From the Daily Mail:

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover  - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

Makers Mattel are backing the exhibition which is the work of Italian designer Eliana Lorena.

The auction is part of Barbie celebrations for her 50th anniversary this year. The UK's biggest Barbie fan Angela Ellis, 35, has a collection of more than 250 dolls.  

An e-mail: 

K-Lo,

Not only does Dodd's comments show that he's after a full government takeover, it's also delusional. No one claims that this reform will cover everyone. No fewer than 24 million will still be uninsured by 2019. 

That's a point that conservatives cannot hammer enough. This bill doesn't even pretend to do the thing that its supporters say it does. This is not universal coverage, it's just more expensive coverage.

Senator Dodd said right before the vote:   

I ALSO WANT TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT, IF I CAN, MR. PRESIDENT, TO RECOGNIZE A COLLEAGUE WHO IS HERE TONIGHT ONLY IN SPIRIT, TED KENNEDY... TONIGHT WE AND IN THE DAYS TO COME WILL PAY HIM THE HIGHEST COMPLIMENT AS OUR COLLEAGUE BY FULFILLING THAT QUEST OF ACHIEVING THE GOAL THAT ALL AMERICANS ASPIRE FOR, AND THAT IS A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT SERVES EVERY ONE OF OUR CITIZENS.

Senator Reid tonight: 

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation - indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

Silly me, skeptical and opposed all this time to the panacea this legislation will be. Obama is savior -- his plan is immortality! 

Saturday Tweet Tracking.

From Politico, right before the vote:

The Senate galleries are filled with spectators. Senators are starting to filter in and take their seats. Sen. Joe Lieberman is sitting on the floor next to Sen. Susan Collins on the Republican side of the aisle, listening to Mitch McConnell speaking.

The senators will vote from their seats, which is done only on big, historic votes. Sen. John McCain mocked the formality of a virtually preordained vote saying loudly with a laugh, "What's going to happen?"

An e-mail (AND IT'S NOT ABOUT FUNDRAISING): 

Santorum is all over this: It was a terrible mistake for opponents to 
allow tonight's vote such a dramatic buildup.  We had no hope.  What 
Democrat is going to deny his party even the opportunity for floor 
debate on such a historical piece of legislation?  Wasn't going to 
happen.  I hope the hype will not feed despair on our side.  I am very 
optimistic that much of the worst mischief will be stripped from this 
bill before final passage.  In fact, it is entirely possible that there 
will be no final passage.

From White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:

The President is gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation. Tonight's historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it. The President looks forward to a thorough and productive debate.

Doug Johnson's response:

As National Right to Life has previously noted, Senator Reid's bill [on page 118] would authorize the federal government to pay for any and all abortions through a huge new federal health insurance program, the "public option," and also to subsidize purchase of private plans that cover abortion on demand.  President Obama and Reid know that the substance of these abortion-promoting policies is deeply unpopular, so they seek to conceal the reality with layers of contorted definitions and money-laundering schemes.

Obama and Reid wanted debate – so now they’ll get debate, on their cloaked provisions that would cover abortion on demand in proposed new government-run and government-subsidized insurance plans.

Obama and Reid are seeking to block enactment of the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts compromise, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment would prevent government funding of elective abortion through the proposed “public option," and would also prevent federal subsidies from paying for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.  

During the weeks ahead, National Right to Life will continue to fight the efforts of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to cover abortion on demand in two huge new federal health programs.  The Senate bill faces additional 60-vote hurdles in the future.  Moreover, a courageous group of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives will oppose final approval of health care legislation if the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is gutted or removed.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz) on tonight’s 60-39 vote:

Any pretense or claim that this is a bipartisan bill is gone.  Every Senator who voted for tonight’s procedural motion ignored the American people and instead voted with the leaders of the Democratic party.  At a time when our nation is facing its highest unemployment level in almost three decades, American families and small businesses do not need a job-killing bill that rations their care, raids Medicare, and increases taxes and premiums for everyone.

In a post-vote press conference, Chris Dodd just clarified that Americans have the right only to certain things to be provided by the government, "not all things."

Statement, via e-mail:

“If this health care bill makes it to conference committee without an authentic abortion exclusion, Senators Casey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Reid will be held especially accountable.”  

Washington – In response to this evening’s advancement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act in the U.S. Senate, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“It's gravely disappointing that pro-life Democrats in the Senate failed to show the same courage and conviction shown by their counterparts in the House of Representatives.  

