The Associated Press reported that HB496 was defeated on the floor of the Missouri State Senate 18-6 yesterday.

The bill would make Sudafed a controlled substance and require a doctors visit before people could purchase it.

While I understand the reasoning behind the effort to combat meth, to me the piece of legislation seemed over the top.

Maybe in the coming years Sudafed and other sinus relief medicines will be developed where pseudoephedrine is no longer needed. This is what we should be working toward, not making a bad situation worse to those of us who suffer from sinus problems.

Roy Blunt got to comment yesterday on the Fox Business network and debated issues ranging from the current economic situation to government provided health care. I highly advise people to watching this exchange. Lots of substance.

Is there any wonder Robin Carnahan refuses to meet Congressman Blunt at any type of discussion forum?

If reports from the Wall Street Journal and the Hill are correct, then the Obama administration will be making unprecedented grabs of power in depth, breadth and perhaps most concerning the speed at which the expansion of government control will increase.

To start off, Obama is promising unions that the Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act will pass. The legislation allows unions to bypass a federal requirement that organizations take a secret ballot vote on whether or not to form a union. Instead, union organizers simply could pressure a simple majority into signing a document which would the government would immediately recognize as a union.

The financial impact on businesses nation wide would leave a wake of unprecedented devastation while businesses would be shackled with new government imposed requirements and union contracts.

Of course this wouldnt matter to President Obama or the Democrat party who apparently believe financial institutions like the stock market do not measure the American economy. The highly partisan act would increase union membership in intern funnel millions of dollars into Democrat campaign funds.

To that end, the mission would be accomplished.

If that piece of legislation wasn’t enough to pause for concern, then a not so little matter reported by the Hill today should. Apparently the Obama administration is contemplating pushing government controlled health care and a cap and trade tax system through Congress in a manner which would mean little to no debate and guarantee its passage.

Instead of debating government controlled health care as a separate matter, the legislation may be slipped into a budget bill which only requires fifty votes.

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing that legislation which would take over large sections of our economy would require not even a simple majority with little or no debate? Whats worse, perhaps, is the far reaching implications of such legislation.

With government controlled health care we as individuals will lose a quality health care system as choices are removed from doctors and services are rationed.

Not to be outdone would be a 100% cap and trade system which the Obama administration champions that would tax many farms and businesses out of existence because of their “carbon foot print.”

Each of these proposals removes freedom and liberty from our nation and are proven losers when implemented abroad. Yet there is still no objective analysis in the media few willing to stand in the gap and act as any source of reason or impediment.

I am guessing that as long as Americans give Democrats a pass and ignore what is going on in Congress and what is actually hurting the economy, this will be the case. By then I can only wonder what will be left of our nation.

In the mean time I will offer a glimmer of hope based on a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which surveyed more Democrats than Republicans by a thirteen percentage point margin.

While self described “moderates” dominated the poll at 38 percent, 34 percent called themselves conservative compared to 23 self identified liberals.

More to the point, on health care, nearly seventy percent of people believe someone else besides the government should be responsible for taking care of health care needs. (question 32d)

For those who havent taken notice yet, several politicians in Jefferson City are seeking to make Sudafed a controlled substance in Missouri.

Yeah, I aint kidding either.

I understand the logic behind the bill in making an effort to take away pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient to making meth.

However, to force people to see a doctor every time they need sinus relief is just nuts. I dont mind telling you that at least in my experience, you dont get relief from sinus pressure and symptoms until you take Sudafed or a similar medicine with pseudoephedrine in it.

Sorry. I prefer a dose of common sense.

I am sure some of us read the headline over the past couple of days about Democrat chairman in the House of Representatives getting steamed and so forth, but did anyone read the article?

Whats more, do people really understand what the underlying problem is and why it is so pearlous for America to continue with the issue that is raised in the article.

No, I am not talking about the problem which the article directly talks about. What I am concerned about is a bit deeper and is very disconcerning.

I should note this isnt the first time Pelosi has pulled something on this order. Remember the first “one hundred hours” of the 110th Congress?

What we are seeing is something very similar and really questions why the House of Representatives exists any more.

A news story which hasnt made any news at all, but is of utmost importance is the Democrats doing away with “prompt” Motion to Recommits.

Not only did this motion break with more than a hundred years of tradition in the House of Representatives, but it severly restricts any voice or rights which the minorty has.

I asked Congressman Blunt a few questions on the matter. Here is out Interview.

AoI: Some media outlets labeled the motion to recommit as a tool to simply “sending a bill to be buried.” Could you clarify exactly what the motion to recommit does in the House of Representatives and why Republicans used the tool in the 110th Congress? How does this differ compared to the rules of the 110th Congress and those of the past?

