Following the failed amendment vote, Sen. Inhofe commented, "Despite the fact that similar legislation had overwhelmingly passed the Senate three times in the past, 47 Democrat Senators changed their position on this issue, bending to pressure from the Obama Administration, setting the stage for military facilities around the United States to temporarily or permanently hold Gitmo detainees. Given the Defense Department’s urgent need for military construction funds, I see no reason to expend these limited funds to construct one or more 'Gitmo Norths'. I am very disheartened and believe this is a cost the American people should not have to bear and a risk this nation cannot accept."

The vote to table Sen. Inhofe's amendment was a partisan vote. Only two Democratic Senators and one Independent voted with Republicans against tabling S. Amdt. 2774. In the future, should any of the funds allocated in H.R. 3082 ever be used to build or modify a facility within the U.S. or its territories for the temporarily or permanently holding of Guantanamo detainees, remember:

Who Voted How on S. Amdt. 2774 -

Before posting the results for the Hamilton confirmation, let's attempt to understand how this judge was confirmed by the senate with only a simple majority. Only yesterday we discovered that once the cloture motion successfully passed with full majority support, only a simple majority was then needed for confirmation. Slick, huh? See, a handful of senators were able to vote for cloture, under the guise that it would be a principled vote to end debate, and then change their vote on confirmation. These turncoats come out smelling like a rose, since the only vote most people will pay attention to over time is the actual confirmation vote. Sort of like vote laundering. You know, "voted for it before I voted against it."

While not many people understand all of the complexites involved in the legislative process, our representatives know exactly what they are doing – or at least they should. Without these 10 Republican senators voting for the cloture motion, David Hamilton would never have been confirmed. Consider that when viewing the final Hamilton confirmation vote. 

Final Confirmation Vote Results: 59-39 (56 Democrats, 1 Republican, 2 Independants)

Confirmation vote results are the same as the cloture motion vote with the following changes:

10 Republican senators that voted against their party in favor of cloture, but later voted in vain against confirmation: Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John Thune. Kay Hutchison was absent on cloture vote, but voted against confirmation.

2 Democrats voted in favor of cloture then absent on confirmation vote: Max Baucus, Robert Byrd.

Note: Richard Lugar (R-IN) was the sole Republican voting for the confirmation of Judge David H. Hamilton.

10 Republican Senators Vote To Advance David Hamilton Nomination 

It looks like the filibuster hold that has successfully delayed a confirmation vote for the anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judicial appointment of David H. Hamilton of Indiana will now come to an end, and a confirmation vote will soon follow. As covered in our previous article, Judge David Hamilton would carry controversial baggage with him to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should his confirmation vote pass. What is highly disconcerting about this vote that occurred today is that the extremist ideologies Hamilton has expressed from the bench in the past, as well as prior associations, would not bode well with the majority of American people and certainly not with conservative Republicans. It is important that Americans understand the seriousness of each judicial appointment and hold their representatives accountable for the vetting and ultimately the confirmation of those worthy and unworthy to a lifetime bench appointment.

With Cap and Trade, Healthcare, Afghanistan, Gitmo, Japanese bowing etiquette, and so many other important issues overwhelming the media, it is no wonder little time has been devoted to Judge Hamilton's confirmation. Perhaps these senators don't think the American people will even notice that on this day 70 Senators chose to advance the nomination of a judge who once used his judicial powers to rule that it was not okay to mention Jesus Christ in prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives but was okay to use the name of Allah. While that decision was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ironically, that is the very court for which Hamilton could now sit.

If the American majority were informed of all of the controversy surrounding this judge, it is unlikely they would have voted today for a motion to invoke cloture much less for confirmation. So why did their representatives? Seven of the ten Republicans voting in favor of this motion will not face reelection until 2012. Gregg, Murkowski, and Thune are the only three who will face reelection in 2010. Chambliss's office has assured us that while he voted for the cloture motion, he would not vote for confirmation. Are other senators thinking along the same lines, intending to vote against confirmation, or could it be they assume their constituents will not remember? Perhaps that is how it has been in the past, but isn't it high time we prove them wrong?

Who Voted How on Motion to Invoke Cloture on David Hamilton Nomination

(A Nay Vote by Republicans Would Have Continued to Delay Hamilton's Confirmation.)

Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]

Nay UT Bennett, Robert [R]

Nay MO Bond, Christopher [R]

Nay KS Brownback, Samuel [R]

Nay KY Bunning, Jim [R]

Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]

Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]

Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]

Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]

Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]

Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]

Nay NV Ensign, John [R]

Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]

Nay SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]

Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]

Nay GA Isakson, John [R]

Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]

Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]

Nay FL LeMieux, George [R]

Nay AZ McCain, John [R]

Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]

Nay ID Risch, James [R]

Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]

Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Nay LA Vitter, David [R]

Nay OH Voinovich, George [R]

Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]

(A Yea Vote by Democrats, Independents, and 10 Republicans Ended the Filibuster Hold and Will Allow a Full Vote.)

(10 Republicans Who Voted Against Their Party:  Lamar Alexander (TN), Saxby Chambliss – 2012 (R), Susan Collins – 2012 (R), John Cornyn – 2012 (TX), Judd Gregg – 2010 (NH), Orrin Hatch – 2012 (UT), Richard Lugar – 2012 (IN), Lisa Murkowski – 2010 (AK), Olympia Snowe – 2012 (ME), John Thune – 2010 (SD))

Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]

Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]

Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]

Yea IN Bayh, Evan [D]

Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]

Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]

Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]

Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]

Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]

Yea IL Burris, Roland [D]

Yea WV Byrd, Robert [D]

Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]

Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]

Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]

Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]

Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]

Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]

Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]

Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]

Yea CT Dodd, Christopher [D]

Yea ND Dorgan, Byron [D]

Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]

Yea WI Feingold, Russell [D]

Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Yea MN Franken, Al [D]

Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]

Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]

Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]

Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]

Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]

Yea DE Kaufman, Edward [D]

Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Yea MA Kirk, Paul [D]

Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]

Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]

Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]

Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]

Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]

Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]

Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]

Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]

Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]

Yea RI Reed, John [D]

Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Yea VT Sanders, Bernard [I]

Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Yea PA Specter, Arlen [D]

Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Yea SD Thune, John [R]

Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]

Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Not Voting TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

We've already witnessed a number of controversial Czar appointments, and it appears the president is attempting to infiltrate our courts with far-left liberal activist judges as well. Keep in mind that since some judicial appointments are for life, an extensive vetting process for all nominees should be compulsory. You'd think prior rulings, publications, speeches, and all other pertinent background should be thoroughly examined for any nominee before coming to a Senate confirmation vote. Inadequate vetting as happened with former Green Czar Van Jones is inexcusable at the executive level and should not be repeated, especially for a lifelong court appointment. True, some nominees will skate through the confirmation process despite controversy, as happened with Cass Sunstein, but at least there's a good chance he will go away after 2012. Not so if Hamilton is confirmed.

Back in March, Obama's very first judicial nominee was to appoint anti-Jesus, pro-abortion Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Indiana Senators Luger (R-IN) and Bayh (D-IN) did recommend the judge, for what may be obvious reasons, but conservative groups immediately took exception to Judge Hamilton as clearly being a far-left extremist, unworthy of a lifetime bench appointment.

There has been no vote by the Senate so far for Hamilton, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to change that and has announced plans to call for a cloture vote to cut off further debate putting an end to a filibuster-hold. "We're going to do Judge David Hamilton, 7th Circuit. He's been waiting since April," commented the senator. According to Executive Calendar No. 184 on the lis.gov website, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII is ordered to be waived relative to the cloture motion, and the vote will take place sometime on Tuesday, November 17, 2009.

Senator Sessions: Urges No Vote for Judge David Hamilton

While the White House calls Hamilton a moderate judge, Conservatives call him a liberal activist bench legislator. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote a letter on Oct. 30th voicing concerns about the Hamilton nomination. The Sessions' letter covers some concerns over Hamilton's past statements and decisions, including:

• Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution. In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.
  
• Judge Hamilton has also written that empathy should factor into the judicial decision making process.
  
• Judge Hamilton prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ as violative of the Establishment Clause, yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah. The Seventh Circuit reversed his ruling.
  
• Judge Hamilton denied a Rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis Municipal Building's holiday display. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed.
  
• Lawyers in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary describe Judge Hamilton as one of the most lenient judges in his district in criminal matters.
  
• In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clement for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography.
  
• In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.
  
