'Dingy' Harry's Fast One... OUTRAGEOUS!

The impudent  tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid...

       Senate  Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving  once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his  massive amendment to  the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's  anti-democratic poison  pill designed to prevent any future  Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!

       Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads  in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or  the House of  Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or  conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

       In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this  measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change  a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans  or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!

       Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the  regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB)  to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending."

       That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory  power that effectivelyestablishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be  made available to the American people. And Reid wants the  decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be  untouchable for all time.

       No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that  senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical  vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his  amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it  at 1 a.m., whileAmerica slept.

       True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison  pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his  bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben  Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed  doors.

       The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic  procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in  Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why is that  significant?

       Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing  rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment received.

Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a  measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of  which can never be changed. I f this is not tyranny, then what is?

-