Many things are already determined by the manufacturer of the mounting blocks. In most cases the blocks are manufactured for a specific rifle model. Block height, front and rear, are already determined. When you receive the blocks they will come with instructions on mounting, assuming that your rifle was drilled and tapped at the factory. If it was not, and you have an older rifle or one that just doesn’t come tapped. The blocks recommended are still the same. You just need to do the work yourself. If you are not a gunsmith who happens to have jigs made for just such a procedure, read on. The spread or location of the blocks may vary with the instructions above, your scope requirements or your determination.

When drilling and tapping a rifle receiver or barrel to install scope blocks/bases, be they the two block system or single one piece base, there is no big secret to the process. These things must be considered.

1. Which machine to use, drill press or vertical milling machine?
2. Establishing the holding device for the work piece (Rifle)
3. The parallel of the tapped holes to the work piece
4. Levelness of the work piece
5. Center line of the barrel and receiver
6. Allowable Depth of the tapping hole
7. Mounting block location and spread
8. Which drill and taps are required?

In the first instance No.1, let’s assume you have access to a Bridgeport type milling machine. Assuming you also have a machine vice you would use a set of risers or parallels for the bottom of the receiver to rest on. Again assuming that the bottom of the receiver is flat and parallel to the bore line, which in many cases it will be, bring the vice closed on the receiver gently but firmly. It is best to have some cushion on the vice jaws like lead sheet or soft copper material to prevent marring or scratching the receiver or barrel depending where you have the piece located in the vice.

Usually, one can visually tell if the barrel and receiver are cocked left or right by standing off a little and sighting down the top of the receiver and barrel from behind at the sights.

You can also take a square and stand it against the barrel at the front sight and using a scale, measure the distance from it to the side of the sight blade (see below).

A second method is to check the distance from each side with a dial test indicator. But if you have those smarts you don’t need this article.

Next is leveling the rifle bore line. There are a few ways to do this but one of the easiest ways is to remember that it “ain’t rocket science!”  If you have some sense of visual acuity, stand back and eyeball it. That will be plenty good. But if you must, slide a straight drill or brass rod that is slightly smaller than the bore through it to where it sticks out both ends. Check it with a scale and ensure there is an equal distance from the table on both ends. You decide how equal it should be, but plus or minus 1/32 of an inch would be fine.

Next step is finding the center on the crown of the receiver or barrel depending on where you are mounting the blocks. There are many ways to do this but since we are assuming that this is a home do it yourselfers or at least not a gun shop smithy, we’ll do it this way:

Once all of the other steps have been completed you can, by using a dial test indicator tram the center in. If you do not have this capability, try the following. Find a product such as Whiteout used in the past on documents to correct mistakes. Using this, paint a strip down the center of the crown of the receiver or barrel where the mounts will sit and make it about 3/8^th to ½ inch wide. Once the Whiteout has dried, using a dowel or perfectly flat faced pin in the drill chuck of the mill or drill press, position the receiver directly under the eyeballed center of the dowel or pin and slowly bring the spindle down until the pin barely touches the Whiteout at the top of the crown. Do this in several places up and down the receiver or barrel. It will leave a small mark it the very top of the crown and that small mark is center.  As stated if you can’t tram it in this is the best way to find an acceptable center.

NOTE: If you happen to have a height gage it can be used to perform this task by lowering the scribe or flat tool until it just touches the crown.

Drilling and tapping: Chuck up your tapping drill. Assuming you have already determined where the first block goes and where the first hole will be started, center your drill over the mark in the Whiteout and at the proper location axially, how far forward or back.  Drill the hole to the depth required, usually 2 to 3 times the diameter of the tap threads (see notes on drilling depths below). Drill your first hole. Set the positive stop on the depth you want.

Without moving the work piece (receiver), raise the spindle of the drill press or mill and replace the drill with the tap. Put the spindle in neutral or free turning where it can be turned with just your fingers. Bring the tap down to the hole and begin turning the tap and chuck with just your fingers. Don’t be ham handed at this point. These taps can be broken easily. With just the weight of the spindle keep turning until you have about five full turns or threads in the hole. Release the chuck and finish tapping with a tapping wrench until you feel it has met the bottom of the hole, Blow it out or clean it with a magnet to remove any shavings on the bottom.

You should also have a bottom tap. It will be a tap that has a flat bottom on it to ensure the threads are the full depth of the hole. Go back in with this tap again until you feel it has met the bottom. Clean the hole once more.

