April 28, 2005

Pharmacists under persecution

I'm not sure how many of my readers are aware of bills being introduced in Congress that would require pharmacists to prescribe abortion pills.  The pro-choice special interest group in this country, with politicians like Barbara Boxer at its forefront, have set their sights on obliterating anything that stands in the way of abortion-on-demand under any circumstances.  I can understand from a logical point of view how pro-choice people would support continuing the civil legality of abortion.  They simply don't believe it is murder.  While I vehemently disagree with that supposition, I understand it is their right as Americans to promote their ideals in the public arena.

But this situation is completely different.  Read the whole article, and see if you can come to terms with the idea of forcing - under penalty of law - pro-life pharmacists to dispense drugs whose only purpose is to cause the unborn to cease to live.  These bills would leave pro-life pharmacists - like my father-in-law - in the position of having to dispense death or relinquish their livelihood. How could the Constitution of the United States possibly affirm coercion of this kind?  I have no clue, but such is the face of the die-hard pro-choice movement in this country.

Update:  As was pointed out by an astute reader, pharmacists don't prescribe drugs, they fill prescriptions.  I've corrected the wording in the post to reflect this fact.  Thanks, John!

posted by Scott Elliott at 1:55pm 04/28/05
Link to this post |

April 27, 2005

More on the filibuster of judicial nominees

Dr. Steven Taylor has posted the best explanation of the filibuster I've seen. He walks us step by step through the entire process.  Here's a winning quote from the post:

... the current situation marks the first attempt at an en masse blocking of Appeals Court nominees in the history of the Republic via the use of the filibuster.  There is no disputing that fact by anyone who will address the facts with dispassionate honesty. As such, the party that is changing the de facto rules of the game are the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Read the whole thing - if you don't, you'll be missing an excellent opportunity to learn what is really going on with these Appeals Court nominees.

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:30am 04/27/05
Link to this post |

April 23, 2005

Tax cuts, 101

Many people have complained about the tax cuts President Bush has pushed through Congress over the last few years.  They say these tax cuts favor the rich.  Well, you know what?  In a way, they do.  My brother emailed me a brilliant illustration of why that's ok.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.  Suppose that everyday, ten men go out for dinner.  The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill, proportional to current demographics, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.  "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.  So the first four men were unaffected.  They would still eat for free.  But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"  The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.  But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12. (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18. (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59. (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before.  And the first four continued to eat for free.  But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.  "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.  He pointed to the tenth.  "But he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.  "I only saved a dollar, too.  It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man.  "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2?  The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.  "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men then surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill. And, that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.  There are a lot of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean...

posted by Scott Elliott at 9:35pm 10/26/04
Link to this post |

I'm starting to get a good feeling

President Bush's approval rating is sinking; it's now well under 50%.  In Pennsylvania, incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum is behind by a whopping 15 points to Democratic challenger Robert Casey, Jr.  GOP enforcer Rep. Tom Delay is struggling for his political life amid allegations of wrongdoing and a possible congressional investigation.  Gas prices are advancing on all cylinders and show no signs of slowing down.  All these facts, combined with the GOP's handling of the Terry Schiavo case - "We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on" (Howard Dean) - and Social Security reform, might cause some liberals to lick their chops in anticipation of 2006. After all, it is a midterm election in the second term of a re-elected president. History suggests good things should be in store for Democrats in next year's Senate elections.

Not so fast, my left-leaning friends.  Before you get too far into visions of majority, let me remind you of the state of affairs almost a year ago.  On May 26, 2004, The Blogging Caesar posted a dismal Election Projection update. That projection showed President Bush behind John Kerry by more than seven-and-a-half percentage points and 136 electoral votes.  The scandal at Abu Graib prison in Iraq was flooding the airwaves.  The liberal U.S and international media were succeeding in their single-minded attempt to portray Iraq as a quagmire.  Making it easier for them was the fact that April had been a terrible month of sacrifice for American troops.  Indeed, many who had whole-heartedly supported our efforts there felt a growing sense of gloom.

I feel certain that had Election Day 2004 been June 2nd instead of November 2nd, John Kerry would have won in a landslide and Senate Democrats would be basking in the glow of power once again.  In the same way, if the 2006 elections were held this week, the GOP would have a very hard time maintaining their majority in the Senate and perhaps even the House.

Yet the political climate in this country tends to change nearly as often as the weather.  These issues will lose their steam over the next 18 months.  Sure, Democrats might work the Terry Schiavo and Tom Delay into campaign ads and speeches, but the fire associated with them will be long since quenched.

As for gas prices, chances are good that, some time well in advance of election day, their upward spiral will have run its course.  Even without a significant decline, gas prices shouldn't hurt the incumbent party if they level off soon enough for people to grow accustomed to them by November, 2006. And as for our struggling Mr. Santorum, he currently has a sizable advantage in campaign funds and the benefit of being the only seriously vulnerable GOP senator.  His financial lead is likely to grow and his grass-roots organizations are likely to develop into a monstrous force as the Christian right turns it sights on helping one of their favorite sons.  I can't say for sure he'll pull it out, but he won't lose by 15 points.

