Obama Asks for “Up or Down Vote”

Today’s speech by President Obama was not the first in which he’s urged passage of comprehensive health care reform, but he’s hoping it will be his last. We’ll see.

Flanked by health care workers and wearing a bipartisan purple tie – a rarity for him – President Obama delivered remarks that carried a theme of finality. Saying it’s time to “bring this journey to a close,” the President asserted that “every idea has been put on the table, every argument has been made, everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everybody has said it…Now’s the time to make a decision.”

Without using the word “reconciliation,” Obama nonetheless urged Congressional Democrats to use the parliamentary procedure to enact comprehensive health reform. (The Democratic strategy appears to be for the House pass the Senate bill and then have both chambers pass – via simply majority – a set of changes to the Senate bill.) He pointed out that an “up or down vote” – aka reconciliation – is what it took to pass welfare reform, the children’s health insurance program and both George W. Bush tax cuts. This is true, but Democrats surely know that Republican efforts to paint reconciliation as a way to “ram the bill through” will resonate with some. (It’s worth pointing out again that reconciliation would not be used to pass comprehensive legislation. Major bills have already passed the House and Senate. Reconciliation would be used to make substantial, but not fundamental, changes to these bills.)

Obama asked Congress to “schedule a vote in the next few weeks” and asked Democrats to summon their courage to cast what could be politically suicidal votes. “We can’t just give up because the politics are hard,” he said, no doubt directly addressing House Democrats who are up for re-election this fall in moderate or conservative districts.

The President ended his statement with a sentence not in the prepared text distributed to reporters before the appearance. “Let’s get it done.”

Obama will go on the road to talk about health care in Pennsylvania and Missouri next week.

Ball’s in your court, Speaker.

Full remarks after the jump:

Remarks of President Barack Obama on Health Insurance Reform
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Washington, DC

Please find below President Obama’s remark as prepared for delivery in the East Room this afternoon. The remarks are embargoed for delivery:

Good afternoon. We began our push to reform health insurance last March with the doctors and nurses who know the system best, and so it is fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. Since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everyone has said it. So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and businesses.

Where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing – if we throw up our hands and walk away – it’s a problem that will only grow worse. More Americans will lose their family’s health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or drop people’s coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.

So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry – whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. Because if it’s good enough for Members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance marketplace where insurance companies give better rates and coverage because we give them more customers. This is an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits to do so – tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well-off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. But it’s the middle-class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

Now, it’s true that all of this will cost money – about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now, a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. With this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go toward making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re also going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance, and make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare.

The bottom line is, our proposal is paid for. And all new money generated in this plan would go back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions – families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care – ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades. And those aren’t my numbers – they are the savings determined by the CBO, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress.

So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Some also believe that we should instead pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we just tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say that we can’t afford to help them – which is why the Republican proposal only covers three million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million. But the problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can’t prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions; you can’t limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets; and you don’t do anything about the fact that taxpayers end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the Emergency Room for care. The fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all these problems at once.

Both during and after last week’s summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I do not see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over. They are continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can’t wait that long.

So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well – every family, every business owner, every patient, every doctor, every nurse.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that is because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. As a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship; misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead to just walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s a fascination, bordering on obsession, in the media and in this town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. Well, I’ll leave others to sift through the politics. Because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for the middle-class family who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives.

And this is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked about a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka [KLITZ kah]. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it spread to her bones. She and her husband were working – and had insurance – but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. In the end, that’s what this debate is about – it’s about the kind of country we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and in some cases saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law. Thank you.

###

Related Topics: bipartisan, Congress, Democratic Party, health care plan, health insurance, health reform, obama, reconciliation, Republican Party, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • spob
  • stuartzechman

    “Up-or-down vote”

  • deconstructiva

    Kate, thanks for the post / Obama remarks. Kudos for your “Ball’s in your court, Speaker” line; I see you’re picking up your swamp colleagues’ feistiness. Alas, there aren’t many balls left in Congress. I’ll bet Ensign will love an up or down vote and will ask to be on top of this …until he finds out it’s for health care.