Blunt: Over 100 years ago the Minority insisted on including MTRs in the House Rules after Speaker Joe Cannon ruled the House with virtually no input from the Minority.  There are two types of MTRs – promptly and forthwith – Democrats did away with the promptly MTRs.  Promptly MTRs send the bill back to committee for changes.  Forthwith amends the bill right then.  Now, during this past Congress many bills never even went through committee, instead they were written at a conference table in the Speaker’s office.  Republicans used the tools last Congress with success to alter legislation for the better.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann offered a promptly motion to recommit on housing legislation that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for financial assistance.  Democrats pulled the bill, reintroduced it incorporating Mrs. Bachmann’s motion and the legislation passed.  When the House debated legislation to reauthorize and expand Americorps, Congressman Randy Kuhl offered a promptly motion that barred murderers and sex offenders from receiving grants under this program.  Once again Democrats pulled the bill, but it came up again just six days later and failed on its own merit – not because of Republican motions to recommit.  And one more example would be Congressman Pete Hoekstra’s attempt to create an estimate on the impact of gasoline prices on our national security.  This time Democrats didn’t pull the bill.  They defeated the motion, passed the underlying bill and a few days later passed Mr. Hoekstra’s motion to recommit.

Not once was this century-old rule used to bury or kill anything.  Rather it was the minority’s attempt to restore the legislative process.

AoI: In a speech given after her swearing in, Speaker Pelosi demanded action on a list of issues ranging from healthcare to national security. Is there any indication that she wants to work in a bipartisan manner?

Blunt: It is going to be very interesting.  President-elect Obama has signaled that he wants to legislate in a bipartisan fashion.  Now it’s time to see if he can convince his party to follow his new leadership philosophy or if business as usual will reign supreme.

Question: Are any tools left for Republicans to voice opposition or act as any meaningful check against bad legislation or hidden ear mark drops?

Blunt: There are not a lot of options left, but we can still offer forthwith MTRs.  While it won’t restore the legislative process, it will allow a small sliver of opportunity for us to improve bills.

As I mentioned earlier, Congressman Roy Blunt heald a conference call this afteroon with local media and bloggers. In a follow up email I received the answers to several hard questions regarding the bill’s reach in government and why such a compromise bill is important to all - including us who try to live by limited government principles.

The answers, as always, were to the point and informative.

—-

Arena of Ideas: I was at a local eating establishment at lunch – all eyes were glued on a television showing the vote. A lot of the conversation huddled around three things – ACORN getting a twenty percent kick back, too much power in the hands of government, and no real solution to what caused the problem. How do you address these concerns?

Congressman Roy Blunt: In sitting at the negotiating table with Democrats, it was clear from the beginning they favored an “ornamental” approach to crafting this package – adding in provisions allowing judges to unilaterally toss out and amend the terms of individual mortgages, a partisan oversight board that was more about politics than accountability, and a dedicated stream of taxpayer resources straight into the bank accounts of left-wing advocacy organizations like ACORN. Every one of those provisions was stripped out in the end, and though no one would suggest the product produced was perfect, it’d be tough (and incorrect) to argue it’s a special interest give-away. Unless by “special interests” you mean individuals’ 401(k)s, Roth IRAs, pension plans, and money market accounts.

AoI: Larry Kudlow of CNBC/National Review mentioned today that Pelosi might try to get a far left version of the bill passed along a party line vote. How much of a reality is this?

RB: Too early to handicap what steps will be taken next. Everyone agrees our economy is facing serious economic challenges right now; not everyone agrees on the best means of confronting them. Over the next few days, the conversation over what to do next, and how to do it, will be a lively one. But ultimately, nothing short of a genuine bi-partisan plan will have a chance of becoming law.

AoI: What is the most difficult challenge in working in the current political environment?

RB: Time. Very little of it exists between now and the next election, but a lot more of it would’ve been helpful in going through the right sort of process to get this package in a place where it could pass. Unfortunately, the scope and reach of the crisis we face right now necessitated swift and serious action. And even though we didn’t get a bill passed today, I’m hopeful we can come together on another bi-partisan plan later this week.

AoI: What would you say to those who are adamantly opposed to the bill solely on the basis of free market principles?

RB: If this bill represented a genuine bail-out – with neither a chance nor an expectation that taxpayers would recoup a large share of the assets they’re investing in – I don’t know that a defense of that sort would exist. But that’s not this bill. What this bill did attempt to do, however, was give the market a little time to sort out the value of assets – assets that we know have value, have had value in the past, and will have it again in the future. And when they do, taxpayers will be the first in line to collect that value. Unfortunately, waiting for that valuation to occur on its own would limit the ability of everyday Americans to get a loan, everyday businesses to make payroll, and everyday banks to be put in a tough situation with cash on hand. That’s why we need to act.