• … A Woman's Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995). Through his rulings in this case, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking the enforcement of an Indiana informed consent law for 7 years. In reversing, the Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion…
  

Judge Hamilton has also served as board member of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and as a fundraiser for ACORN. Also, notice in the above-referenced rulings that on several occasions Hamilton had his hand slapped by the same judicial body for which President Obama intends that he would serve: the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Just who will slap his hands now if he gets confirmed to sit on that very bench?

The Center for Immigration Studies predicts a grim future for unemployed Americans. In an article titled Worse Than It Seems, the CIS reports overall unemployment for native-born Americans at 9.7 percent as of June 2009, which is 12.7 million unemployed native-born Americans. That number continues to rise as the most recent jobless rate has now climbed to 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment level since 1983.

There is another part of this equation, now referred to as U-6 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that needs to be considered and includes those unemployed people that want to work but have either given up looking for a job or have decided to take a temporary job. Using information from the June 2009 article, if U-6 individuals are included in the unemployment rate, that number then climbs as high as 16.3 percent, or 21.7 million native-born Americans. For certain segments of the population, including minorities with less than a high school education, their U-6 number climbs as high as 42 percent. 

Those millions of unemployed Americans understand that these statistics represent more than numbers, they represent individuals and families struggling to make scheduled mortgage and loan payments and the ability to buy food, medicine, and other necessities. Add to that the constant worry of not knowing when things will get better. Promises made by politicians about new job creation and an imminent economic turnaround just are not believable anymore, particularly for those who have been out of work for months fearing no light at the end of the tunnel.

Foreign Workers Competing for American Jobs

What isn't being talked about on the news or by politicians is that while millions of native-born American workers are struggling to find employment, there are some 125,000 foreign workers being legally welcomed each and every month into the United States to fill jobs Americans supposedly are unable or unwilling to fill. Many organizations are actually requesting more. Roy Beck, founder of NumbersUSA.com, explains in the video below that over the last 12-month period there were 951,247 green cards issued. Green cards give immigrants work permits that remain good throughout their lifetime. These green card holders can stay in the United States and work throughout their entire life if they choose. In addition to the green cards issued during that same time period, another 947,340 foreign workers were granted temporary work permits. These temporary permits do expire, but the holders of those permits can later apply for a permanent green card.

Combining these two numbers tells us that 1.9 million work permits were granted to immigrants during the past year.  Broken down, that equals 160,000 work permits issued per month. To appease immigrant activists who object that the 1.9 million number may include some immigrants that may already have been in the U.S. with temporary permits, let's go ahead and remove those workers from that number. That still leaves some 125,000 work permits being issued each and every month. 

Let's look at what's going on at one more angle:  According to NumbersUSA.com, 7.3 million jobs were eliminated from the American payroll since the start of 2008, while 2.7 million new foreign workers were granted permanent work permits and temporary work visas by the federal government during that same period. These foreign workers supposedly are needed to perform jobs that Americans cannot or will not do, though it's uncertain who determines what those jobs are. Ask any unemployed American worker at random that question, and you'll likely get a much different answer. Wouldn't it then be fair to say that representing that assumption on their behalf might then be considered an affront to either their work ethic or the intelligence of unemployed American workers — or both?

Immigration Reform Legislation Needed 

Whether affected directly by job loss or just empathetic to fellow tax-paying Americans, we should expect our leaders to commit to returning Americans to work before inviting additional immigrants to compete for limited available jobs. Shouldn't we ask politicians to prioritize their legislative efforts and immediately halt the issuing of visas of any kind until Americans are returned to work?

The SAFE Act Could Protect American Jobs

One thing that can be done immediately is ask that your representatives support the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act (H.R. 2305) was introduced by Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and has 45 cosponsors. This bill, as we understand it, would shut down the Visa lottery which is managed by the Department of State and currently grants up to 55,000 permanent resident visas annually based solely on random drawing and without regard to humanitarian needs, family ties, or what skills they might contribute to this country.  Introduced on 5/7/2009, H.R. 2305 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and then referred on June 12th to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, chaired by Rep Zoe Lofgren. (Zoe Lofgren, represents the heavily Democratic16th District of California based in San Jose, CA. Lofgren taught immigration law at Santa Clara University and worked in the office of her predecessor Don Edwards on the Richard Nixon impeachment. After winning the election in to the House in 1994, she has held her seat without substantive opposition. According to OnTheIssues.org, Lofgren scores a 0% on immigration issues by FAIR.)