  • sacredh

    I would love to see it passed. I have a $50 bet with an Obama hating friend of mine that it would get passed before July 4th. We made it after Croakley lost. He said he’s taking his wife out to dinner if he wins. I just decided to ship his $50 to Obama’s re-election campaign…in HIS name if I win.

  • freeinpa

    That’s what the Repubs asked for on Bush’s judicial nominees too

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:

    Democrats surely know that Republican efforts to paint reconciliation as a way to “ram the bill through” will resonate with some.

    Isn’t it rather axiomatic that “some” people will react negatively to being informed that politicians are “ramming through” legislation about which they may have heard bad things?
    .
    In the interest of helping your readers better understand the democratic process and this issue, could you please evaluate the claims of the opposing sides, and explicitly state which better conforms to the truth of the situation?
    .
    Can you please spell out for us, your woefully uninformed readers, if the Republican characterization of this particular use of reconciliation is as illegitimate an abuse of power as the phrase “ram the bill through” suggests, or not?
    .
    Mind you, I’m not asking you to compare this episode to the record of Republicans’ use of reconciliation, and then “let readers make up their own minds,” I’m requesting that you clearly inform people as to whether or not reconciliation in this instance is, in fact, as illegitimate and anti-democratic as one side’s rhetoric insists. Is it an example of simple majority rule or abuse of power? That can’t be so hard a question for a professional, seasoned political reporter to answer, can it?
    .
    Thanks in advance for helping confused readers make sense of political claims, Kate Pickert.

  • dollared

    Bless you, SZ. And Kate, could you fix the first sentence of the third paragraph? As you point out in the parenthetical at the end of the paragraph, Obama is not asking the Senate to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. He is asking the House to pass the Senate bill, which got 60 votes, and then he is asking both houses to pass some funding and spending changes to the plan via majority vote.

    I know that with your output level you have to move quickly through everything, but the fix would clarify things (and shorten the post)

    Thanks!

  • afguy

    Nice touch, sacredh.
    .
    You have a deliciously mean streak in you…

  • stuartzechman

    …he is asking both houses to pass some funding and spending changes to the plan…
    .
    A complete list of which would be…where?

  • Kate Pickert

    Good point, thanks. Fixing.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    It’s funny how liberal try to justify their actions by pointing to repubs did in the past.

    What they conveniently forget is that Obama ran on “change” platform, and all he is doing doesn’t seem like change from republican strategy!

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for responding to commentary, Kate Pickert, it is very much appreciated.

  • walkingfunny

    what part of this simple fact eludes you: the legislation has already been passed by 60 votes in the senate, and only changes will be made by reconciliation.
    .
    Can it get any simpler?, or your blind rage is obscuring even the obvious from you.

  • sacredh

    afguy: We’re really close friends but we seem to have a knack for knowing exactly what to do to p!ss each other off. He’s given me an O’Reilly book for my birthday, A Jonas Goldberg book for another birthday. an NRA membership for Christmas and a framed picture of Bush and Cheney. I think that’s crude and uncalled for. I spent alot of time picking out a donation to FLAG (in his name again), a fake NAMBLA photo (photoshopped by yours truly) of him and some teenage boys under a banner and a subscription to Oprah Winfrey’s magazine for him.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @walkingfunny

    If the bill has been passed by both houses, why doesn’t Obama just sign the bill into law? What’s the hold up?

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    The question I have about the tv drama is – did doctors and nurses brought their own white coats this time around or the white house was distributing them for free as the last time around?

    More and more this whole political circus is beginning to look like an episode of Yes Minister!

  • crosssection
  • walkingfunny

    Again, the changes are called “amendments”, you can not amend something that does not already exist …. simple enough?

  • afguy

    sacredh,
    .
    Make lemonade with this. Borrow someone’s gun, go to a firing range, and use your NRA membership for a discount.
    .
    Use the O’Reilly book and the Cheney/Bush picture for the targets. Put a round in each then run like h*ll for the parking lot.

