Harry Reid has some gonads. He is accusing the Republicans of not having any healthcare plans, when he himself technically does not have a completed healthcare bill to show the world. Last week, he sent off pieces of healthcare legislation for a CBO cost analysis. So the Republicans said they wanted to see the bill that he sent to the CBO. Well the truth of the matter is that this bill hasn't even been written yet. He is waiting for the CBO analysis to come back in order to decide which direction he wants to take. Then he took a shot at the Republicans for daring to request to see this elusive bill he submitted to the CBO. Reid said that the GOP health care plan "remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist." He goes on to say, "I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized."

Unfortunately for Harry Reid, the Republicans do have healthcare bills. Three of them. And they have been on the table since May and June of this year. CNSNews has the list:

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page "Patients Choice Act of 2009."

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the "Health Care Freedom Plan," a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the "Empowering Patients First Act," a 130-page plan.

Harry Reid is desperate. So are his Democrat friends. They know that they are losing this battle to get their healthcare plans passed. So now they are complaining that the other side doesn't even have a plan. Shouldn't we be thanking these Democrats! Oh we should be so thankful ... at least THEY have come up with plans to take over 18% of our economy!

Have you been following this House election in upstate New York? The Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has some stiff competition, and it isn't from the Democrat candidate. It is from Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. Republicans Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty have thrown their support behind Hoffman in what is turning out to be a clash of principles ... what does it mean to be conservative versus Republican?

This Scozzafava woman has some positions that don't sit all that well with the Republican base. Truth is, she's probably running as a Republican only because that area has a history of voting Republican in congressional elections.

But wait until next year. The midterm elections of 2010 may be our last chance to save this Republic. No .. .I'm serious. With the anti-capitalists we have running the show right now the time is short. It may be next year ... or never. Watch the Republicans though. Despite what's at sake, Republicans are going to engage the idiotic abortion litmus test. Candidates are going to be judged primarily on whether or not they want to use the police power of government to force women to continue with pregnancies they want to terminate. This one question will be the beginning and the end of all deliberations as to whether or not to support particular Republican candidates. Makes sense, doesn't it? The future of this country is at stake and these abortocentrists are going to be doing the work of the Democrat party.

Throughout this debate on healthcare, the Democrats have repeatedly promised the American people that we would be able to keep our current health insurance plans. Meanwhile, they continue to complain that the Republicans "don't have any ideas" or "don't have any plans."

So let's put this to the test.

Senator Orrin Hatch (a Republican) proposed an amendment that stated that "the implementation of the final health care bill would not take place unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) was able to certify before Congress that the legislation would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to lose their current coverage."

The amendment comes up for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee and what happens? It was rejected by a vote on party lines -- all the Republicans voted for it and all the Democrats against.

You've been had, folks. If the Democrats were serious about their promises on healthcare reform, they would have supported or included many of these ideas, proposals and amendments presented by the Republicans. But they haven't, and then they have the audacity to say that the Republicans haven't brought anything to the table.

Unbelievable.

That's our president speaking. He's referring to the Republican opponents of his healthcare takeover plan. Obama says "What are you going to do? What's your answer? What's your solution?" He then goes on to say that the Republicans have no plan; they've presented no alternatives; all they want to do is make sure there's no reform.

This, of course, is a lie .. and Obama knows it. He also knows that the neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times will challenge the president by presenting the GOP options that are already on the table.

Just a few examples?

• Expand health savings accounts.
• Allow individual consumers to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just as their employers do.
• Controls on medical malpractice suits.
• Allow individuals to buy insurance across state lines.
• Allow like groups to combine their numbers to buy large group health insurance policies.
• Expand the treatment authority of nurse practitioners
• End absurd state imposed insurance mandates that drive insurance costs up.

Just to expand on one idea the Republicans have put forth ....

Do you know that in some states it is actually illegal for an employer to pay for a health insurance policy that will actually be owned by the employee? In other words, the employer cannot buy an insurance policy for an employee that the employee would be able to take with him when he leaves or changes jobs. You have to ask yourself why this particular law would have been passed. Easy: because if you actually own the policy it increases your independence. These politicians simply are not going to take any actions that will increase individual independence. The motive force behind governance at the federal level is to create and expand dependency. So ... to respond to Obama's "What's your answer?" rant .. let's talk about changing this particular law.

Try to remember some of these ideas put forth by the ObamaCare opponents the next time our president gets up in front of the cameras and says "What's your plan?"