“Senators should consider themselves on notice: America is still waiting for you to strike government funded abortion from this legislation.  Votes have consequences, and if this health care bill makes it to conference committee without an authentic abortion exclusion, Senators Casey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Reid will be held especially accountable.  

“Their first opportunity to defend Life was on the motion to proceed.  Their last chance will be on the final cloture vote to end debate. A vote to close debate without the addition of strong pro-life language will be a vote for government-funded abortion. That would be the ultimate betrayal of pro-life constituents and even self-described pro-choice Americans who oppose government-funded abortion.” 

Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the public option.   The bill also allows the use of government subsidies to purchase insurance policies that include elective abortion coverage.   This is a departure from current federal policy, which bans the use of taxpayer funds for abortion and health plans that cover abortion.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum comments to National Review Online on tonight's vote: "I never wanted this to be considered a critical vote -- it wasn't one we could win.  This is just the start of the process; the majority leader getting a vote tonight was almost a given.  Pressure was a good thing, but only because it helped focus attention and dramatically increases pressure for the next cloture vote."

That's the final tally. Reid's bill now moves to the Senate floor for a final debate. That debate will begin on Monday, November 30th.

Update:

Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) did not vote.

From a senior GOP Senate aide about the future of the abortion language in Reid's bill:

Republicans will have to offer amendments that mirror the Stupak language and hope that they get 60 votes for passage, which is highly unlikely...HENCE our pressure on that issue before tonight's vote. It only gets more difficult from here.

As expected -- frankly, since before he was elected to the Senate -- Senator Robert Casey just refused to cast a vote in defense of the most vulnerable among us. As Frank Cannon wrote earlier this week: 

If he votes for cloture on the motion to proceed on the health-care bill, he will be making possible the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v.Wade, and mandating that all citizens participate through federal funding. Senate majority leader Harry Reid needs all 60 Democratic senators to bring the legislation to the floor and make it the order of business. So Senator Casey has the fate of the bill completely in his power. If he adds his vote, that will mean that any effort to add the pro-life Stupak language from the House bill will require 60 pro-life votes, which, as Senator Casey knows, are not there. Casey’s original vote to proceed will have stacked the deck against defending life.

So much for taking that opportunity. So much for being a pro-life leader. 

From the end of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s speech:

All it would take, Mr. President and my colleagues, is just one member of the other side of the aisle, just one, to give us an opportunity not to end the debate, but to change the debate in the direction the American people would like us to go.

The 8 p.m. cloture vote is upon us.

From Alex Koppelman at Salon:

[T]his is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider -- the public option -- remains in it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.

Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election -- and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) just trotted out that old Democratic staple on the Senate floor by calling Reid’s bill “historic.” We’ve heard that word from Democrats for months now. Which reminds me: Earlier today, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn) also called this bill “historic,” but “truly historic . . . in its arrogance.” Indeed.

More from Alexander:

It’s arrogant to dump 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us or any of our families would ever want to join. It’s arrogant to send to the states, which are going broke, a big chunk of the bill. It’s arrogant to tell the American people that the bill will only cost $849 billion and think they’re not smart enough to read it and figure out that it will actually cost $2.5 trillion when it’s fully implemented. It’s arrogant to say paying for the physicians’ reimbursement is not an important part of a health care bill — even as they run over here in the dead of night and run up the deficit with a separate quarter-trillion-dollar bill to fix that. It’s arrogant to cut and tax Grandma’s Medicare, which is going broke, and then spend it on somebody else. It’s arrogant to tell us that it’s going to reduce premiums for most Americans when, in fact, it increases premiums for most Americans.

is that there was any drama today at all. Byron York writes:

the Democrats' problems in keeping their side together, in the face of united Republican opposition, is an indicator of how public opinion is beginning to dominate the health care debate. Dozens of polls show that Americans are deeply divided over the issue, with a slight plurality opposing the Democratic health care plans currently under consideration in Congress. Clear majorities of Americans don't believe their health care will improve under the plan, and don't believe the plan will not increase the deficit. Given that, Democrats are trying to pass the biggest piece of legislation in decades, one that will create an enormous and permanent new entitlement, with less than majority support among the public. And they're racing to do it with less than a year to go before mid-term elections that most observers believe will result in fewer Democrats in Congress. No wonder it's hard.

From just a bit ago: 

Mr. President, We are rapidly approaching perhaps one of the most important votes for each of us here in the United States Senate. This is bigger than us, our parties or our ideologies.