Does it make sense that our government continues to invite foreign workers into the United States while making excuses for the lack of opportunity to its own people? 

Stop Importing Foreign Workers Until Americans Are Employed – PLEASE!

One of the many broken promises made by Obama during the '08 campaign was that his administration would be the most transparent in history. That sentiment became hugely popular among voters and was immediately echoed by other congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Pelosi, who vowed to end the "culture of corruption."  Why then, ten months into the Obama administration are the American people still waiting for the transparency they were promised? Are voters even aware that any attempts to introduce transparency in legislation since that change in power have been voted down by the very same Democrats that made those promises?

As the federal deficit skyrockets into unchartered nethersperes, Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with congress as legislation is routinely altered through partisan committee negotiations, back-room deals, and closed-door meetings. Introducing last-minute amendments and tacking on costly "pork" projects to bills as they migrate through numerous committees in the voting process without disclosing those alterations publicly is not what voters had in mind when they heard the word transparent. Not even close. The fact that congress does not seem to understand this concept is in part why their approval rating has reached record low numbers. People want to have a look at the menu and the prices themselves before placing their order. Too many people are struggling to live within dwindling means, and they are tired of picking up the huge tabs generated by the gaggle of swindlers that roam the halls of Congress.

Transparency Legislation: H.Res. 216, S.Amdt. 934, H.Res. 554, H.Res. 689

To  better understand how the new administration has fared on its promise of an open and transparent legislative process, let's take a look at some of the legislation proposed over the last ten months and see just who it is that continues to stand in the way of transparency:  

On March 5th, H. Res. 216, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), along with 8 cosponsors, would have required that congress have "time to read legislation before voting." This amendment was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on March 5th and remains there to this day.

On April 2nd, S. Amdt. 934 to S. Con. Res. 13, proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), would have required five days for the public to review legislation before being considered for final passage by the Senate. (There were no co-sponsors to this amendment.) A point of order was immediately raised as to the germaneness of the amendment and was then voted down 52-46. All 52 Senators voting against this legislation were Democrats. Every Republican senator, including Snowe, voted in favor of this transparency amendment, as did five Democrats. 

On June 17th, H.Res. 554, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), was introduced that would require legislation and conference reports to be posted online for 72 hours before consideration for final passage by the House. The number of cosponsors to this legislation continues to grow and seems to be the best hope for a mild bipartisan effort toward transparency. To date there are 208 cosponsors, yet still this amendment has not come to the House floor for a vote. On Sept. 23rd, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) filed a motion to discharge petition to help move the bill out of the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it now sits, and onto the floor of the House for a vote. A motion to discharge petition can be used to release a bill such as H.Res. 554 through the committee system if 218 Members will sign the petition. (Now only 10 Members shy.)

Regarding H. Res. 554, Rep. Baird stated, "This isn't about politics. Both parties are guilty. Now is the time to fix this once and for all, and put rules in place so that Congress is better able to serve the American people. People should have a chance to read what is in legislation before it becomes law, not after." Questioning why Congress overwhelmingly agreed to a 72-hour review period for an agriculture appropriations bill but would not agree to the same guidelines for every House bill, Rep. Walden made the comment, "If the 72-hour rule is good enough for the agriculture appropriations bill, then what stops my colleagues from signing the petition to give the public time to review all bills, like major healthcare reform? This is about one thing: the public's right to know. It's time to change how Washington works." 

On July 29th, H.R. 689, sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), along with 36 co-sponsors, was introduced requiring legislation be made available for a 72-hour period before being brought to a vote in the House.  According to Rep. Posey's website, "This not only applies to the underlying bill to be considered but also to any manager's amendment or other amendment that makes significant changes to the bill."  H. Res. 689 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on July 29th, and remains there to this day. 

Finally, on October 15th, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), along with 99 cosponsors, introduced legislation to ban the adding of "phantom amendments" to legislation once a bill has been passed by committee. The bill, H. Res. 835, would require that legislation be posted online within 24 hours after a committee vote. Regarding this important move toward transparency in legislation, Rep. Jenkins said, "This is only my first year in Washington, but if this is business as usual, then it's time for business to change. Committees should post legislation online within 24-hours to give all members of Congress as well as the American people time to read and understand the legislation. The status quo of secrecy and back-door deals has worn out its welcome."  H. Res. 835 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it remains at this time.