For a drill press, after the first hole is drilled and tapped, attach the block with a screw that the first hole was tapped for and make sure it’s down tight. Insert the tap drill back in the chuck. Move your table or vice to where the drill lines up with the open hole in the block. With the machine off, bring the drill down into the hole. You should be able to move it up and down freely without drag. Repeat the same process as the first hole to drill and tap. The next block should be done the same way.

Clean out the holes when finished and before mounting the blocks permanently, clean the holes out and use “locktite ®” on the screws to ensure that they don’t work loose under shooting conditions.

Hole Depth: When you are not sure just how deep to drill the illustration below should be your guide, depending on Bore size and outside diameter (OD). If you know the caliber you probably already know the bore size. If not, you can find the bore size by measuring the bullet OD. Or look it up in a book. The drawing below is a hypothetical sample only.

Be aware on drilling over receivers as they will have various internal dimensions that come into play generally this is not a problem. Holes can break through in non pressure areas away from the bores and chambers and have no affect on safety. Just remember the rule of thumb No deeper than twice to three times the tap or screw diameter.

Happy shooting!

Although I have seen nothing that proves anything about Rahm Emanuel, I have read in some places that he is or can be very forceful.

The article, “Lawmakers Say Shower Run-Ins Are Unusual” is actually somewhat interesting. I think it’s interesting only because of all the dirt and grime that seems to be getting dug up about the president and just about anyone that is associated with him.

I can’t honestly say I ever remember things getting so petty concerning the daily lives of the politicians. I do know that it has created an atmosphere where I don’t believe anyone knows what is really going on.

I did take the following quote from the article linked above.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she works out in the Senate gym, sometimes talking shop on the elliptical, “but obviously not as often as I should.” But McCaskill wouldn’t offer details about what happens inside the women’s locker room.

“This is wayyyy TMI,” she said, laughing. “I’m not going to discuss my showering habits. I’ll leave that to Rahm Emanuel and Eric Massa.”

Massa, who resigned Monday amid an ethics probe, set off a round of intrigue when he offered a new image of the legendarily bare-knuckled Emanuel in a Sunday night interview with an Upstate New York radio station.

“I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel . . . his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn’t going to vote for the president’s budget,” Massa said. “You know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?”

But some have alleged that Massa’s story is embellished or altogether fabricated.

Rumors have already began about the encounter between Rahm Emanuel and Eric Massa and that there was some pressure asserted toward Eric Massa and his opinion on the health bill.

The best one I have heard to date is that the reason this was done in the shower was that this was probably one place where they weren’t on some sort of surveillance camera, and because Mr. Massa was naked, he also wasn’t “wired” or have a cell phone so the meeting wouldn’t be recorded in any way.

I know many of us have questions about things that are happening in the country, but I do think that is a little over the edge.

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn’t invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.

Some of you know this .. but not enough of you . Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 60 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes … except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Do you need a side-by-side comparison?  Well here’s a nifty little chart.

By the way, did you have a choice at your place of employment as to whether or not you wanted money withheld for Medicare? That answer would be no!  Medicare is broke too.  Social Security and Medicare are referred to as entitlements according to Congress, just like Medicaid and other welfare programs. The difference is, Americans paid hard earned money into these two Government programs just like they did private insurance. I personally don’t call that an entitlement. I call it a contract and, as it is, the government has been caught in its own Madoff scheme. They spent the money, Democrat and Republican alike got their greedy little hands on it and spent every last dime. Now the Democrats and those in the Whitehouse have attacked the insurance companies and accused them of doing the same thing the government itself has done for five decades.

There is a way to fix this mess. Green up Washington, vote out the old and vote in the new. However, that alone will not get the job done. Americans have learned a lot since November 2008. Stay tuned to what your representative in Washington is doing. Watch him or her on C-SPAN and in the News. Collar him or her when they start going rogue. Fire them when they don’t follow their constituents’ demands. Its one thing for him or her to fight for what they believe in, it’s another when 90% of those you represent know you are wrong.

With failed stimulus packages, bailouts of banks, insurance companies, government ownership of the American auto industry, incentives in buying foreign cars (cash for clunkers) and force fed government health care-what’s next on the horizon? You guessed it, CAP AND TRADE revisited.

Americans remain preoccupied in their struggles with unemployment, promoting and finding candidates for the next elections to represent the US in the quest to defend our constitution. You can blame the push for Progressive imposed Socialized medicine and Czars are working on their next one-two punch in a crafty maneuver to sell and or force a seemingly sensible environmentally needed bill down the throats of America. If you think the healthcare reform bill was highly complex, wait until you see the next Frankenstein monster being created. The following Cap and Trade 101 article explains the basics.

