Vote Tally Count Budget 2011 Final

Here is the 2011 final below

Number:House Vote #268 in 2011

Date:Apr 14, 2011 3:00PM

Result:PassedBill:H.R. 1473: Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Here is a link to the April 14, 2011 Individual House votes Here


Here is a link to the April 14, 2011 Senate Votes Here

Obama’s speech no one is talking about: Death Panels

Finally, I found a post that echoed my response to “the speech” yesterday. Eric Erickson talks about the very worst part of his speech that I can find no where else. No conservative radio either. With Obama’s veneer of kindness and compassion to others, he literally has told us, the “non-productive” of us will have to move on to the next life. Where is the outrage? He already cut $500 billion from Medicare, and now proposed another $500 billion. Just where does that come from? Correction, someone is talking about it. update: NY Times Paul Krugman cheers inclusion of death panels in Obama’s Budget Plan

Recall our earlier post: Kidney Patients being told to accept death and forgo dialysis

 “It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems”. Take advantage?


While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”

We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.

“We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare,” Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel “the authority to make additional savings by” ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.

“Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself,” Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase “death panel,” but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama’s America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor. At  RedState

Let us not forget what the Progressive agenda is and always has been.

Pelosi:’Elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do

Nancy’s One–Party System: Pelosi: ‘Elections Shouldn’t Matter as Much as They Do’ says all we need to know our Marxist friends. No I do not share your values Nancy

RedState has the right take on this:

The thing is, Pelosi is right. Elections are burdensome things. They are expensive, intrusive and all too frequently unfair. Even when you win, the cycle of fundraising and campaigning distracts from the business at hand.

Elections are particularly burdensome when you lose. Then their inconvenience becomes glaringly apparent. New crops of politicos have to be trained over and over again to do the same tasks as their predecessors. Perfectly able, even accomplished lawmakers are routinely tossed out on their ears to make way for the ignorant and green. Majorities and minorities ebb and flow, leading to confusion over policy and priorities. Your treasured projects, nursed and nurtured in good faith, are threatened by the newcomers who do not share your values–who may in fact be devoid of values altogether and may nip those tender shoots in the bud.

Really when you look at it from Pelosi’s perspective, it all seems at best counter-intuitive and at worst barely civilized. Rest here at RedState

%d bloggers like this: