To­day’s Dems out of touch with Amer­ica

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - David Lim­baugh

The sig­na­ture of Pres­i­dent Obama’s (up­per­case “D”) Democrats is their sys­tem­atic be­trayal of (small “d”) demo­cratic prin­ci­ples. Just look at to­day’s news for a fla­vor of their pat­tern of fla­grantly ig­nor­ing the pop­u­lar will to cram down our throats poli­cies we clearly re­ject.

As much as Mr. Obama pre­tends to be a man of the peo­ple, he is a man for him­self — a man who will get his way, the will of the peo­ple be damned. The same is true of many of his con­gres­sional lieu­tenants, in­clud­ing Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who re­cently said that Congress will pass Oba­macare de­spite the pub­lic’s ob­jec­tions, be­cause it is so im­por­tant. Im­por­tant to whom? To Democrats — that’s who.

Mr. Obama’s Democrats add in­sult to in­jury in their steam­rolling style of gov­er­nance by us­ing ap­peal­ing lan­guage to mask their true in­ten­tions and pre­tend­ing to gov­ern in a man­ner that’s pre­cisely the op­po­site of their ac­tual prac­tice. They use free mar­ket lan­guage to sell their so­cial­is­tic schemes and prom­ise trans­parency while con­ceal­ing their leg­isla­tive mis­deeds. Need proof? Glad to oblige.

Sen. Jim Bun­ning’s pro­posal to re­quire the Se­nate Fi­nance Com­mit­tee to post the fi­nal lan­guage of the nearly tril­lion-dol­lar health care bill, along with the Con­gres­sional Bud­get Of­fice anal­y­sis of the bill, on the com­mit­tee’s Web site for at least 72 hours prior to a vote on the bill was voted down 12-11, with only one Demo­crat vot­ing for it. Now, why would that bill be ob­jec­tion­able to Democrats when their pres­i­dent promised long ago to fol­low just such a pol­icy? Sim­ple: The less ad­vance no­tice we have the less chance we have to block their scheme.

Hu­man Events re­ports that Demo­cratic se­na­tors are so de­ter­mined to pass Oba­macare over the pub­lic’s dis­sent that they’re con­sid­er­ing uti­liz­ing a rare par­lia­men­tary trick to by­pass con­ven­tional Se­nate rules. The sham in­volves first merg­ing an un­writ­ten health care bill with an al­ready passed mea­sure from an­other com­mit­tee — the Health, Ed­u­ca­tion, La­bor and Pen­sions Com­mit­tee — and then at­tach­ing that bas­tardized piece of leg­is­la­tion to an un­re­lated House bill — a bill to tax bonuses on cer­tain TARP re­cip­i­ents.

Re­mem­ber all the con­tro­versy over con­ser­va­tives who char­ac­ter­ized the end-of-life “coun­sel­ing” in the House Oba­macare boon­dog­gle as the cre­ation of “death pan­els”? Without re­hash­ing that de­bate, were you aware that Obama’s Democrats had al­ready slipped the death panel con­cept in their “stim­u­lus” leg­is­la­tion? The Amer­i­can Thinker re­ported that H.R. 1 — aka the Amer­i­can Re­cov­ery and Rein­vest­ment Act, aka the porku­lus bill — al­lo­cates $1.1 bil­lion to fund the Fed­eral Co­or­di­nat­ing Coun­cil for Com­par­a­tive Ef­fec­tive­ness Re­search. That coun­cil — the brain­child of for­mer Sen. Tom Daschle, who surely idol­izes Jack Kevorkian — would be the bu­reau­cratic agency em­pow­ered to make de­ci­sions on health care ra- tion­ing. Th­ese paragons of com­pas­sion just can’t quite be open about their sin­is­ter schemes. If you think it’s over­the-top to call it sin­is­ter, then we don’t share the same value sys­tem.

Were you aware that the Demo­cratic-con­trolled Se­nate Fi­nance Com­mit­tee just de­feated Repub­li­can ef­forts to tighten abor­tion re­stric­tions in Oba­macare to make sure no fed­eral fund­ing will sub­si­dize abor­tion un­der any new law? The com­mit­tee’s chair­man, Max Bau­cus, brazenly op­posed the move, which failed on a party-line vote, with the spe­cious ar­gu­ment that “this is a health care bill. This is not an abor­tion bill.” If Democrats agree that abor­tion won’t be sub­si­dized un­der any law, why won’t they ac­cede to this re­stric­tion? Hasn’t Pres­i­dent Obama been adamant that his “plan” would not sub­si­dize abor­tion? Who’s telling the truth now?

Equally con­tentious has been the de­bate over whether Oba­macare would cover il­le­gal im­mi­grants — so con­tentious, in fact, that Mr. Obama has called his crit­ics liars for sug­gest­ing he’s angling for cov­er­age and Rep. Joe Wil­son has called Mr. Obama a liar for deny­ing it.

Well, we sus­pect that Mr. Obama plans on amnesty for il­le­gals, which would make the cov­er­age ques­tion moot. But be­yond those jus­ti­fi­able sus­pi­cions, Se­nate Fi­nance Com­mit­tee Democrats have specif­i­cally re­jected a Repub­li­can pro­posal re­quir­ing im­mi­grants sign­ing up for health in­sur­ance or tax cred­its un­der Oba­macare to prove their iden­ti­ties with photo iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Can you think of a le­git­i­mate rea­son for Democrats to bar such a re­spon­si­ble mea­sure? Who’s telling the truth now?

Mr. Obama will also con- tinue to dis­sem­ble con­cern­ing his in­ten­tion to es­tab­lish a sin­gle-payer sys­tem, though he’s on record as hav­ing com­mit­ted to it and con­tin­ues to press for the “pub­lic op­tion,” de­cep­tively ped­dling it as a com­pe­ti­tion en­hancer.

The hard truth, folks, more plainly ap­par­ent with each pass­ing day, is that to­day’s “main­stream” Democrats have been ex­posed as rad­i­cal left­ists, whose agenda is over­whelm­ingly re­jected by a vast ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans. The only way they’ll suc­ceed in en­act­ing var­i­ous com­po­nents of their so­cial­is­tic de­signs — notwith­stand­ing their strong nu­mer­i­cal con­gres­sional ma­jori­ties — is through trick­ery, leg­erde­main, chi­canery and de­ceit.

Un­hap­pily for them, the longsnor­ing pub­lic has fi­nally awo­ken.

David Lim­baugh is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.