This about the very future of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is about your children and my children. It is about your grandchildren and my children. It is about giving our future generations the same opportunities and the same sense of pride. It is about every American life and every American business that will be subject to this 2,074-page edict from Washington.

I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this.  Here are some numbers:

·         0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.

·         0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.

·         10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.

·         70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.

·         1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.

·         2,074 – total pages in this bill.

·         2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill

·         2014 – the year when this bill actually starts  most of the major provisions of this bill

·         $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word

·         $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.

·         $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.

·         $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill

·         $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill

·         $12 trillion – our total national debt

 

These numbers are facts. They are undisputable.

Let me finish by reading an excerpt from a letter from one of my fellow Utahans from Provo, who is worried just like me about what this bill will mean for our country:

“I am writing out of deep concern over the increasing expansion of government. I moved here from Germany 20 years ago. I love America because it is free – freer than Germany in that I have the freedom to choose, among other things, how I want to insure my family (we have six children). I’m all for affordable health insurance which requires affordable health care. I am self-employed and have been hit hard by the economy.

There is a good chance that we would actually benefit from [this bill]. Business has been so bad that we would qualify for free school lunches if we asked for it. But I don’t want more government handouts.

I don’t want the government telling me what kind of insurance I need to have. I don’t want the government telling me what services I can receive when I need them. I don’t want them taking an ever greater part of my income to help finance government programs such as the ‘public option’ and the army of government employees it will take to administer such a program. I do not want more government. I want less. A lot less.”

You missed John McCain's "death panel" crack during a colloquy. (It was anti-death panel, and not anti-Palin, as I remarked on Twitter. It was also done with a McCain mischievousness.)

From a $75 NRO contributor:

The return of the Goldberg File (even if it is only in email newsletter form) sealed my decision to donate this year. That, and 75 bucks is totally worth the chance to have my comments reprinted in The Corner.

Contribute to NRO here.

This summary comes from the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate: 

Even though Democrats likely have enough votes to get onto the bill, below are quotes from conservative Democrats where they condition their vote on the second cloture motion on changes to the bill.

·         Senator Nelson:  “Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday.  In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill.”

·         Senator Lieberman:  "I've told Sen. Reid that I'm strongly inclined, I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined to vote to proceed to the healthcare debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together, because it's important that we start the debate on healthcare reform, because I want to vote on healthcare reform this year. …  I also told him that if the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.”

·         Senator Landrieu:  “My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.  I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done.”

·         Senator Lincoln:  “In fact, madam president, this vote for or against a procedure that allows us to begin open debate on health care reform is nothing more and nothing less. … I will vote to support -- will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, but, madam president, let me be perfectly clear: I am opposed to a new government-administered health care plan as part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and i will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written. I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the health care reform legislation that is voted on by the senate later this year or early next year. I am also aware that there will be additional procedural votes to move this process forward that will require 60 votes prior to the conclusion of the floor debate. I've already alerted the leader, and I'm promising my colleagues, that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.”

Polar bears are falling from the skies.

Don't worry, I'm sure this is all peer-reviewed data with a side-order of tree rings from the First Church of the Settled Scientist. 

From a $25 NRO contributor:

I read NRO religiously each day and I like the fact that contributors feel free to debate each other. Reasonable people can hold different opinions after all, something liberals should remember.

Contribute to NRO here.

From Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) on the Senate floor:

It should be abundantly clear to each member of this body that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed pro-life language exactly two weeks ago markedly different from that contained in the Reid proposal.

The House provisions, in contrast to the terribly flawed provisions in the Reid bill, contained language that would not only safeguard the rights of the unborn but also would prevent medical providers from being coerced into performing procedures that violate their conscience.

The Stupak/Pitts amendment was adopted by a significant margin – 240 to 194. That represents 55 percent of the House of Representatives, including 25 percent of the Democratic caucus.

Even more telling is two polls released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News and CNN.  They confirmed that 61 percent of the American population does not support federal funding for abortion. This vote should serve as a strong signal to each member of the Senate that these protections cannot be ignored and must be contained in any measure that we adopt.

