You probably missed this in Saturday's paper

Even if you noticed the headline, what the article is *actually* about is nothing short of a reason to go to DC and hunt down Pelosi and Reid. I certainly have not seen or heard anything on CNN, NBC, etc.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2009/04/25/budget0425.html

Headline:

Democrats close in on budget pact

Subhead is much more accurate:

Agreement would move Obama plan to overhaul health care system forward without threat of Republican filibuster

What Dems are doing here is using a procedural rule that allows budget bill to not face filibuster. Since Obama's health-care bill would *never* pass on it's own merit at this point Reid & Pelosi are tacking the health-care bill onto a budget bill.

So...something as important and that will change the countries economy (esp. taxation and governance) will be subject to a maximum of 20 hours of debate and will require only a simple majority in the Senate:

Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but passage of the budget plan would allow for a so-called reconciliation bill that can pass with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.

And this statement is laughable:

Democrats, including Obama, say they genuinely want a bipartisan health care bill and that the filibuster-proof process would be used only if the GOP obstructs.

So, if you disagree with us, we'll do a procedural end-run because then you're simply be "obstructionist".

Combine the above with what follows. Under government health-care, the state, not your doctor determines how you will be treated. And rationing of health-care is predicted as an inevitability. I hate to say "I told you so" but...

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2009/04/25/medicaid0425.html

A federal appeals court in Atlanta says Medicaid providers and state health officials should have a say along with physicians in determining how to treat patients.

Florida, Georgia and Alabama argued that their Medicaid officials should make the final decision in treating Anna Moore, a 14-year-old Georgia girl who suffers from almost daily seizures. The state is trying to reduce the number of hours she is treated by a home nurse, despite the recommendations of her doctor.

And for comic relief, we have Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano sticking both feet full into her mouth recently. First, she releases a report that lumps veterans, pro-life advocates, anti-illegal immigration groups, and tea-partiers in with skinhead and neo-Nazis as "right-wing extremists" who might be using the economic downturn to recruit for home-grown terror cells.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Then this week she goes on to say that entering the country illegally is not even a crime..."Crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.”

So the Secretary for Homeland Security thinks veterans are likely to become terrorists (after all Tim McVeigh...) and doesn't even know the law regarding simple border security. She needs to read the US Code, Title 8 Section 1325...if the penalty includes imprisonment, it's criminal not civil...

§ 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

On the former screwup, she threw her office under the bus...

Napolitano blamed one of her agency’s analysts for prematurely sending out the intelligence assessment to law enforcement...

And on the latter:

Napolitano spokesman Sean Smith said: “Americans can rest assured that she understands what the law is along the border,” he said.

I don't think she does.

Joining Ms. Napolitano in the political doublespeak category, although perhaps saying what he really feels, is AG Holder regarding gun control (specifically, having the US bend to Mexico's demands):

"I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

So now the Constitution is just something that might "stand in the way" of the Administration's desire to control yet another aspect of our lives.