Moe Lane

Oh, boy.

Fifty-three pages of fun, fun, fun.  If you ever wanted to know the precise timetable of the government doing to health care what they did to the US housing market and manufacturing sector – more likely, if you gloomily think that you need to know – well, here you go. I’ve been told that there may be some multimedia of the more… typically Democratic… parts of it later; I suspect that it’ll happen after the House staff involved stop twitching.

But You Have Been Warned:

DISCLAIMER: This document represents the best efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee Republican staff to describe the substantive provisions and effective dates of the legislation. Because of the lack of clarity, internal inconsistencies, and ambiguity in the text, many provisions will inevitably be subject to dispute or alternative interpretations.

I know that pity for House staffers may sometimes be in short supply around here, but you should show some sympathy for the poor Republican folks on the House Energy/Commerce Committee that had to wade through the legislative swill and greywater that is Obamacare for almost a month in order to extract useful information for the rest of us. After all, it’s not like any of their bosses voted for the despicable thing.

Moe Lane

PS: Why did Energy/Commerce have to do this one?

Why, indeed.  It’s amazing that Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 doesn’t whimper every time somebody looks at it, the way that we work it so…

Crossposted to RedState.

Yeah, you know where that last bit’s going.

[UPDATE]: (Via Ed’s original post, and thanks for the link) John Huang? John Huang?
OK, that’s it. Somebody from the White House give me a call. I will personally pick out a Commerce Secretary for you. It will be a liberal Democrat, with no skeletons in his or her closet – I’m actually leaning towards her at this point – and nothing that will make the GOP freak out. As God as my witness, I will not play any partisan games. This is a legitimate offer.
Because you people are embarrassing me with this, that’s why.

Kind of the point, really.

Via Hot Air we hear a story that sounds hauntingly familiar about Obama’s third-time’s-the-charm pick for Commerce (former WA Democratic governor Gary Locke):

LET’S SAY YOU’RE Gov. Gary Locke’s brother-in-law. You bunk at the governor’s mansion. You commute to your nearby job as an executive of a private technology firm.

uring your two years with the firm, the governor signs a bill giving your company a tax break, personally intervenes in a dispute involving your company, shows up for a party there, and signs a federal loan application for your company, whose founders—your bosses—pay at least two visits to the mansion.

At the same time, your company rakes in millions in state aid, lands a fat state technology contract, and is allowed to use government credit authority to float new loans (an authority illegally granted, as a state auditor’s report will reveal this week).

Are you getting gubernatorial favors that average citizens don’t get?

Naaaw, says the governor.

So, where have I heard this before? (more…)

It’d be a bit of a surprise to me if he did – I’ve heard a bit about the man, but nothing along those lines – but he’s a Democrat being considered for a Cabinet post (Commerce*), so you’ll understand why I’m asking.

(H/T: Glenn Reynolds)

Moe Lane

PS: Harold Ford does not have a “Merrill problem.”  There are apparently people who are making it a point to make sure that this is known, so I thought that I’d just pass it on.

*Otherwise known as the “fugu fish of the Obama Cabinet.”

Crossposted at RedState.

Since he’s apparently having quite the problem with filling the position, what with the pay-for-play and the lack of vetting and the clumsy attempts at looked-good-on-paper political stratagems. Anyway, here’s the suggestion: Why don’t you just abolish the Commerce Department? After all, your last pick thought that it was a good idea, and you thought his judgment was sound, right? I mean, I’d hate to think that you were too intellectually incurious to actually know that about Senator Gregg.

As for the question: given that you’re probably going to go with having a Democrat back in the position – although I hear that the Libertarians would quite like a go – I was wondering whether you were going to trust him or her with the Census gig?

Moe Lane

PS: Your guy Gibb is just a touch too ungracious for his job. Keep him.

Crossposted at RedState.

Since when?

No, I’m quite serious: since when?

This is all part of this little article (Glenn Reynolds summed it up perfectly, by the way) about Sen. Gregg’s real value to this administration:

MANCHESTER – Sen. Judd Gregg yesterday declined all comment on reports that the White House will strip him of his authority over the federal Census Bureau even before he becomes Secretary of Commerce.

Gregg spokesman Laena Fallon said all comment would come from the White House.

A White House spokesman last evening said, “From the first days of the transition the census has been a priority for the president, and a process he wanted to reevaluate. There is historic precedent for the director of the census, who works for the Commerce Secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management — given the number of decisions that will have to be put before the president. We plan to return to that model in this administration.”

(more…)

Probably not, but maybe some day the progressives will find their spines again.

Glenn Thrush has a statement from CBC Chair Rep. Barbara Lee that certainly sounds like they’re reserving the option:

“In this light, Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department’s core missions.

We may know more when they get around to putting the press release on their own site. (more…)

So he did, so he did. Back in 1996. Via Political Wire, via Instapundit.

This would be merely funny, except that it’s becoming increasingly clear that “to vet” is a verb not often used in the Obama administration…

Crossposted at RedState.

OK, I understand that it was completely unexpected* that Gov Bill Richardson (D-NM) (and author of the book Leading by Example**) might have been caught up in pay-for-play shenanigans, but he dropped out January 4th. That was over two weeks ago: why are they still vetting people? Didn’t they have a backup?

You’d think that they would have had a backup for Commerce, given that we’re in the middle of one thoroughly messed-up economy. What if Richardson had been hit by a bus, or something?

Moe Lane
(more…)