Unfortunately, the language in the Reid bill explicitly allows what the Stupak/Pitts language would prevent. The Reid language authorizes abortion in the government operated health plan (or the public option) and federal subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion.  It is not the Stupak/Pitts language.  And the sanctity of life is not an issue that can be traded away for political expediency.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) to NRO:

Regardless of Saturday’s outcome, it will be important for Republicans to “keep going out to the American people,” says McCain. “I intend to try and get out of Washington during the final weeks of debate to have town-hall meetings. We need to keep the American people stoked up and informed and do everything we can to galvanize support. The American people overwhelmingly do not want this legislation. They’re already fired up and frustrated in a way I have never seen before. We have to help make sure that their voices are heard and engage in an extensive debate.”

There are a few things you need to know about tonight's vote and what it means.

-- One, Obamacare (in the form of a cloture vote on Senate majority leader Harry Reid's bill) needs 60 votes tonight to be eligible for a final Senate-floor debate. Tonight's vote, in other words, is the last procedural roadblock for Democrats as they push to bring their health-care bill to its final legislative stage.

-- Two, if Reid does get his 60 votes tonight, and the bill moves to the floor, it's a big win for Democrats -- if but for a moment. The Senate would then go on Thanksgiving break and come back to start the final health-care debate on Monday, November 30th.

-- Three, if the bill moves to the floor for a final debate, that debate could stretch on for a long time. Why? Reid will need 60 votes to end the final debate. However, Reid does not need 60 to pass the bill. He only needs 51 for that.

Think of it like this: tonight's vote to move the bill to the floor needs 60 to pass. Then, to end the debate on the bill once it's on the floor and move to a final vote, Reid needs 60 votes again. If he can clear these two hurdles, the bill will come to a final vote in the Senate, where it needs 51 votes to pass. Even if it passes in say early 2010, then the bill will then head to a conference committee between the House and the Senate, where issues will be hashed out even more before it has any chance of reaching President Obama's desk.

So, it's a long road ahead. Stay with us through the fight.

$100 just came into NRO for our fundraising drive with this message:

See what you can do about reclassifying Pluto as a planet again.  Yeah, it's a little off topic, but where will it end?  Mercury next? Then Venus?  Pretty soon there won't be any "planets" left and then how will the Federation be formed?  I have a stake in this as Captain Kirk is due to be born just down the road in a couple of hundred years, so I need you folks to get on this now.   (Okay, just a little ST tweaking of K-Lo.)

From Sarah Palin's Twitter:

@SarahPalinUSA: Not sure I can convince Sen. Lincoln to vote no - but will do everything in my pwr to convince my friends in Arkansas to vote against her.

From a $100 NRO contributor:

You got me! Having read comments by other donors over the past week I have to donate. My husband is a family physician and I don't know what the future will bring. Your site is a God send.

Contribute to NRO here.

I'm getting a lot of e-mails like this one today: "I tried to call my Senator [Bayh] today, but all I got was a message that said the mailbox was full. Glad I could express my opinion . . . "

Soon to appear on the Senate floor: Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), chair of the GOP conference. Sources tell us that he's going to talk about how the Democrats' plan is, in large part, just a punt to the states. He believes Reid's bill will drop millions of Americans into Medicaid -- and leave states with the bill.

An enlightened discussion.

You might want your senator to read this from Keith Hennessey.

How key Democrats are voting on tonight's cloture vote:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) --  Yes

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) -- Yes

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) -- Yes

So, by 3 p.m., it looks like Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has reached the 60-vote threshold he needs to approve the procedural motion that will move his health-care bill to the floor for a final debate. Having 60 also enables Reid to prevent a GOP filibuster on the motion to proceed.

Keep watching C-SPAN 2, and stay on The Corner of course, until 8 p.m. tonight. In politics, and especially in the fickle Senate, a lot can happen in a few hours.

From a $100 NRO contributor:

If it wasn't for National Review, I would have spent my entire life without seeing Breaking Bad, Veronica Mars or 30 Rock. Nor would I ever have read John Macdonald. That's worth $100 at least.

Contribute to NRO here.

Goldman Sachs has a new risk to manage: mob rage. News that the Wall Street firm has already set aside $16.7 billion for bonuses and other employee pay this year has provoked a visceral reaction.

Goldman has spent the past couple of weeks groping for a proper response to this anger. CEO Lloyd Blankfein has gone from saying that Goldman is “doing God's work” to saying that “we apologize” for an unspecified catch-all category of “things that were clearly wrong and [that we] have reason to regret.”

The firm also announced an initiative through which new politically powerful “partners” -- including the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Urban League -- will help it to direct $500 million to certain small businesses (at the likely expense of entrepreneurial start-ups without political backers).

And Goldman has once again cancelled its holiday party and even asked employees not to hold their own traditional at-home parties for workers in their divisions.#more#

These efforts have only provoked more -- and uglier -- anger. “Blood money. A propitiation,” wrote a Wall Street Journal commenter in response to an article about the small-business initiative. A New York Times commenter agreed. Another Times commenter called it “a drop in the bloody bucket of GS profits.”

It would be comforting to dismiss such sentiments as extreme outliers. But the pop-culture verdict that Goldman is “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” has stuck. Wall Street itself seems to have uneasily settled for treating this disturbing imagery as a joke.

Many other critics, of course, do justly complain that it's not fair that the government has protected the investment firm from losses while allowing small businesses to fail.

Goldman itself has done nothing wrong, though. All it has done is to master a business that operates within a dysfunctional regulatory system. Washington does not allow for the marketplace credibly or consistently to discipline Wall Street firms, including Goldman. Goldman acts rationally within this irrational regime.

If people don't like it that Washington's 2008 bailout of AIG allowed Goldman to avoid billions of dollars in likely losses on AIG contracts, they should blame Washington, not Goldman. Goldman only got its share of what Washington's bailout menu had on offer.

If people don't like it that an implicit taxpayer “too big to fail” guarantee helps Goldman to pay billions of dollars in bonuses as unemployment rises, they should blame Washington, not Goldman. Goldman is a player, not a referee, and it cannot change the rules.

Should Goldman “give back” more, maybe give the feds back some of the money it got from the AIG rescue, as a sign of goodwill? No -- because a market system that depends on goodwill is no system at all.

Washington must create a system in which the markets provide predictable, rules-based discipline of the vital financial industry. Without fair rules, as we see, popular opinion, including its dark side, will try to provide its own rough form of discipline. 

And as the fury at Goldman and Goldman's attempts to address it both show, this method uses a blunt instrument that misses its target and often does collateral damage -- not good for the country economically or socially.

— Nicole Gelinas, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, is author of the forthcoming After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street — and Washington.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R., Neb.) just led, along with GOP senators Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah), the Senate floor debate on the abortion language in Sen. Harry Reid’s health-care bill. He tells NRO that his hope for “one Democrat to stand up for life” and vote against moving Reid’s bill to the floor are dimming this afternoon.

“I still hold out hope, but I must admit that it’s a fading hope,” says Johanns. “I hope that there may be one Democrat, even if they’re quiet now, to stand up tonight. It comes down to someone in their heart being pro-life.”

“If one Democrat were to stand up to Senator Reid, and say ‘I can’t support this,’ then Senator Reid would be forced to put the Stupak language in, since he needs every vote,” says Johanns. “There has never been a greater moment of leverage for pro-life Democrats. We still have a few hours before the vote. If it passes, and heads to the Senate floor, then our chances really don’t look good, since no one can count 60 pro-life senators.”

Keep calling your senators, urges Johanns. “We have to keep our energy up,” he says. But for now, he adds, the debate on the floor is “just terrible.”

“I’m shocked that in this kind of economic atmosphere that they want to push this,” he says.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) on the Senate floor earlier today:

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim this bill costs about $800 billion. That's the number they say has been reached as the expenditure on this bill. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a totally dishonest number. That is the ultimate shell game. That is Washington cynical politics. You know how they get to that number? Which is a ten-year number, by the way. How they get to this number of $800 billion as the cost of this bill, which, by the way, that's a lot of money, $800 billion. That would run the state of New Hampshire for, I don't know, probably 100 years. Literally almost 100 years.  It would run Missouri, a bigger state, for a while. Probably run Alabama for a little while, too. South Dakota could run for 200 years, for all I know.

It's a lot of money, $800 billion-plus. But that is not the cost of this bill. The way that number was arrived at was that they don't start spending money on this bill until the fourth or the fifth year. They couldn't get the score they wanted from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), so they changed the starting point. They moved back another year in the ten-year cycle. They went from four years to five years as to the starting point of most of the spending in this bill. What they claim to the American people is that a ten-year bill is going to cost about $800-plus billion.