ISSUES › ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Cap and Trade 101
What Is Cap and Trade, and How Can We Implement It Successfully?
January 16, 2008

What is Cap and Trade?
The goal: To steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner.

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

The profits: If the federal government auctions the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions, it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development. The federal government can also choose to “grandfather” allowances to the polluting firms by handing them out free based on historic or projected emissions. This would give the most benefits to those companies with higher baseline emissions that have historically done the least to reduce their pollution.
What Would a Successful Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like?
The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent.

The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.

With this basic perfect world explanation, there are major holes in its concept. First of all the single largest concern is the cost of reduced c02 emissions and meeting this hypothetical criteria, will be bared by the end consumer-you and I. It will affect everything we purchase and sell including; fuel for our vehicles, heating and cooling our homes, and manufactured goods purchased domestically and abroad as well as what we as a Nation export. At a time when our Country faces record unemployment, failing businesses and massive reductions in living standards the question becomes, who benefits and under what pretense will we be sold this bill of goods? The answer; as stated in the article above “The profits” will be harvested by our illustrious government and will be at it’s discretion in how to spend it. Once again same scenario through scare tactics, this time “Global Warming” their campaign will be the human race as benefactor in the salvaging and preservation of our Global environment. Their claim for creating green opportunities is another divisive means in the efforts of expanding government jobs in newly added departments of regulation as well as globally networked Elitist that will be given cart blanch opportunities to further exploit our American economy as well as it’s businesses and citizens. Consistent with the health care reform bill, there are many missing pieces to this moving target. The concern is the same with respect to getting the basic bill concept approved by the house and senate and later tweaking it to their revenue producing advantages once adopted. With respect to President Obama’s comment of generating governmental revenue through emission permits, it begs the question: Would this be through purchases made by our own American private and public industry sector or through the proceeds generated by the excess of American optional permits sold to other manufacturers abroad? Other inferences on many of the various options being reviewed include a sliding scale. Under developed third world Countries would receive a favorable disproportionate amount of permit proceeds for simply producing less. More of the same Socialistic agenda we have seen thus far in virtually everything Obama has promoted and endorsed. If the following facts printed and proposed by President Obama are not enough to formulate your opinion and position, I will follow it with the same web site it was extracted from explaining its complexities. The second site is another explaining further negative concepts and impacts…

On November 17, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama clarified, in a talk recorded for YouTube, that the US will enter a cap-and-trade system to limit global warming.[69]
The 2010 United States federal budget proposes to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019.[70]
From-Emissions Trading; from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bewared of Cap and Trade Climate Bills- by Ben Lieberman

Please write and become actively  involved in preventing this bill from getting off the ground any further.

By:

Jerry M. Grant

I personally found it shall I say, “interesting”. Many Americans are getting somewhat disenchanted with things that are happening in America.

It was in an e-mail and as anyone that has read about e-mails on this site, I post, not forward so people can discuss them with others, not just read and pass along.

Although I have found that some people don’t like that idea, I am finding that people generally disregard the content of the circulating e-mails and go on the attack toward the author.

I don’t know that authors always have the right answers. They are human so regardless of how much training they have had, they can make mistakes and things of that nature. Naturally some authors are much more credible than others.

I don’t know that this is a “great quote”. I do know it should make most people think a small amount about what is happening.

If the past election was a mistake, then we have many people such as are described in this e-mail. It’s just another e-mail that leans away from President Obama.

At least with the author of this one, the only thing that really matters is the content, there is no author to condemn. We are forced to decide if we like the e-mail or not from it’s content.

Subject: a great quote

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore thenecessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the
vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

– Author Unknown

Taking issue with a Susan Estrich Article:

Susan Estrich posted an article on a blog today about her hero Barack Hussein Obama. As I read of her glowing praise of this man, I began to realize it was nothing more than an attempt by Susan to tell “tales”, (Truth According to Liberal Elite Socialists). If any of you have ever had the experience of knowing a liberal, you know what I’m talking about.

Generally the tale tellers are Liberal Socialists who must follow the party line and promote ideas that appeal to the gullible. The gullible are usually thought to be the poor and illiterate. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Many of the gullible are also the TALES people themselves, such as those at NBC, CNBC, CNN and individuals like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Dick Durbin and of course, Susan, just to name a few of the more outspoken.