And there are others. Based on the number of bills being introduced, clearly some in Washington are beginning to support the right of Americans to be actively involved in the crafting of legislation that they will be expected to write the checks for and ultimately live under. Would it also be fair to suggest that others in Congress choosing not to vote in favor of these transparency bills either consider their constituents not intelligent enough to read and comprehend the legislation, or is it that they don't want the people to see what they are up to? Transparent means to be able to see through something, and the American people are clearly starting to see through the games that these politicians are playing. Perhaps we have transparency after all — just not the kind they promised.

Once every 10 years the federal government conducts a census, as mandated under Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The express purpose of a decennial census is to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, as well as determine each state's assigned number of electoral college votes. With the potential to influence presidential elections and individual state's voting rights, clearly the political stakes involved in an accurately-recorded census are huge.

Since 1911, there have been a fixed number (435) of voting members in the House of Representatives to represent all 50 states. Each state is guaranteed one representative, and the remaining House seats are apportioned based on a state's total population in relation to the rest of the country. So as census results show certain states have increased in population and should gain representation, likewise as a result, other states, would equally lose representation. Many worry that the high number of illegal immigrants now living in the country, if counted, will skew the 2010 census outcome.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, those fears have merit. In the 2000 Census, for example, it was estimated by the INS that almost seven million illegal aliens had been counted, and those numbers had a significant impact on several states.

According to an American Community Survey put together by the U.S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 21 million non-citizens, legal and illegal, now living in the United States. Of that number, it is estimated that approximately two-thirds currently reside in just six states. About 5.7 million reside in California alone. If those 5.7 million are included in the 2010 census, the state of California will look to gain up to nine more seats in the House. Keep in mind that for every seat California gains, another state must lose a seat. So just about every state stands to be impacted by the results of the upcoming census in one way or another if the upcoming census does not any question citizenship status. While it is true that non-citizens are not supposed to vote in elections, if the census does not distinguish citizenship status, areas having higher concentrations of non-citizens will get higher per-person representation than other areas. They may not physically go to the polls and cast a vote for the next president or representative to the House, but they have a voice just the same. Their neighbors, in essence, will cast their votes for them.

The issue of citizenship was addressed in early census questionnaires, but that format has changed over the years. Congress has within its power the authority to instruct the Census Bureau on what data will be collected and settle these legal status concerns; but since certain states, political parties, and civic groups are expected to benefit in a big way from not asking about legal status, no questions regarding citizenship have yet been included on the 2010 census questionnaire. Six months out, that debate still continues as any request for qualifying language in the upcoming census continues to meet with staunch opposition. For whatever reason, that resistance appears to be coming mainly from Democrats.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has submitted S. AMDT. 2644 to H.R. 2847 that would provide that "none of the funds made available in the Act or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used for collection of census data that does not include questions regarding United States citizenship and immigration status." Sen. Vitter of Louisiana comes from one of those states likely to lose a representative because of the illegal immigration issue. As Louisiana only has seven representatives total for that entire state, the loss of one House representative would be quite significant. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT), Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) have signed on as cosponsors to the Vitter amendment, though some question whether it is too little, too late.

Regarding illegal immigration issues, Sen. Vitter also submitted S. Amdt. 2630 to H.R. 2847, which would have prohibited the distribution of funds to sanctuary cities. The Democratic Senate, along with Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio, minus Sen. Byrd of W.V.,who did not vote, chose to table the Vitter amendment by a 61-38 vote on October 7th, 2009. (To table an amendment is to virtually end further advancement of the amendment.)

