Fox News has video (see below) of Ms. Pelosi saying we have to pass the health care reform bill “so we can see what’s in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

First of all, that’s not what I would call “transparency,” Madam Speaker. Keeping from us the details of what this legislation will do until after it’s passed is somewhat like being asked to ingest the contents of an unlabeled bottle; for all you know, it might contain cyanide.

The lack of transparency brings me to my second point. The Speakers position, as enunciated in the video, conflicts with two of the five main principles of the Rule of Law.

The five principles are:

1. Generality: Laws must apply to everyone equally, and not single out groups or individuals.
2. Prospectivity: Laws must apply only to future behavior, not to past action (no ex-post facto laws).
3. Publicity: Laws must be publicized, so the people can be certain of their application.
4. Consent: Laws must be generally acceptable to the people who will live with them.
5. Due Process: Laws must impartially applied and enforced according to established laws.

Judging from Ms. Pelosi’s  comments, it appears that not only does this legislation violate the principle of Publicity (we can’t know what’s in it until it passes?), it violates the principle of Consent. How are we to give consent to being subject to legislation the application of which we can’t know until it becomes law?

That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.

But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.

The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.

Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”

“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”

And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,

“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”

Let’s take a stroll backward through time.

Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:

“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”

Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”

But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:

“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”

Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:

“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”

Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.

Harry Reid flat-out lied when he said “nobody is talking about reconciliation” as a way to pass the health care reform bill. Here he is only days before the health care summit.

Speaker Gingrich writes,

The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation

While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present — whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action

Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending

This is why passing the left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.

Leaving aside the bill’s merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left’s health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) “an outrage that must be resisted.”

It’s also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton’s efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left’s latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Liberals and Progressive Democrats are already shouting that Republicans used reconciliation to pass welfare reform. Newt’s response:

Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress’ efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was “deficit neutral”. President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that “added one dime” to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.

Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left’s health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can’t get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left’s health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left’s plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Keep in mind that as recently as 2005, even Barack Obama was complaining that the Republican threat to use the “nuclear option” to shut down Democratic filibusters holding up judicial appointments would have created a majoritarian government not intended by the founders. But now that the shoe’s on the other foot, Majoritarianism seems to be the preferred order of the day. Back then, Republicans called Democrats “obstructionists” for filibustering the appointments of Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees, which Bush had every right to make. Now Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists” because they object to the idea of “fundamentally transforming” the American health care system. Which is worse, seating a Republican President’s judicial nominations, or usurping control of a nation’s health care system in a massive power grab that has nothing to do with health care? I think we can all see which obstruction is justifiable.

Alarmists have insisted that such heavy snows are the result of global warming or “climate change” (as if the climate were not expected to change naturally). As one commenter put it:

“As the oceans grow warmer, there is more moisture taken into the atmosphere. The resulting weather temperature extremes generate energy causing more violent storms.”

I believe the commenter is referring to the alarmists’ claim that global warming will cause more numerous and more violent hurricanes.  If so, that claim has been pretty much debunked. The most likely cause of these bigger snowstorms is the localized increase of ocean temperatures off the West Coast known as “El Nino.” El Nino and the accompanying La Nina are the result of naturally occurring cycles in ocean temperatures over a limited area. For a fascinating article on the topic, read here.

But, for those who believe heavier snowfall is the result of climate change or global warming, I invite you to watch this video.

Reid is correct that it has been done before, but never has it been used on legislation that would fundamentally transform 1/6^th of the American economy. Surely legislation of this magnitude should require more than just a simple majority to become the law of the land.

But that’s beside the point. In 2005, it was the Democrats who were “crying about” the use of measures to circumvent the filibuster, referred to then as the “Nuclear Option.” And Reid’s implicit accusation that Republicans did it first is disingenuous. The Republicans ended up not exercising the Nuclear Option in 2005, and Democrats have also used similar measures.

Watch the video below to see hypocrisy on parade. Joe Biden’s statement is particularly noteworthy.

The previous record for Washington D.C. was set in the 1860’s winter of 1898-99, which prompts a question. Does the New York Times also believe that the previous record snowfall was caused by global warming?

If not, then their story falls apart, because if global warming did not directly cause heavier precipitation in 1860, then it cannot be said to have directly caused it in 2010. If we look at the history, global warming cannot be the culprit because of the cooler temperatures commonly seen in the historic record for that period of time.

The New York Times attempts to justify it’s position by saying that heavy snowfall and global warming are “compatible.” But heavy snowfall is also compatible with the cooler temperatures extant during the 1860’s, nullifying the Times’ argument.

Simply put, the recent record snowfall in the eastern states is not evidence of global warming.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha, an influential critic of the Iraq War whose congressional career was shadowed by questions about his ethics, died Monday. He was 77.

The Pennsylvania Democrat had been suffering complications from gallbladder surgery. He died at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va., spokesman Matthew Mazonkey said.

Yet another seat unexpectedly open. This is certainly going to be an interesting year.

The good folks over at HotAir.com have compiled a list of responses from the nutroots on three different Progressive sites. As they say, it ain’t pretty (Warning: Language).

You have to wonder how some of these people can justify their ideology, when what they propose is nothing short of German Fascism, e.g. propagandizing. Case in point:

MHB: What we’re witnessing is the product of a corrupt media and a dumb, distractable electorate. I’m not sure that anything can be done at this point, but one thing I am sure of is that continuing to operate on the premise that the majority of Americans are reasonable, intelligent people who will do the right thing if the facts are presented to them objectively is not going to work. I know that it’s not what most people who come to this site want to hear, but most Americans need to be manipulated into doing the right thing. Reasoning with them might be the morally correct thing to do, but is simply not going to get the job done.

And let’s not forget the tolerance and “bi-partisanship:”

Joe the Liberal: It absolutely sickens me… to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their “representative”. I’m even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted’s seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.

Someone’s off their meds:

TwixVoy: They are chanting like Nazis at his victory rally. Chilling. A glimpse of things to come.

I guess for TwixVoy, the chanting of “Yes, We Can!” signifies Nazism…but wait, didn’t we hear that same chant at all the Obama rallies and victory parties? Oh yeah, we did.

Losers.

“In health care, we need to start fresh, work together to do the job right…we can do better!”

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs. And remember, as Pres. John F. Kennedy stated, that starts with across-the-board tax cuts for businesses and families to create jobs, put more money in people’s pockets, and stimulate the economy. It’s that simple.”

“Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. Let me make it very, very, very clear: they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.”

“Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop [terrorists], and not lawyers to defend them.”

Some Conservative commentators and pundits have expressed caution in regards to Scott Brown because he is so new to the political arena–we just don’t know that much about him. But if he continues with rhetoric like this, and if he can follow it up with the walk to match the talk, then I think we have a new hero in the GOP.

1075385 to 962837–93% reporting

The AP reports that Ms. Coakley has called to concede. Congratulations, Sen. Brown!