demand an answer as to why this amendment was blocked.

But I have the GREATEST way to combat their answer of "it was for the greater good". The senators who blocked the amendment to prevent sex offenders from receiving prescription medicines to improve their erections may in fact have shot themselves in the foot. In the rush to get this healthcare sham passed, language included in the bill may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. Anyone who isn't laughing hysterically at this moment must not have a funny bone because that is simply priceless! The party line legislators who have been telling us for over a year that if we like our healthcare coverage then we can keep have now, because none of them read the whole bill before passing it, opened the door to losing their own coverage! Wow! I hope that all of these members of the House and Senate are in excellent health and have no pre-exisiting conditions or they might for once have to see what is like for the rest of us minions.

When $940 Billion is NOT a Trillion

Only in Washington, D.C. is it a day to celebrate that a proposal that will only cost $940 Billion. The Democratic leadership in DC is "giddy" (to quote a Congressman) that the CBO has come out and stated that the healthcare bill's price tag is under the magic level of $1 Trillion.

Really? Really? If the average American spends $940 on a couch most likely they will tell you that they had spent a thousand dollars. Buy a car for $9400 in most cases you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't feel that you had spent ten grand. So really democrats, do you really think that the American public is so dense that you can tell us that you AREN'T spending a TRILLION dollars to take over 1/6 of the economy?

And am I the only person who this morning is questioning the supposed non-partisan makeup of the Congressional Budget Office. Can I possibly be the only one who thinks that the delay with receiving the (barely but) under a Trillion price tag is a little suspect. I tend to believe that there was a lot more jockeying back and forth between Dems and the CBO to ensure that this number was what they needed. And now that they have the UNDER A TRILLION price tag they are giddy and moving forward with a vote on Sunday.

I may not be the greatest mathematician but if something costs $940 billion over the first ten years and that figure includes a planned Medicare savings (yeah like that has ever happened) of $120 billion, doesn't that mean that the bill actually costs $1.06 Trillion?? The planned savings from Medicare would include cuts that would affect millions of seniors who will lose a great portion of their benefits and they would be forced to foot even more of their healthcare costs. I thought that Nancy Pelosi wanted to close the donut hole not the other way around. And this is all dependent upon generating these savings. The CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082. So if the CBO predicts that the percent of GDP is going to grow that dramatically, how can they also state that they predict that there is a savings?

Feel free to email the author at stephanie@vpmedia.com