To become a TALES person requires three things.

1. You must be able to promote the party line by speaking and writing convincingly, even though you know what you’re saying it is not true.
2. When confronted with facts, do not let them get in the way of your mission.
3. Never allow yourself to become convinced that the audience knows when you’re lying, especially when you are, which will be most of the time.

The following is an excerpt from the article written by Susan Estrich. It appeared in the Rasmussen Reports, today March 6, 2010.  In her column, which was dedicated to glorifying the anointed one currently serving as president of the United States, she lavishes great honor and credit for all of his accomplishments. She also gives him praise for keeping the many promises from his campaign. I have taken issue with her praising column at the bottom.

Susan’Estrich Article:

“When you ask people why it is that they hate or distrust politicians, the usual answers, understandably so, are all about what gutless wonders most politicians are — addicted to their polls, determined to stay there at all costs. Campaign promises are about getting elected; once there, they are quickly forgotten. Courage is not a word you hear very often in discussions about politics. Not Barack Obama.

Whether or not you support or even understand his health care plan — and the polls suggest that right now most Americans don’t — you must admit this: Obama is a man who does everything humanly possible to keep his promises. He promised health care reform, and he is risking his presidency to deliver it. If that’s not courage, what is? To be sure, Obama is not on the ballot for a few years. Bill Clinton proved that a president can survive and even triumph after a humiliating midterm defeat.

But that hardly makes it a game plan that makes political sense. When most of the country turns against you, most politicians will turn with them. Ours is a representative and not a direct democracy, which means we send our representatives to Washington not to do what we want them to do (at least not necessarily), but to do what they believe is right. Most of the time, for most politicians, those things are one and the same. The reason they won in the first place is because they are “in tune” with their districts, and they stay there by staying “in tune.”

The problem with the health care debate is that the chorus has changed so dramatically in the past year. Whereas a year ago most Americans said they favored comprehensive health care reform, now they don’t. Heads … no, tails. Obama … no, Scott Brown. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. siders can debate until the cows come home about the reason for the shift in public opinion.

Was it a failure of communication — too much emphasis on the minority who are not insured, as opposed to the majority who are? Was it a failure of politics — choosing to fight the last war (Congress was left out on HillaryCare) and, as a result, losing this one by leaving it to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi instead of taking the initiative in the White House? Was it the big bailouts and stimulus bills that left many of us suffering from spending fatigue?

It doesn’t matter. Whatever the reason, this much is clear: The weather has changed. Storm clouds have gathered. Voting for health care is much riskier politically than it was when both houses of Congress passed their bill. And while individual members of Congress will face the voters first, there is no question that a rout come November will leave all fingers pointed at Obama — which would generate the sort of talk about a one-term presidency that no incumbent in his second year would want to hear, much less invite.

And yet that is what Obama is doing. He is staking his presidency on a health care plan that most Americans don’t want. He is asking members of Congress to stay with him not because that is what their constituents want, but because it is the right thing to do.

Obama wants a vote on health care because he believes that it is now or never. However grim things might look, this is the biggest majority Democrats are going to have in the foreseeable future. If not now, when?

You can call it arrogant or foolish or shortsighted. Me, I call it courage.”

My Issue:

Susan, let me get this straight. You’re saying that most Americans do not understand his healthcare plan? Oh yeah, I forgot, Bill Maher said the American people were too stupid to comprehend such things. But, you also say, “You must admit that he (meaning the president) does everything humanly possible to keep his promises.”  I guess you mean the one about open transparent and ethical government or is it that other thing about not raising taxes on middle income Americans by one thin dime. Perhaps you mean the promise not to tax the Cadillac insurance plans, closing Guantanamo or pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now as for his promise on healthcare reform, did he really mean reform or government takeover at the risk of losing his throne? You also say, “If that’s not courage, what is?”  Well DUH! It’s stupid.

Now you have thrown in Bill (fly open) Clinton. I’m getting confused!

In your article you have pointed out that most Americans don’t want this kind of healthcare.  That a representative is elected to go to Washington to do what their constituents want them to do. Then, you throw in “(at least not necessarily), they must do what they think is right.” There is no doubt in my mind that a good politician must follow his conscience. On the other hand an honest politician will make that little fact known before he or she is elected. If you do not believe in following the wishes of those who elected you, it’s time to step down. That would be the most honorable thing to do.

Obama, is asking his party members, congressmen and women and senators, to not listen to the people they represent. Even though most of the country is screaming “My God, it will be a disaster, don’t do this!” Obama says:”I command you to do it!”