Voting Results on Amendment That Would Have Ended Sanctuary City Funding

Voted Yes to Table Amendment 2630: (Yes vote was against an amendment that would have prohibited the distribution of funds to sanctuary cities. Again, Snowe and Voinovich voted with Democrat majority on table motion. )

• Akaka (D-HI)
• Baucus (D-MT)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Begich (D-AK)
• Bennet, M. (D-CO)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Brown (D-OH)
• Burris (D-IL)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Cardin (D-MD)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Casey (D-PA)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Durbin (D-IL)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Franken (D-MN)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Hagan (D-NC)
• Harkin (D-IA)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Johnson (D-SD)
• Kaufman (D-DE)
• Kerry (D-MA)
• Kirk (D-MA)
• Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lautenberg (D-NJ)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Levin (D-MI)
• Lieberman (I-CT)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• Menendez (D-NJ)
• Merkley (D-OR)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
• Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Reed (D-RI)
• Reid (D-NV)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Sanders (I-VT)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Shaheen (D-NH)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Specter (D-PA)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Tester (D-MT)
• Udall, M. (D-CO)
• Udall, T. (D-NM)
• Voinovich (R-OH)
• Warner (D-VA)
• Webb (D-VA)
• Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Wyden (D-OR)

Voted NO To Table Amendment 2630: (No vote would have supported the amendment to prohibit distribution of funds to sanctuary cities)

• Alexander (R-TN)
• Barrasso (R-WY)
• Bennett (R-UT)
• Bond (R-MO)
• Brownback (R-KS)
• Bunning (R-KY)
• Burr (R-NC)
• Chambliss (R-GA)
• Coburn (R-OK)
• Cochran (R-MS)
• Collins (R-ME)
• Corker (R-TN)
• Cornyn (R-TX)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Ensign (R-NV)
• Enzi (R-WY)
• Graham (R-SC)
• Grassley (R-IA)
• Gregg (R-NH)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Inhofe (R-OK)
• Isakson (R-GA)
• Johanns (R-NE)
• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• LeMieux (R-FL)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• McConnell (R-KY)
• Risch (R-ID)
• Roberts (R-KS)
• Sessions (R-AL)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Thune (R-SD)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Wicker (R-MS)

On Thursday, October 15th, the majority of Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee, under the leadership of Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, chose to disregard all amendments to H.R. 3200 being offered by Republicans. Rather than continuing debate, Rep. Rangel instead submitted a letter to the Budget Committee that has now further opened the door for health care legislation to be passed by a process called reconciliation. Under the normal legislative process, a 60-vote majority is needed for a bill to pass in the senate. Failing to reach that magic number, members of the senate can filibuster the legislation, unless or until the 60-vote minimum is met. Under rare circumstances, typically processes involving the budget, a filibuster can be denied and reconciliation, otherwise known as the "nuclear option," is then invoked allowing a bill to pass with only a simple majority (51). This process is typically unheard of, especially for legislation as controversial and profound as the healthcare reform bill currently being proposed.

Regarding this underhanded action, Ranking Committee Member Dave Camp’s (R-MI) website states, "In shutting down the committee hearing, Democrats took one step closer toward going-it-alone on health care and through the reconciliation process that eliminates standard procedures for bill consideration in the U.S. Senate." Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), senior member of the Ways and Means Committee and top Republican on the House Budget Committee further warned, "The secret of the week is that Democrats pulled the trigger on the nuclear option. They built their vehicle today."

Rep. Charlie Rangel, who’s been under intense scrutiny lately for alleged ethics violations, had a different take on the matter. In a Thursday afternoon press release, Rangel stated, "Today’s vote is strictly procedural, it does not change the substance of the health reform bill and it does not indicate a change in process as the bill moves toward a vote in the House of Representatives." Insistent that Senate Republicans would stand in the way, Rangel added, “Today’s action was necessary because there is a possibility that a handful of Senate Republicans could choose to engage in partisan tactics to stall this important health reform bill." Since every single Republican, along with 3 Democrats voted against the H.R. 3200 bill while in committee, wouldn’t using the term "handful" be considered an understatement? 

The vote on Thursday was 22-18 in favor of sending the reconciliation letter to the Committee on the Budget, according to a clerk in the House Ways and Committee. Artur Davis (D-AL), who voted in favor of the bill in July, did not participate in the Thursday vote. Based on a statement on Congressman Davis’ website, he may have had a change of heart after that July vote when he commented, "… after analyzing this legislation for two weeks, I have come to the conclusion that the House bill is the wrong approach and unless it changes in a substantial way, it will not have my vote on the floor."