What they don't tell the American people is they're not spending anything in the first four or five years of the bill. No. They do raise your taxes throughout the ten-year period. They do cut Medicare throughout the ten-year period. But they don't spend the money. They don't start the spending programs until the year 2014, when this bill is fully phased in, when all these new programs, these massive expansion of entitlements are created, these brand-new entitlements. When all this new spending occurs, this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period. $2.5 trillion. That's the real cost of this bill. That's how big this government is going to grow in a ten-year window as a result of this spending.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) on the Senate floor:

Although I don’t agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation’s health care system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R., Neb.), fresh off the Senate floor, just gave NRO a call to defend Washington Post columnist David Broder, who earlier in the day was derided as a “man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in awhile” by Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

What set off Reid’s comment: Senator minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) had cited a Broder column on health care, calling the longtime Post writer “a distinguished senior columnist.” Reid shot back that to focus on a Broder editorial is “not where we should be.”

“Why did [Reid] have to vilify Mr. Broder?” asks Johanns. “I’ve only met [Broder] here and there. We sometimes agree, we sometimes don’t. But I’ve always thought that he was thoughtful and a genuinely nice person.” Johanns adds that he often reads Broder’s twice-week-column and that Reid’s comments simply “drives me nuts.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has this out now: 

Lincoln To Cast 60^th Vote For Obama’s $2.5 Trillion Government Health Care Takeover . . .

“Blanche Lincoln’s vote tonight is unequivocally a vote in favor of President Obama’s $2.5 trillion government-run health care plan.

“Obviously the pressure from the left wing of her party finally got to Blanche Lincoln.  She not only reversed her previous statements that a government-run plan was too costly, but she completely ignored the increasing unemployment rate in her state and the growing national deficit when she announced that she will cast the 60^th vote in favor of President Obama’s costly health care plan tonight.

“There’s no doubt that this vote will be a critical issue for Senator Lincoln as she embarks on her uphill re-election bid, and the people of Arkansas will have an opportunity to hold her accountable when they cast their ballots next November.”

Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) just finished a long and winding speech on the Senate floor. Even Harry Reid had more enthusiasm. It's a shame that Franken has lost that ol' SNL spark, at least in his style. Then again, Stuart Smalley was never really that entertaining.

From The Economist:

Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will have to rise.

The Economist is correct to suggest that Americans appear for now, despite the best efforts of the tea party crowd, still to be opting for permanently (I wouldn’t include some of today’s crisis arrangements in that calculation) bigger government in their future. As the paper’s writer suggests, that’s a bad mistake. And maybe one day we will have a GOP capable of making a coherent -- and believable -- case for a smaller, less intrusive, less expensive state. Given that that smaller, less intrusive, less expensive state does not appear to be on the agenda just yet, The Economist is right to ask how Obama’s Leviathan will be paid for.

Raising tax revenue will hurt less if the tax system becomes more supportive of economic growth in the process. Compared with other countries, America taxes consumption too little and income too much. Redressing this imbalance could, with time, help economic growth. First, broaden the income-tax base by eliminating exemptions, and if possible cutting rates. Second, introduce a carbon tax, the least distorting way to slow the growth in emissions. If that is not possible, sell rather than give away carbon-emission permits, or raise the federal fuel tax. A last resort is a broad consumption tax, such as a value-added tax. This is economically efficient, but could too easily become a politically convenient way to vacuum up more money and expand government.

It’s worth adding that those general prescriptions could and should apply no less to the funding of a much smaller government -- with a fairly major caveat so far as carbon-emission permits are concerned. While (despite the recent most entertaining revelations coming out of the U.K.) a simple precautionary environmentalism of doubt ought to argue for some pricing mechanism for carbon emissions, the scope that such regimes offer for political manipulation make them too untrustworthy to be tried. Better by far to embark on a series of transparent and gradual increases in the federal fuel tax -- something that would have obvious advantages for American security policy as well.

From a $50 NRO contributor:

I'm a theoretical physicist, and I very often read NRO surreptitiously during dull string theory seminars or interminable astronomical data discussions. And of course, as an academic, and one living in Canada no less, I *need* you guys to keep me informed about what's really going on back home. Thanks for all you do!

Contribute to NRO here.

UPDATE: She's voting with her party.

Nebraska senator Mike Johanns just referred to this procedural vote tonight as one of the most important pro-life votes most senators will cast. He pointed out that based on senatorial history, the vote tonight suggests final passage. "This vote tonight on the life issue is very well determinative," he said. 

He pointed to the reality that after this point, the bill is unlikely to be made better on life in the Senate (well, or anywhere). "It will take sixty votes to amend. I wish I could count sixty pro-life senators . . . but . . . they're aren't sixty here."

Speaking of the unborn, Johanns said, "these truly are our most vulnerable citizens" and implored "just one Democrat" to be as "courageous" as, he said, the Democrats who insisted on Stupak in the House were.