  • sambam23

    Wow – seems like ‘darkskinned’ needs a civics lesson. I wish the rabid right would learn a thing or two about government before they comment on forums like this.

    The President can only sign a bill into law after both houses pass THE SAME bill. That’s why the house now needs to pass teh Senate version of the healthcare bill. That is, the one that passed the Senate with 60 votes.

    Anyone else need a civics lesson here?

  • afguy

    If Dave Vitter heard that someone was voting for “coverage”, I imagine he’d be there too…

  • sacredh

    Uh….the books are gone. I invited him over for a cookout and used the books to get the branches going in the firepit. He was mad until I told him that now I was book burning Nazi just like him. He’s conservative but he has a great sense of humor.

  • afguy

    Too bad…
    .
    Based on the quality/absorbancy of the paper in Goldberg’s book, I had JUST the use for it in mind…

  • newfreedomblog

    On the one hand we have the liberal shills for ObamaCare saying…
    .

    “(It’s worth pointing out again that reconciliation would not be used to pass comprehensive legislation. Major bills have already passed the House and Senate. Reconciliation would be used to make substantial, but not fundamental, changes to these bills.)”

    .
    Then we have Obama with his own words, not that long ago saying this on video…
    .
    http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy/
    .
    The “audacity” of hope springs eternally. The FLIP-FLOPPING President remains in power for 3 more years. (Well, 2 years and 11 months).
    .
    Audacity is a great personal attribute, especially when you go against 76% of the people who are clearly against this bill.
    .
    We shall see who the Democrats are in Congress which represent those district with a heavily Republican majority will vote. Will they listen to their voters, or a flip-flopping President?
    .
    Those Congressmen and Women who do vote for this bill have approximately 11 months to continue to screw the people of this country.
    .
    Kill the Bill, or we shall vote you OUT of office in November.

  • newfreedomblog

    You may want to wait until the Parliamentarian of the Senate has a chance to rule on procedure before you make many changes, Ms Picket. Simply abiding by the lunatice loons on the left’s interpretation of the rules may come back to slap you in the face.
    .
    Something tells me the ruling shall be “you can’t do it”.
    .

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @sambam23

    In that case, it’s ok! The house will not pass the senate version as it is! Heck, Pelosi barely got enough votes to pass the House version.

    You guys can keep dreaming, it will not happen.

    Another thing I don’t understand is why is Obama talking about simple vote in the Senate if all he needs for bill to become the law is for the house to pass the senate version? Am I missing something or, is Obama having trouble reading teleprompter?

  • FlownOver

    Whereas the GNoP response looks more and more like the Silly Party in the Python Election Night Special sketch – complete with Eric Cantor as Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F’tang F’tang Olé Biscuitbarrel

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    At least they don’t look like the HomoCrats :D

  • sambam23

    @darkskinned
    I guess the civics lesson needs to continue. Last one I’m doing without having you pay for it.

    The simple up-or-down vote that they’re talking about in the Senate will be for the “sidecar” legislation to make some budgetary fixes to the Senate bill that passed with 60 votes. Maybe you should try paying attention and learning a thing or two before you subject us all to your uninformed commentary?

    And what was that crack about the teleprompter? Of course the sainted Ronald Reagan and the amazing Sarah Palin never use teleprompters. You guys are truly lame. Have you thought about a career at Fux News?

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @sambam23

    Thanks for the lesson, I really appreciate that. I’m still learning about the American political system.

    Isn’t new Obama plan has more than simple budgetary fixes? How is that going to work out under reconcilliation?

  • megatronrises

    I don’t understand you, or any of the other recent right-wing posters.
    .
    This isn’t a place for grandstanding, or declaring “We the People [insert Tea Party talking point here]” or “We’ll vote you out.” It’s a place for debate and to have a conversation, either with the post(er) or with each other. Get it straight.
    .
    If I wanted talking points, I’d watch Fox News.
    .
    Go away. And no, I don’t want to hear about the puppies you just killed with your AK47. Just leave us alone.
    .