Why is the Republican Party losing voters? Why is the Republican Party lacking in popularity while polls show that more Americans consider themselves conservative? Well according to Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Republicans lack any original ideas. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are completely impotent. It has nothing to do with their general obsession with a woman's womb. According to George Voinovich, it has everything to do with Southerners. Yep .. Southerners are to blame for the Republicans' lagging popularity.

Voinovich told the Columbus dispatch that the Senate is filled with too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns. He says, It's the Southerners ... They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr ... People hear them and say, 'These people, they're Southerners. The party's being taken over by Southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?'"

Anti-South bias. Nothing new to me. There are radio stations out there who refuse to run my program for no other reason than that it originates in Atlanta, Georgia. The bias is real ... but I'll just say that I'm damned glad I don't live in Ohio or New Jersey. I'll just take Atlanta and Naples and be more than thrilled.

Certainly Sarah Palin didn't resign her seat as Alaska's governor to pursue a higher political office. Now she has the patina of a quitter and is no longer a viable candidate.

While the Democrats battle within their own party to come up with a healthcare bill that they think can pass, the Republicans have decided to come up with a bill of their own. Does it have any legs to stand on? Not a chance. But here are some of the details according to CNN Money ......

• "Pools" of insurance. It would let states, small businesses and others group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Such pools would have to offer, at a minimum, any coverage that is provided in a majority of states.
• Medicaid transfer. It would allow Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer/apply those to a private health care plan instead.
• Boosting of health care savings accounts. It would increase incentives for people, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, to build up HSAs. OK .. this idea has merit.
• Automatic insurance. It would encourage employers to sign up their workers for health insurance automatically, so that employees would have to "opt out" of coverage if they didn't want it. This is reform? How about moving more health insurance policies to private ownership, instead of corporate.
• Longer coverage for youths. It would allow dependent children to stay on their parents' policies until they are 25.
• Promotion of wellness at the workplace. It would encourage employers to reward employees for improved health.
• Expansion of community health centers.
• Mobile health care. It would allow Americans to maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.
• In-home care. It would provide financial help and encourage more in-home care over institutions.
• Limitations on malpractice lawsuits. There is general agreement over limiting such lawsuits, but a deep divide exists over exactly how much.

This is weak. Very weak. There is only a minimal promotion of the private sector here. Let me give you just a few ideas of things they missed:

1. Allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.
2. End all state insurance mandates. If some insurance company wants to market an insurance policy that doesn't cover for the normal costs of childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments, obesity treatments, alcohol-related treatments and the like ... then let them.
3. Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.
4. Expand the privileges of nurse practitioners. I don't need someone with seven years of medical school and residency to prescribe an antibiotic for a sore throat.
5. Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.
6. Require only life-saving medical care to those who are in this country illegally.
7. Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

That too me all of 90 seconds .. .and there's not one idea there that expands the size or scope of government.

Let's back into this. A Republican aide in the Tennessee state legislature sent out an email to fellow GOP staff members. The email was a collage of portraits from the other 43 presidents, and the last portrait depicted Barack Obama as two white eyes peering from a black background. Now the Democrats are calling for the aide, Sherri Goforth, to be fired.

Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester says, "I am calling on Sen. Black to reject this racist smear and fire this staffer who, on state government time, on state government computers, using a state government e-mail account, launched this bigoted attack on our president ... This e-mail is reprehensible, insults the office of the president, and is embarrassing to all Tennesseans regardless of political party," Forrester said.

The staffer shouldn't be fired because she's a racist. She should be fired because she's dumb as hell. Sorry ... and I know that the Democrats are using this for some good old-fashioned race baiting, but what kind of an idiot would send out that email in the first place?

A recent Gallup polls shows that 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative. Only 21% of Americans call themselves liberal and 35% consider themselves moderate.

Clearly all of these conservatives don't consider themselves to be Republicans. Many of them are round in the ranks of or in sympathy with the Libertarians. A lot of them even vote Democrat. Conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. There are a lot of conservatives, for instance, who do not feel that it is the government's role to control a woman's reproductive life. Many of them won't vote Republican until the party starts to concentrate more on governance than it does on people's personal lives.

Fact is, the Republican party is out of fresh and new ideas, and it is ignoring the good old ones. Where are the Republicans who are standing up with anything more than a whimper for free enterprise?

