... under the Senate rules, anything that comes across the floor of the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. It’s called the filibuster. That’s the way the Senate was structured. ...
The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn’t want things rushed through. ... That’s why we have the 60-vote situation over here in the Senate to require that things get full consideration.
Why doesn’t someone ask Gregg if he supports a return to the previous two-thirds requirement for cloture? That would be even more effective in preventing legislation from being ” rushed through”. It would be interesting to see how Gregg justifies one particular number over another.
When we last checked in on the U.S. history textbooks standards setting process down in Texas, the conservative-dominated State Board of Education was mulling one-sided requirements to teach high school students about Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority.
Now, in the home stretch of a process that will set the state's nationally influential standards, a liberal watchdog group is worried that the State Board of Education will try to push through changes to claim that communist-hunting Sen. Joseph McCarthy has been vindicated by history, among other right-wing pet issues.
The Republican-dominated board is meeting today in Austin to vote on amendments to the current draft standards. (...)
If such an amendment is proposed, [expect] it to come from outspoken conservative board member Don McLeroy, who has been talking up the idea. In a note to curriculum writers last fall, McLeroy encouraged them to "read the latest on McCarthy -- he was basically vindicated."
Mount Pleasant Republican Thomas Ratliff narrowly beat veteran State Board of Education member Don McLeroy in the GOP primary for the board seat that represents Collin County and much of Northeast Texas.
The fiercely contested race pitted McLeroy, a dentist from College Station and member of the board’s social conservative bloc, against Ratliff, a legislative consultant and son of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff. (...)
With critical board decisions looming in the future about such volatile issues as coverage of evolution in new science textbooks and which political figures are included in new history books, Ratliff and McLeroy offered sharply different views about how they would make those decisions.
The bad news is that this country is always on the edge of crazy.
Sarah Palin's new book, currently untitled, will be a celebration of American virtues and strengths. Palin will reflect on the key values—both national and spiritual—that have been such a profound part of her life and which continue to inform her vision of the future.
A Louisiana sheriff plans to arm volunteers with shotguns, riot shields, batons, and a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a "war wagon," as part of "Operation Exodus," a program to provide security in the event of a terrorist attack or civic unrest. "It's a calling," he says.
The office of Sheriff Larry Deen of Bossier Parish, near Shreveport in the northwest part of the state, last month selected for the program 200 local residents -- mostly ex-law-enforcement personnel -- and began training them in "defensive techniques in the event of a struggle" ...
This summer they will train to be pirates*, and after that, chivalrous knights of old.
And decisively, to Rick Perry. My first reaction is that come November, this country could be voting for a lot of little Hoovers. Using Tea Party / Sarah Palin "common sense" notions about household budgeting - applied to the Federal budget - to cut spending, and cut it sharply.
Starting from somewhere in conservative-land, a campaign has emerged against the "Gitmo Nine", lawyers who represented Guantanamo detainees. Part of that involves Liz Cheney and her Keep America Safe organization producing a Web video which implies that these attorneys are secret supporters of Al Qaeda. But at least one case involving these lawyers got as far as the Supreme Court, which ruled for the defendant.
So, when will Liz Cheney go after the Supreme Nine?
Michael Gerson has an op-ed in the Post where, in every branch along the analysis tree, he denies that a person driven to suicide has made an objective and rational choice. So he ends up concluding that it's illogical, deluded, self-centered, impulsive, and all manner of wrong.
Washington Post likes to offload health care burden to individuals:
In a pitch to "Blue Dog" Democrats, the Post editorializes:
... the tax on expensive employer-provided health-care plans, which senators weakened from its initial form and whose effective date Mr. Obama then chose to postpone, could be strengthened and made to bite as soon as the spending begins. This tax has twin virtues. It raises money and it "bends the curve" on costs -- more than any other single provision. In other words, it would begin to affect the growth in health-care costs for everyone.
The old "costs" switcheroo.
Prices are not going to be reined in with this approach.
The Senate bill, by limiting coverage via the excise tax, will mean that individuals will pay more out of pocket.
Expenditures will likely not grow as fast, but there will also be a reduction in medical services received.
This is seen by the Post as a worthwhile "cost" control mechanism.
Not sure how to interpret this:
It raises money and it "bends the curve" on costs -- more than any other single provision.
Is the Post arguing that the excise tax:
Both raises money and "bends the curve" more than any other provision?
or
Raises money, and also "bends the curve" more than any other provision?
It's hard to see how it could raise more money than the House bill's tax on top incomes. Employers can stop paying the excise tax by reducing coverage for their employees, which they will surely do. Did the Post deploy the conjunction "and" in such a way to give readers the impression that the excise tax brings in more money, when in fact it does no such thing?
Because the tsunami warning did not result in anything serious. Then Limbaugh went on to say that he, Limbaugh, had intuited that the wave wouldn't amount to much. He also wondered if a satellite could have seen the tsunami.
His main point is that the scientists are engaged in scaring everybody and that you shouldn't trust them.
This is Limbaugh and his audience, secure in their belief that they know more than others. Why debate issues with so-called "experts" in any field, since Limbaugh has declared them to be buffoons.