It seems in this cycle as in the last, the Democrats may be falling victim once again to the misfortune of bad timing.  Add to that the seven or eight possibly vulnerable Democratic senate seats and the 31 states, representing 62 senators, that Bush carried last year, and you start to see the political clouds begin to clear for the righties.  Even so, like I posted here, I'm nowhere near making any real predictions.  I've just got this instinctive feeling that 2006 will be another great year for the GOP.  And if God answers my prayer, President Bush won't need to worry about the filibuster in 2007 and 2008 - he'll have 60 Republican senators to see to that!

posted by Scott Elliott at 12:25am 04/23/05
Link to this post |

April 19, 2005

Benedict XVI

I'm not a Catholic, and there are plenty of reasons, which will remain private at this time, that I am not.  However, I am glad to see the Catholic Church, at least in Rome, will remain grounded in the adherence to absolutes rather than flounder in the impertinent muck of relativism.  The brand new pope spelled it out clearly and accurately:

...whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards,' the 78-year-old Ratzinger said during the homily. 'We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.' ..."

Here, here!

posted by Scott Elliott at 11:55pm 04/19/05
Link to this post |

April 14, 2005

The nuclear option

A hot topic these days in political circles is whether Senate Republicans will decide to end the filibuster of judicial nominees.  Democrats have effectively used this tactic to defeat several of President Bush's nominees.  The rule currently in place in the Senate playbook states that at least sixty Senators must agree to allow an up or down vote on most Senate business.  Votes on the federal budget are exempt from this rule, as well as, ironically, changing Senate rules.  On these matters, a simple majority is all that is needed.

The scenario is this:  As Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist would call for a change in the filibuster rule to exclude judicial nominees.  Since no filibuster of this motion is allowed, a vote would take place.  If at least 50 Senators vote to change the rule, BOOM, no more filibustered judges - Vice-President Cheney would cast the 51st vote if necessary.  Hence the term, "Nuclear Option." There are 55 Republicans in the Senate.  So the move, if made, should have no trouble passing, right?  Maybe not.  Democrats in the Senate are busy trying to dissuade some GOPers from approving the rules change.  To be successful, all the Democrats need are six Republican no's.

Of course, as a staunch conservative, The Blogging Caesar would love to see all of President Bush's nominees sail through confirmation and begin to roll back the judicial legislating that has taken place from the bench over the last 2 or 3 generations.  That being the case, you might assume I'm pulling hard for the rule to be changed.  You would be wrong.  My thoughts correlate very closely with former Senate Majority Leader and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole.

"You have to be very careful ... before you start tinkering with the rules" because one day Republicans will be in the minority and need to use the filibuster.

I think the GOP would be setting a dangerous precedent if they succeeded in changing this rule.  First, Bob Dole is exactly right in that we may need to filibuster in the future.  And we may need it terribly.  Were it not for the filibuster in the early 90's, "Hillarycare" might be the law of the land today. Second, there is perhaps nothing Senate GOPers could do to more effectively fuel a Democratic tidal wave at the polls for the next decade than to appear to be changing the rules to suit their agenda.

That second possibility has a flip side, however, that would be to the Republicans' advantage.  If the Democrats stall Bush's nominees over the next year-and-a-half, conservative outcries over their obstructionism could produce major gains in the 2006 Senate elections.  Just ask former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle if you think I'm grasping at straws here.  The GOP only needs a gain of 4 or 5 (depending on how Ben Nelson of Nebraska would vote) to bust the filibuster anyway.  While a bit unlikely, that is certainly in the realm of possibility.

With potentially vulnerable Democratic Senators in WA, ND, NE, NM, WI, and FL, and open seats in MN and MD, Republicans could be on the verge of an historic filibuster-proof majority if they can keep their own much smaller number of vulnerable Senators in office.  So, I say let the filibuster rule stand and force the Democrats to employ it at every opportunity.  Then make it the cornerstone of the campaign among conservatives in 2006.

Update:  One of the great benefits of running a blog like this is the opportunity to learn so much from my readers.  In this instance, two of my knowledgeable readers provide these clarifications to the Senate rules change procedure...

Jonathan writes...

Rule changes in the Senate do in fact normally require a two-thirds vote (67 votes). In this case, however, the Republicans plan to get around that by requesting a "point of order" on the use of the filibuster from the Senate's presiding officer. Assuming that this "point of order" is decided in the Republicans favor (which it would be, as they control the Senate and therefore the presiding officer), only a majority of senators could appeal that ruling. Hence the 51 votes needed to change the filibustering rule, though many still consider even this plan a violation of existing Senate rules. But the courts are unlikely to overturn the inner workings of the Senate, so it would probably stand.

And Gerry of the excellent Daly Thoughts blog responds...

Rule changes do not require 67 votes. They do require 2/3 for cloture to bring it to a vote, but the 2/3 is not of the entire Senate. It is of members present and voting (unlike cloture for other matters, which is 60% of those elected and seated).

Many thanks to Jonathan and Gerry for improving the quality of my blog.

posted by Scott Elliott at 12:30pm 04/14/05
Link to this post |

April 7, 2005

Poetic justice

Well, how about this?  A Kurd replaces Saddam. A member of the group arguably most cruelly treated by Hussein, a most cruel "President of Iraq," now owns that very same title.  I think that is just splendid!

posted by Scott Elliott at 12:25am 04/07/05
Link to this post |

Reporting for duty

posted by Scott Elliott at 12:10am 04/07/05
Link to this post |

e-mail Scott at:
thebloggingcaesar
@electionprojection.com

Favorite Links

Popdex