OK .. you know where I'm going. I'm completely convinced that if the Republican party would put its full support behind the FairTax, and pledge to pass it as soon as they have control of the House and the Senate, it would turn next year's midterm election on its ear. The FairTax would become the issue. Sure, the Democrats would demagogue it, but as more and more Americans learned the truth their demagoguery would serve to hurt their cause, not help it. The formula here is so simple. Would you rather pay the government 33% of everything you earn, or 23% of everything you spend. What do you think of the idea of nobody paying any taxes at all to the federal government until they have provided for the basic necessities for their family? Now think about that one. Should the government have a claim on one single penny of the money you earn --- or, to state it differently --- should the government have any claim on one single minute of your life before you've taken care of your own family's basic needs? Unless I miss my guess, most Americans would answer "no" to those questions. Can't you see the Republicans running on a campaign of "Not one penny for the government until your family is taken care of." Well, that's the FairTax.

Why won't the Republicans get behind this? The FairTax is the most thoroughly studied and researched piece of legislation ever to have been placed before the Congress of the United States. Still, the Republicans don't believe that they can stand up to Democrat demagoguery. They have no confidence in the voters. They think that the voters will respond to simplistic and sophomoric ideas like calling the Democrat Party the "Socialist Democrat Party." Yeah ... that's showing 'em. But when it comes to supporting and promoting legislation that would bring about the largest transfer of power from the government to the people in our history .... The Republicans shy away.

There are trillions of dollars ... perhaps as much as $13 trillion ... in American dollar-denominated deposits working in overseas economies. Those dollars belong to Americans and American corporations. Stimulus? You want stimulus? What if that money came flowing back home to work in our economy? Can you imagine the stimulus to our economy that would result from just one-half of this money coming back home? This money would be spent by the people who earned it and own it, not by the government. The spending decisions would be privately made, not made in Washington's dark chambers. Obama's idea? Pass laws that tax these overseas earnings right here at home. Construct an economic Berlin Wall. If you see a dollar trying to escape our tax system, shoot it down without remorse. The FairTax plan? The FairTax play that could be the Republican plan? Tell the people who hold this wealth to bring it home with absolutely no federal tax consequences whatsoever. No taxes, no interest on taxes, no penalties .. nothing. Bring it home and put it to work in America and for Americans. But ... have you heard one single Republican present these different approaches to the American people?

How can the Democrats frighten the Republicans so much on this plan? The Democrats would argue for withholding money from your paycheck before you even see it. The Republicans could argue for presenting you with 100% of your paycheck every payday. The Democrats could argue for taxing everything that moves. The Republicans could argue for businesses operating in the US with no tax component on capital or labor. The Republicans aren't willing to take on this argument?

How sad it must be to have the hearts and minds of the plurality of the American people, but be unable to translate that into actual support. How on Earth do we have Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the show? Again, I said there were two reasons. The first being that the Republican Party has nothing going for itself. The second is because the American people have been conned ... at least in the presidential election ... into voting for a man who promised them "hope" and "change."

Elections have consequences. Are you starting to figure that out yet?

The Republicans just don't seem to get it. They are too busy fighting petty arguments and being "against" the Democrats, and they can't seem to get any freakin' ideas of their own. Why would Americans want to join a party that doesn't have any ideas, any purpose, any vision? Even if you don't agree with the Democrats' plans - universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, card check - at least they HAVE ideas. Being in the "minority" is not an excuse. If anything, this should be THE time for Republicans to start coming up with innovative initiatives to its party energized. But instead, they come up with stunts like this .....

Republicans in the House have decided to form a caucus to fight liberal media bias. The Media Fairness Caucus will "point out unfair stories, meet with members of the media, and write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias."

The caucus will be beaded by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who says that media bias is the "greatest threat to our democracy today ... because, if the American people can't get good information, can't get the facts, and can't make good decisions, then we simply don't have a viable democracy ...Right now I think they are not getting the facts and therefore it's hard to make good decisions, and therefore our democracy is threatened."

OK, Lamar. Listen up.

First ... we aren't a democracy. Read the documents of our heritage. Study on this one a bit. We're a representative republic. There's a big difference, and it involves the rule of man vs. the rule of law. How can you work to protect us if you don't know what we are.

Second ... the greatest threat to our republic today is teacher's unions, not the media.

Third ... I don't want liberals in fighting right wing media bias, and I don't want conservatives in congress fighting the leftist media. Leave that to the folks who consume the news Organizations like Media Research Center are handling the job quite well enough without your or the government's interference.