Just a note here regarding the “bail out” bill being discussed in Congress at the moment - I just dont know.

There is just too much uncertainty and not enough odds and ends are being released to the public at large for me to make an informed decision.

I do like what I heard in that there will be no ACORN gimme and there might be adequate tax payer protection.

Until the bill is posted live and is analyzed to make sure Democrats dont get to sneak garbage into it, I just dont have any faith in the process.

I would also note that we should give kudos to House Republicans who stood their ground and got a lot of junk out of the bill which would have hurt the American tax payer at large.

I am proud to say that our Congressman, Roy Blunt, was the representative and negotiator for that group.

To be sure Congressman Blunt faced a lot of tough wrangling and pressure applied by Democrats in the process. We should all be proud that he and House Republicans were able to force a better bill.

Equally important is the role John McCain took in making sure that House Republicans received representation which was not afforded them until the Senior Senator from Arizona stepped in.

In case anyone didnt catch it, Democrats passed a highly partisan energy bill today with little analysis allowed since it did not go through committee.

The bill, as with the Orwellian named union check card bill which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year, restricts far more of the oil reserves than allows for open exploration.

Here are a few of the highlights:

• Implements vast restrictions on energy drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) compared to what would otherwise be allowed if the current moratorium on OCS energy development were allowed to expire on October 1, 2008. 
• Provides states no incentive to allow for the expanded OCS drilling.  That is, states would not get revenue shares in any of the newly leased areas.Repeals the moratorium on oil shale on federal lands, but prohibits any actual oil shale leasing unless a state allows it via state law. Allowing the current moratorium to simply expire in two weeks would allow for oil shale leasing on federal lands without state approvals.  (note that we have a vast supply of shale oil ready to be tapped, but is restricted because of federal laws)
• Releases 70 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and provides for a subsequent replenishment with a less desirable grade of oil.  
• Authorizes $1.7 billion taxpayer dollars to subsidize public transportation ridership already at record levels.
• Includes a requirement, commonly known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard or the Renewable Electricity Standard, that electric suppliers, other than governmental entities and rural electric cooperatives, provide 2.75% of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2010—and increasing incrementally to 15% by the year 2020.
• Directs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages on housing for low and moderate income families—and for second and junior mortgages made for the purposes of energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements.
• Mandates gas stations owned by larger oil and gas companies to install at least one alternative fuel pump (natural gas, E-85, biodiesel, or hydrogen) by 2018.
• Includes the Charlie Rangel transportation earmark for New York by terminating the remaining portions of the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives program (implemented to encourage business investment in lower Manhattan).
• Includes several tax increases—primarily the special carve-out of large (and foreign-government-owned) oil and gas producers from the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, the freeze of this tax deduction for all other oil and gas companies, and a restriction of how foreign oil and gas extraction income is determined for purposes of the foreign income tax credit.  The bill also includes a PAYGO gimmick that will force energy companies to remit $3 billion in estimated taxes in FY2013 sooner than they otherwise would have to.

Roy Blunt made the following comment regarding the decoy bill.

“Regrettably, the Democrats did not support the bipartisan bill that we brought to the floor this evening.  They decided instead to jam through a partisan bill that will never become law.  But then again, solving America’s energy crisis was never the Democrats’ objective – distracting the American people from the real reasons for record-high energy prices was, has been and continues to be their goal.”

I, my self, would ask people to note exactly what Democrats are trying to pull. Without a Republican in the White House to veto such a bill our national resources would be put off limits permanently.

In an effort to tarnish Palin’s image as a reformer, the Obama campaign and media both made recent claims that Palin flip-flopped is responsible for the “bridge to no where” and took no part in saying no to the project. The truth is a hair different.

The New York Post is reporting a different story than what the media is trying to push as a way to tarnish Palin’s image as a reformer.

It is true that Palin advocated the bridge while she was running for governor. However once in office and determined the project was a collosal waste of tax payer money she in fact did say “no” to Washington, D.C..

At that point Congress could have pulled the funds or redirect them New Orleans to assist with post-Katrina rebuilding infrastructure there, instead it proceeded simply reallocate the funds to other Alaskan projects.

Who voted to give Alaska its funds? Barack Obama. McCain was not present for the vote on the Coburn amendment. The vote can be found here. The text of the amendment can be found here.