Lastly, Susan, you say, “You can call it arrogant or foolish or shortsighted. Me, I call it courage.”

I’ll leave you with this thought. Your “TALES” of Obama’s courage and valor will need to be told over and over before anyone really believes that there is anything here that even rises above stupids knees.  However you and all of those mentioned above have done a fine job of pushing the socialist agenda in America. Marx and Lenin would turn over in their graves, if there was room, and slap their foreheads and say “Why the hell didn’t I think of that?”

Keep up the hard work, but Susan, your face is starting to twitch!

What Is “Reconciliation”
And Why Is It A Threat?

During last week’s health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that “nobody is talking about reconciliation” to pass the health bill.

It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.

It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.

But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?

A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals

The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation

While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present — whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action

Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending

This is why passing the left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.

Leaving aside the bill’s merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left’s health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) “an outrage that must be resisted.”

It’s also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton’s efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left’s latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Welfare Reform vs. the Left’s Big Government Health Bill

This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.

Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress’ efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was “deficit neutral”. President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that “added one dime” to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.

Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left’s health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can’t get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left’s health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left’s plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Three Corrupt Options for the Left

The left’s big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.

Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.

However, they’ve made it clear they aren’t willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.

One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.

Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.

For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left’s endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final “swiss cheesed” legislation would be unrecognizable.

For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don’t know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)

How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?

Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.

As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.

To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.

To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.

With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left’s agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.

Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.

In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend , dismissing her caucus’ concerns of defeat.

Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left’s Health Bill

If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.

We’ll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.

But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.

This doesn’t just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.

It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.

And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left’s big government health bill. After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

I suppose much could be said about this topic and we have many that would argue that we are or are not stupid.

I believe we have a society with a large percentage of people, that just prefer to do like the ostrich, which is stick their head in the sand, and let events unfold around them.

I also believe most people realize it is extremely difficult to change anything, regardless of how we feel.

The politicians know that most people will follow any law that is imposed on them. Obviously not everyone, but most citizens are “law abiding”, therefore we do as we are told.

If there wasn’t some leadership, then the country would be in a state of total chaos. Some say we are heading there now.

I believe this might be a good time to become informed about what is happening so that we at least know something about the things that we vote for. I don’t know how important the vote is, but it is in fact, the main method of getting the changes we want.

I have some personal experience with this, “ignorance” as I verbally slapped the face of a state representative, because I did not recognize the person. I would have apologized, but because of the circumstances, I didn’t get the opportunity, and I really didn’t know who the person was. I was in fact crude and ignorant.

There has been much on the news, media, whatever you wish to call it about our new president. There was a great deal of information available about him before he was elected. I hope all American’s respect the office of the president, I know I do, just as we were taught, or I was taught in the military to respect the position, even if we don’t respect the person.

The path America is taking is to say the least interesting.

Are we on this path because we have just sat back and enjoyed the life we have in America without really watching what has been happening. I believe there are those of us that don’t see the changes, don’t realize what these changes could mean, and those of us choose not to see them.

I fall somewhat in the last part of that statement because I have a certain amount of distrust of the media. I often wonder if they really are telling the truth. I have even tried to follow the news more closely to become informed, I believe that might be a good thing for all of us.

One problem I have with talk radio, which is quite conservative is that they cover things that I don’t feel are very important. They fill their time with what can be somewhat useless information, or at least to me.

The radio show hosted by Mr. Glenn Beck this week seems to fit with my feeling about useless information, just this week when he went on about the color of the president’s tie. Admittedly there was a point there, but isn’t some of this trivia somewhat unimportant?

Why would anyone spend their time analyzing why someone wears a certain color tie? It wasn’t Mr. Beck that started this in that someone, somewhere, actually came out with the article. I did turn the radio off at about the time the tie debate was in full swing. I did this because I feel that it is unimportant to me. I do feel that it is important to let us know about the tie, only because it is a change from the past presidents, but not important enough to carry on about it for more than a very few minutes.

All I could get from it was the fact that whoever made the big study on the color of the presidents tie, must have been quite bored. I prefer to believe the color of the tie, really isn’t that important. I would, only because I didn’t listen, like to hear from someone with a brief summary of the show, and why we should see it as important.

I do feel that with 24 hour news, the time does need to be filled with something. I do wonder if it is of much benefit to anyone, aside from the advertisers, to have hours of useless trivia fed to the audience.

Most radio shows do claim to be entertaining as well as informative.