The Republican Party believes that it has turned a corner and is making a comeback. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has vowed for the GOP to more aggressively confront Barack Obama. Yes, this is how they are going to make a comeback ... by being more aggressive against Obama. Steele says that despite Obama's obvious personal popularity, the Republicans are prepared to take him on.

Now apparently, a lot of people in the Republican Party think that this is silly to confront the most popular Democrat: Barack Obama. Instead, they want to focus on less popular Democrats in order to show their strength. This is actually a good line from Michael Steele. He says, "They suggest that instead we should go after Nancy Pelosi, whom nobody likes. Or Harry Reid, whom nobody knows. Or this Tim Geithner fellow, whom nobody believes. Or maybe even Barney Frank, whom nobody understands."

Here's an idea for the Republican Party .. why don't you focus on getting some productive ideas of your own, rather than worrying about Barack Obama and the Democrats. No. one on the list? The FairTax.

The Hill did a little survey to find out exactly what Congressmen think of each other. So over the last couple of months, they asked Representatives to name the hardest and easiest members of Congress to work with. Here's what they found ...

Most partisan Democrats

1. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
2. Henry Waxman (Calif.)
3. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.)
4. Barney Frank (Mass.)
5. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Most partisan Republicans

1. Tom Price (Ga.)
2. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
3. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
4. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
5. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)

Most bipartisan Democrats (listed alphabetically)

Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Bill Delahunt (Mass.)
Barney Frank (Mass.)
Steny Hoyer (Md.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Ed Towns (N.Y.)

Most bipartisan Republicans (listed alphabetically)

Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Bob Inglis (S.C.)
Walter Jones (N.C.)
Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
John McHugh (N.Y.)
John Mica (Fla.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Lee Terry (Neb.)
Fred Upton (Mich.)
Bill Young (Fla.)

Did ya notice anything peculiar about these lists .... How about the fact that Barney Frank is the only House member to appear on both the partisan and bipartisan lists? You will notice also that Nancy Pelosi appears only as a hyper-partisan Democrat.

Nancy Pelosi is offering a little bit of advice for Republicans. Considering Arlen Specter is now batting for the other team, Nancy says that Republicans should "take back" their party ... and by that, she means that they should become more like Democrats.

Here's Nancy's sound advice, "I say to Republicans in America, take back your party ... The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

So is that what a Republican is supposed to be to Nancy Pelosi? Boy does this explain a lot about why these buffoons can't get anything done in Washington. How about the party of smaller government? The party of lower taxes? The party of self sufficiency?

Pelosi is so tiresome.

The Republicans are starting a new outreach initiative. Basically, they know that their party is hopelessly screwed. They can't save themselves; they can only hope that the Democrats screw up enough to make the Republicans not look as bad.

But they are making an effort, nonetheless. Will it work? Well, this National Council for a New America launched an open letter to the American people. What is interesting about the letter is what was left out: illegal immigration, same sex marriage, abortion .... all of these issues that have the Republican Party completely handcuffed.

Now I have a strong personal interest here ... but I truly believe that if the Republican Party would work to understand and then promote the FairTax the American people would respond very positively. They could have the Democrats on the run. Am I dreaming here? Your thoughts?

This one isn't going to make your day ... at least not if you're a person who believes in yourself and your own abilities. I'm reading the book "Comeback, Conservatism That Can Win Again" by David Frum. Now a lot of conservatives are a bit upset with Frum because he is delivering a message that they don't particularly like. That message? That Reagan politics were for the Reagan years .. and that conservatives need to adjust their policies and philosophies to the current era if they are to regain any semblance of power in Washington.

Well .. you can judge that one for yourself. But I did want to share some points Frum makes in his book that I found, to say the least, unsettling. Let me just present them to you as bullet points. Here are some of the reasons why the Statists have the advantage for the time being ...

• Republicans draw votes from white voters, Democrats from nonwhites. European Americans were 80% of the population in 1980. The number is now 70%. By 2020 it will be 60%.
• Married women vote Republican. Unmarried? You'll vote Democrat. I would venture that this is because unmarried women look to the government for the security that should be provided by a husband. The number of women in this country who are unmarried in their late 30s has doubled since Reagan was elected.
• If you have children you are more likely to vote Republican. No children? You're most likely a Democrat voter. Since Reagan was elected the number of women who have not downloaded a tricycle motor by age 40 has doubled.
• Go to church, you'll vote Republican. No church? Democrat. You don't need me to tell you that church attendance is in a steady decline.
• Just a high school education? You're probably a Republican voter. Uneducated? You'll vote Democrat. Ditto if you're sitting on an advanced degree. Guess which two groups are growing and which group is stagnated. I think you can figure this one out for yourselves.