  • nflfoghorn

    Slightly OT: I saw a well-decorated van on the mean streets of North Fla that had a US flag, Christian flag, BO’s pic on the roof and a pic of a “chopped-up” fetus and “Kill the Bill” on the back.

  • newfreedomblog

    Rather being “flanked” by healthcare workers. Obama is “flanked” by Prince Harry and Lady Nancy.
    .
    http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4947
    .
    Click to see the newest picture of the “One”

  • http://www.davesromanticpiano.com durangodave
  • Ivy_B

    Via twitter rkref In biz, it’s critical to know your customer. RNC knows its customer is vain & fearful.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html

  • sacredh

    The paper was too rough. Besides, I’m not putting anything that stunk that bad anywhere near my sacred place.

  • maverick2k9

    “Audacity is a great personal attribute, especially when you go against 76% of the people who are clearly against this bill.”

    erm.. FYI.. Obama won the elections and has the people’s mandate until 2012. So I would suggest you stop talking about polls that have less participants than American Idol.

  • repzak

    Thank you both of you for a great laugh :D I have a friend like that, and I just took away some great ideas from this conversation.

  • http://liberalspin.wordpress.com darkskinned

    @maverick2k9

    “Obama won the elections and has the people’s mandate until 2012. So I would suggest you stop talking”

    Come november, it’s gonna change! American people will start talking then. I guess you start preparing to go into your hibernation.

    @megatronrises
    Nah.. You should stick to watching Rachel Maddow :D

  • afguy

    We aim to please…
    .
    ‘Course, some of us have better aim than others…

  • lcky9

    MEMO they changed the name.. it’s simple majority.. Oh that and the up and down vote is just to easy for a serious comment..

    Beside reconciliation is ONLY for BUDGET bills.. I have to ask if so many American’s are suppose to want this so bad WHY are they twisting the arms and promising federal jobs to the DEMS to go against the people they represent if those same people FIRE them (and they will) in November..? Strange..don’t you think? Nothing like BUYING votes to feed your ego..

    Next year the repealing of Obama’s ego..LOL..

  • http://gwen110.wordpress.com/ gwen110

    I was watching the speech today while I was getting my car fixed. Ironic, I suppose. I think Obama should also legislate health care for cars.

    But in other events, I was really excited when he said that he would try to make Insurance companies cover people’s pre-existing conditions. Man, am I ever going to save! And also he said that people are going to be able to get reimbursed for their medical expenses with their taxes. Wow! I am either going to get 900 more than usual, or I am going to get my Insurance company to cover it. I am excited.

  • jeffkoke

    Gwen,
    It seems like you were trying to make a point, but your incoherence got in the way.

  • maverick2k9

    darkskinned, umm.. Can you then at least shut up about “76% of Americans not supporting HCR” until November?
    .
    Come November, IF (thats a big IF) repugs get a super majority in the senate, they are most welcome to repeal HCR/Govt takeover of HC/ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill.
    .
    If they don’t, well… they will get a taste of their own “filibusting” medicine :) . Thats what elections are for.

  • http://mcnealystephanie.wordpress.com mcnealystephanie

    I think our system is defeating itself. To protect democracy we deny democracy. we have filibuster rule that almost making every Senator with veto power. We need to go back to basic, where simple majority rules. it is not about just healthcare. it is about being able to live in society where we don’t feel hostage to a guy in Nebraska, or Boston etc.. I really hope that they go through the reconciliation process because it is a simple majority rule. And I ask of this president and this congress to eliminate the 60 filibuster rule. because it is simply destroying our hope for progress. and I am sure Democrat like Republicans in this congress will not want to let go from this powerful tool. I hope that these in Senate do understand that ideas are power, but when power become the idea loss is imminent.
    Stephanie Mcnealy
    http://www.famous-philanthropists.org

blog comments powered by Disqus