The impudent tyranny of Sen.

Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that
darkness hates the light.
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's ant
i-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing
the central feature of this monstrous legislation!
Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: â it shall not
be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill,
resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change
this subsection."
In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future
Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardles
s whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Inde
pendent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita rate of growth
in Medicare spending."
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectiv
ely establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quanti
ty of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants th
e decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for
all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the publ
ic would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of
Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desper
ate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on i
t at 1 a.m., while America slept.
True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as lon
g as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary L
andrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behin
d closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in
the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal p
rovision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why
is that significant?
Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing rules have required appr
oval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendm
ent received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the
dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed.
If this is not tyranny, then what is?