Republican Amendments to Healthcare Bill Dismissed

Regarding the Thursday session in the House Ways and Means Committee, since Rep. Rangel made the comment on record that, "Republicans have not presented the Committee with a health reform bill for consideration," some may find it interesting to note that the 10 amendments Republicans hoped to contribute to the healthcare reform debate on Thursday were summarily dismissed. These amendments, which seem to reflect many of the concerns expressed by voters in recent town hall forums, include:

1. Forcing Members of Congress to Get Health Insurance through the Government-Run Exchange.
2. Giving the American People and their Representatives 72 Hours to Read and Analyze Health Care Bill Before a Vote.
3. Allowing Seniors to Receive Facts about Democrat Proposed Medicare Benefit Cuts.
4. Reducing Lawsuit Abuse and Defensive Medicine.
5. Preventing Health Care from Increasing the Deficit.
6. Protecting Taxpayer Dollars from Going to ACORN.
7. Preventing Illegal Aliens from Receiving Taxpayer Funded Benefits.
8. Preventing Private Coverage from Becoming More Expensive as a Result of the Government-Run Plan.
9. Having CMS Inform Seniors’ about Medicare Premium Increases Resulting from H.R. 3200.
10. Reducing the Number of Years Americans Pay Higher Taxes but Get No Health Care Reform.

Committee Voting Results

In July, H.R. 3200 was passed out of the Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 23-18. Every Republican member of the committee voted against the bill, and all but three committee Democrats voted in the bill’s favor.

The Republicans voting against the passage of H.R. 3200 in July were: Dave Camp (R-MI), Wally Herger (R-CA), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Eric Cantor (R-VA), John Linder (R-GA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Geoff Davis (R-KY), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Charles Boustany, JR. (R-LA), Dean Heller (R-NV), and Peter Roskam (R-IL). The Democratic representatives that voted against H.R. 3200 in July were Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI).

Democrats voting in favor of passing H.R. 3200 out of the Committee on Ways and Means were: Charles Rangel (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), Sander Levin (D-MI), Jim McDermott (D-WA), John Lewis (D-GA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Mike Thompson (D-CA), John Larson (D-CT), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Artur Davis (D-AL), Danny Davis (D-IL), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Brian Higgins (D-NY), John Yarmuth (D-KY).

The results of the committee vote regarding the submission of the reconciliation "nuclear option" letter have not yet been released. Those results will be posted as soon as we get them.

Sometime following the opening  statements of Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Baucus, and Committee Co-chair, Sen. Grassley, highlighting opposing merits of the bill, Sen. Snowe announced that she would indeed break with the Republican party line and vote instead with the committee Democrats. Regarding her decision, Sen. Snowe stated, "I do it with reservations, because I share my Republican colleagues’ trepidation about what will transpire on the Senate floor, what will emerge in the House-Senate conference, and how indeed the Finance Committee bill will be merged with the Health bill." Sen. Snowe went on to add that before voting on a motion to consider the unified bill, " I certainly think we should have a final CBO score on the statutory language that is available on public websites, so everybody has a chance to review it." Good luck with that. For the naive few still harboring any hope for a change of Snowe heart come the next trillion dollar legislative vote, the senator closed by adding, "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow." 

At the end of the day, the America’s Healthy Future Act was approved in the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 14-9. The results of that vote are:

Voted Yea:

• OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME)
• MAX BAUCUS (D-MT)
• JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV (D-WV)
• KENT CONRAD (D-ND)
• JEFF BINGAMAN(D-NM)
• JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA)
• BLANCHE L. LINCOLN (D-AR)
• RON WYDEN (D-OR)
• CHARLES E. SCHUMER(D-NY)
• DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI)
• MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA)
• BILL NELSON (D-FL)
• ROBERT MENENDEZ(D-NJ)
• THOMAS CARPER (D-DE)

Voted No:

• CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA)
• ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UT)
• JON KYL (R-AZ)
• JIM BUNNING (R-KY)
• MIKE CRAPO (R-ID)
• PAT ROBERTS (R-KS)
• JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV)
• MIKE ENZI (R-WY)
• JOHN CORNYN (R-TX)

So what happens after the bill leaves the Senate Finance Committee floor today victorious? Word is: lots. Some predict the bill that will eventually come to vote will most likely in no way resemble the bill being voted on in committee today that was given a modest cost estimate last week by the CBO. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will next meet with the chairs of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health Committee, Senators Baucus and Dodd, both Democrats, who will then attempt to find acceptable compromises among the two bills where a new version will emerge and then be brought before the Senate for a vote.