I do like getting both sides of issues. I don’t like name calling and misinformation in the media. Mistakes are bound to be made, but so much seems to get slanted. Is there a reason the facts aren’t just given so the people can decide for themselves what to think?

I just wanted to say I think as American’s we owe it to ourselves to make some sort of attempt to become slightly more informed as to what is happening in the country.

It is interesting to watch what is happening across the country and especially at Starbucks, “Starbucks Dragged Into Gun-Control Crossfire“, with regard to guns and espresso. When it comes to firearms, especially pistols, there are diverse opinions across the United States with regard the rights of citizens to bear arms. Let me be clear to anyone who reads this article, I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. Lawful citizens all have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. That right is perpetual and portable and does not diminish the moment he or she steps beyond the confines of his or her own home. It doesn’t matter if it’s a concealed firearm or strapped to their hip.  Even so, there are people in this country and yes, other countries who want that right to be removed. Not by striking it from the constitution but by reinterpretation of that amendment. Anti gun lobbies, liberal judges and representatives in Washington would render it, the amendment, meaningless if no one stood in their way. Fortunately, today, strong pro gun individuals, groups and organizations are standing up to these prohibitionists and protecting and securing our rights under that amendment. Although, this brings us to a second perceived problem.

By my count, about thirty-five states permit concealed carry of a firearm. I believe they all require a license to do so. They also require training classes before the license is issued. Those classes cover weapons safety handling, shooting qualification, and the legal aspects involved. In other words, you have to know what you’re doing and be a law abiding, responsible citizen. You must be able to qualify with the weapon of your choice. Many more stated have what they call open carry laws. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but with open carry laws, no training is required. In my humble opinion, that is not a good policy and here is why:

Many millions of Americans are raised in homes where there were and are guns. Most received training by their elders on gun safety, hunting and marksmanship. Others have served in the military and received proper training there. Yet, there are a good number of would-be armed citizens who have never been taught those principals. I’m sure some of those, in this category received their instructions from movies, TV or the neighborhood aficionado. These individuals present a real danger to themselves and the public at large.

For those of you who have had firearms training and or have hunted using proper safety precautions for years, you know who these people are. You have met them before and you know what I’m saying is true.

To carry concealed or open in public one must fully understand the responsibility and capabilities of himself and his chosen weapon. He or she must understand under what circumstances it is better to retreat than to defend. If the choice is to defend, then, do you have a clear shot or are there innocent people in front or in back of your assailant. What are the legal ramifications of your decision?  Are you within the law? Some say, “I don’t care, I won’t retreat.” That’s fine, but if it’s the wrong decision, you could be going away for a long time courtesy of the State. I’m just saying, if someone is going to carry, they should be properly trained and that should be mandated by the State you live in.

One last word here, Open carry, in my opinion is an invitation to being shot. Someone intent on robbing or doing harm in a public place, will, if he sees that gun you have strapped on, shoot you first since he or she will have the advantage of surprise. If I were a bad guy with an illegal concealed weapon, that’s how I would do it. But you, you would be dead on the floor with that neat holster and fancy gun still inside.

The site below gives the list of States that permit concealed carry, with proper training, and background checks. Also you will find the states that have reciprocal agreements. There are variations in the rules.

Concealed Carry Permit for Multi State – Utah CCW

This site lists states that permit different forms of open carry. Read this because they vary from State to State on requirements.

Open Carry States List

If anyone disagrees with any portion of this article or has better information than what has been presented here, pleas feel free to comment and offer your opinion or data that we may not be aware of.

I know the statement, “If I were president” is something many people say when something changes that they don’t like.

This link, “Doug Casey: What I would do if I were president” is an interesting read, or makes a point that I found interesting. The link is to the Daily Crux which I won’t link because it is easily found.

It seems to be a source of information that is conservative in nature, but I have mentioned in many places, I have a difficult time finding positive things from liberal sites and authors. I do know, I have an open invitation to anyone that wishes to write the liberal side of issues on this blog.

I try to be a “Centrist” and I do respect the office of the President. For those that don’t understand “Centrist” I put some definitions of the Political Spectrum in another post on the site. I also put a poll so you can vote, (no information is recorded, other than your vote) but if you don’t wish to vote, it does clarify the spectrum. I can’t say the definitions are correct, but they do appear interesting if nothing else.

I can’t say I agree with all that is being done, but I do agree with the fact that he was left with something of an economic mess.

I thought the post in the Daily Crux was interesting. Let us know how you feel about the article.