Here are some other gems from Frum's book:

• Democrats are far less likely than Republicans to define themselves as "extremely proud" to be an American. Nice.
• Democrats are less likely than Republicans to believe that the United States can solve its problems. In other words, we need to look outside of our country to the international community for those solutions.
• Democrat voters are far more likely than Republican voters to feel that their own success in life is beyond their control. If you can't control your own future ... just what good is freedom anyway? Right?
• Democrats are more likely than Republicans to basically give up when faced with adversity. Yup ... give up and rely on government.

Things have changed out there. Self-sufficiency is out. Government dependency is in. Politicians love this .. they just absolutely LOVE it. Those who love freedom are shocked and dismayed.

Now .. as you ponder these documented statistics and facts from David Frum's book, can you tell me where the next great Republican leader is? I hate to say this ... and it isn't going to make me any friends ... but we aren't going to save American by sitting around and chanting "Reagan, Reagan, Reagan" all day long. The young voters out there that we need to rely on couldn't write one cohesive paragraph about Ronald Reagan, and they're not going to sit down and do the research. Someone needs to step forward with the eloquence and charisma needed to convince our young people that true fulfillment will come from personal achievement realized through interaction with others in a free society, not from government dependence and eventual enslavement. If you see someone out there who can deliver that message ... let me know. I've been looking for him (or her).

Nancy Pelosi is really excited about passage of the Democrat budget today. But just in case you weren't aware .. the Republicans did put forth their own alternative to the budget. Though its too little, too late ... here are the details of the Republican alternative.

• To start with, the Republicans want spending in the economic stimulus package to be rescinded starting in 2010.
• They want a freeze on non-defense spending and a moratorium on earmarks for Congress.
• The Republicans want .. wait for this .. changes to the tax code! They want to allow taxpayers to choose how they can file their taxes - the current system or a more simple option: Individuals earning $50,000 or less, and couples earning $100,000 or less, would be taxed at 10%. Anyone making more than that would be taxed at 25%.
• Changes to Medicare: workers under 55 would enroll in private plans and receive premium subsidies equal to the average Medicare benefit when they retire. Benefits would not be changed for people in the program or people older than 55.

OK ... this is all very special. But the obvious question is "Where the hell were these ideas when you were in charge?" Sorry .. but the Republicans still have not done nearly enough to atone for the mess they created when they controlled every branch of government. Many of the problems we're facing today ... including the problem of a U.S. government now controlled by anti-capitalists ... can be laid at the failures of the Republican party over the past eight years.

As for their idea on taxes? Give me a break. We've tried that flat-tax idea before .. back in 1986. There were two flat tax rates back them, just as the Republicans are proposing now .. and the tax code has been modified nearly 10,000 times since then. The Republican alternative isn't making news .. but things would have been quite different if they had proposed something like the FairTax. If the Republicans want a piece of the news pie they are going to have to go bold. A repeat of the 1986 flat tax idea isn't bold.

Bring me to Washington to talk to the Republican caucus. I'll get them fired up.

Yeah ... like that's going to happen.

This quote comes from Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions .. no doubt, liberals are going to have a fun time with this one.  See if any of you can make any sense at all out of this.  I sure can't. 

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Probably not the smartest idea to compare your party and its tactics to the Taliban.

... or so you would believe if you had heard one particular caller to the show yesterday. This caller started out with the normal nonsense about Republicans always being for big business and Democrats being for big government ... and he'd rather have stronger government than stronger businesses. I asked this caller to give me a specific example of those evil Republicans being in favor of big business. He cited the merger of Exxon and Mobile oil companies under George Bush.

Sorry, pal. That merger was completed in 1999 - while Bill Clinton was running the show. It was Clinton's Executive Department that gave the OK, not the evil big-business Republicans.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

The Republicans are really going to be looking for some sort of an agenda to carry them into the mid-term elections in two years. Do you think the FairTax could be that agenda? I still think back to the tens of thousands of people who showed up at FairTax rallies ... and the hundreds of thousands of dedicated volunteers who still today are spreading the FairTax word. Two big obstacles: First, with the FairTax in place how would Obama have won this election? That "tax cut for 95% of Americans" line brought him victory. It was a con, but it brought him victory. With the FairTax that line would have been impossible ... since 100% of Americans wouldn't have been paying income taxes anyway. Secondly, there's the demagogue thing. Your opinions?