One of the most controversial and perhaps destructive of all taxes imposed on Americans is the "death tax," whereby the government reaches one last time into the people's wallets. At death, a person's residual wealth, accumulated over a lifetime and already subjected to numerous tiers of taxation, becomes the attractive carrion of the redistributive looters. Since the majority of those effected by the death tax are labeled wealthy, most people, liberals, especially, have shown little sympathy for those being hit by the tax. In fact, President Obama's 2010 budget calls for the largest death tax increase in U.S. history, and with numerous fiascos in play, little attention is being given to the matter.

Zero Percent Death Tax Opportunity in 2010

In 2001, President George W. Bush set up a law that would phase the estate tax rate from 55% down to 45% in 2009. Then in 2010, and for that one year only, the death tax rate would go down to zero percent. Unless further legislative action was taken, that tax law would then expire in 2011, and the death tax rate would revert back to 55%. It was hoped that having a zero percent death tax rate for 2010 would help make the case for eliminating the death tax altogether or at the very least make it very difficult for the high rate to return. For that very reason, Obama doesn't want the tax rate to ever hit zero. Regarding taxes, the President's Chief Economic Adviser has stated, "Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year." But buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the Presidential Budget is a pronouncement that reads, "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters."

The death tax currently exempts estates valued below $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple). Yes, that sizable an estate will exempt the majority of Americans and most of us are more worried about our money lasting throughout our lifetime than how much will be left when we are gone. So why should care about the death tax at all? Keep in mind that a large portion of the accumulated wealth being taxed is not readily-available cash, but is tied up in the land of the family farm or in the real estate and inventory of small businesses. Forcing families to sell their farm or business to pay the death tax has a direct effect on Americans relying on those farms and businesses for jobs, livelihoods, and even the amount of food produced in this nation.

Using what is called the Summers study, former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin found that eliminating the death tax would result in a $1.6 trillion increase in small business capital over the long-term. This additional increase in capital represents the creation of 1.5 million new jobs. If ever our economy could use that type of job growth, wouldn't now be a feasible time to test the merit of the Summers study while we have the opportunity and allow the 2010 zero percent death tax rate to occur. If it was found that more good than harm came out of eliminating the death tax, further legislation could be considered to repeal or extend the death tax. If the 2010 trial proved unsound for the economy, no further action would be necessary and the old death tax rate of 55% would automatically return in 2011.

Even Marxist economic theories agree that the key to long-term growth and higher standards of living is dependent on saving and investing. Tomorrow's financial growth is dependent on savings from today's income, the same way that a farmer must store a portion of each year's seed in preparation for future crops. America should follow the lead of other nations that have figured out that the death tax is damaging in a competitive global economy. Hong Kong has eliminated its death tax, and so have some European states, often considered welfare states, such as Austria and Sweden. Australia, Russia and New Zealand have also figured out that penalizing wealth creation is not a sensible economic strategy.

 Buy Health Insurance or Else

On Thursday, Senator John Ensign (R-KS), questioned Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on Taxation, about the proposed health care mandate penalty. Ensign stated, "We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment. That seems to me to be a problem." Barthold told Ensign that the failure to report and pay the imposed fine for not having insurance, would allow the IRS to then "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings." Hard to believe? Confirming the penalties to be imposed for "willful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like," Mr. Barthold sent Sen. Ensign a handwritten letter (Politico copy).

Democrats Insist on Public Mandate

Regarding the public mandate, it should be noted that Republican Senator Jim Bunning offered an amdendment on Wednesday that would have allowed individuals to opt out of coverage. Bunning said, "The individual mandate in this bill is un-American. It may even be unconstitutional."  On Tuesday, in an earlier address to the Senate Finance Committee, Bunning argued, "I do not support the provisions in the bill that require every American to buy health insurance or pay a tax.  These provisions trample on the freedom of Americans, and I cannot support this.  It seems to me that there are better ways to increase the number of Americans with insurance without resorting to these extreme measures." Apparently, Senator Bunning’s plea, just like that of the American people, was ignored. The Democrats voted the amendment down.