Please excuse our pre-Halloween playfulness here. Its just that when something as particularly dreadful as H.R.3962 gets sprung on Congress at the last bitter moment, we can’t help but giggle nervously, look around, and wonder if this is all part of some mischief night prank. After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seen hovering around it like some sort of medium at a seance.

H.R.3962 is another one of Rep. John Dingell’s environmentally-friendly recycled lobbyist hashes. So far its just titled “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.”

We’re waiting on our tip-toes for the next great Democrat acronym, but since all the good ones have already been taken (AHCA, AAHCA, AHFA, AHAA, AAAA, AAA, etc.) we’ll jump the gun and call it “Dingell’s Universal Medical Bill” or DUMB.

Now, we won’t bother ranting and raving about DUMB’s jaw-dropping page count. Been there, done that with Dingell’s pre-DUMB offering, H.R. 3200. Hate to credit the creepy likes of Alan Combs for anything, but he pointed out that nobody questioned the page count of the Patriot Act when it was rammed through Congress. So who should raise a ruckus over the leaning tower of DUMB that was threatening to topple onto Rep. John Boehner the other day? Certainly not us!

Nor shall we raise the issue of “shall” appearing more times throughout the text of DUMB than Sen. Chuck Schumer before a press conference podium in any given week. “Shall” is one of those antagonistic words best left in the earlier works of Shakespeare. Nobody in their 260s and younger actually uses that word in normal conversation. “Thou, thee, thy, shall.” Most bills drooling out of the Congressional offices sound like the King James version of the Bible, only without divine inspiration.

Nor must (aha! “must” not “shall!”) we take on the fact that nobody’s still finished reading Dingell’s other “Nightmare on C Street Southeast,” alternatively titled AHFA. Or AHCA. Or one of those handy acronyms.

Republicans keep demanding 72 hours for the public to glance at a bill before its ram-rodded through Congress like ball-shot in a Parrot gun, but hey! We don’t know anyone who got through Dan Brown’s novels in less than 72 hours. And his stuff’s one-quarter the length and occasionally entertaining.

Let’s face it. We’re slow readers. We like to absorb the nitty-gritty details. Look, we’re still stuck on page 994 of AHFA (or is it AHCA?), where “Ye Lords & Ladies of the manor shall forfeit a goodly portion of crops & fruits of thy forest & heath, lest toiling peasants of thine fields succumb to privation & black death…”

No wait. Wrong bill. That was Title XI Sec. 23 Subsec. 12(A)(1)(a)(iii) of Pelosi’s Medicare overhaul from that other fright-fest, the 110th Congress.

We won’t even bore the kids with pointing out how utterly two-faced it is for Dingell to put “reduce the growth in health care spending” in the title of this crushing behemoth. Great. It’ll reduce health care spending. But where? At the drug store? Will bandages for mummy-wrapping be cheaper after DUMB is signed into law?

Call us crazy, but adding “only” $90,000,000,000 a year to the budget (plus another $90,000,000,000 to cover the lies being told on Capitol Hill) isn’t saving anything. Running a deficit like we are now has never happened in history for a very good reason: It can’t be done. Oh, the Byzantines tried it a couple of centuries ago (when “shall” was the hot word among the nobles and clergy) and we know how THAT ONE turned out: The Fall of Constantinople makes “Saw VI” look like a haunted hay ride!

The biggest problem with DUMB (Oh, how to pick just one! It’s like rummaging for the last Twix in a big crystal bowl of Milky Ways and Snickers while trick-or-treating, isn’t it?) is its bare-faced, pig-headed stubborn blatantness. Hate to get personal here, but come on! A goodly portion of America is deeply offended by the blanket-law bill-dumping practices of the veteran incumbent Democrat leadership.

There ought to be a law against littering Capitol Hill like this. But we figure THAT law won’t be enacted until after Pelosi and the other ghosts of the 111th Congress are exorcised in the 2010 elections.

All right! Forget about these real-life nightmares! Let’s get down to some pumpkin carving, skeleton-hanging, and don’t forget to drop a few lumps of dry ice in a tub of water for good effect.

Halloween is a time for plain fun. Who wants the ghouls of the DNC scaring us out of our wits with their wicked games, anyway?

Senate Democrats have “let the smoke out of the back room,” so to speak. New draft details of Senator Max Baucus’ health care reform bill (abbreviated to AHFA) have been made public, and there is little to like about the latest revisions. In this bill, the “public option” is disguised as something that states can “opt out of.”

We’re not sure who is being targeted in this latest push for public option acceptance, but it is unlikely to gain traction for the simplest reason: States will not be able to opt out because of what we like to call the dreaded “Stimulus Effect.”

Back in the winter, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA (pronounced ERROR) disbursed billions of federal dollars to the states for pork projects galore. The states almost fell over one another to grab for this “Free” money. Only the governors of Texas and South Carolina threatened to refuse the grab-bag on grounds that complying with ARRA’s fine print was unconstitutional. But the state legislators crushed gubernatorial opposition to hop aboard the cash train.

Democrats expect much of the same panic-excitement seen during ARRA once Sen. Baucus’ AHFA is enacted. One need only ask the obvious question: What state in its right mind will “opt out” of a health plan paid for by the federal government? What legislature will bring themselves to say “no” to federal cash?

Several states have public option health plans, including Massachuestts and Vermont, while Connecticut has a limited plan. Will these struggling cash-strapped states retain their own tailored plans while the federal government dangles a “paid-for” plan of its own? Unlikely.

The other, more pragmatic reason no state will ever “opt out” is the legal maxim that federal law preempts state law except when state law is more stringent. This means, any state that wishes to “opt out” will have to enact a public option plan that offers more coverage than the federal law.

So, the Baucus bill with its heavily advertised “opt out” clause is a mirage. Its impossible on every political level. And its patently dishonest of the veteran incumbent Democrats to invoke the dreaded “Stimulus Effect” as a way of terrorizing states into accepting their plan.

Ever since the new administration was inaugurated, a tidal wave of legislation has surged forward from the Democrat leadership. Nearly all of this work is old. That is, most of the bills were killed in previous sessions of Congress, or were written by lobbyists and special interests waiting sometimes years for a moment such as this.

And, during the last nine months, the incumbent Democrats have accused the Republicans of being “the Party of No” because GOP leaders repeatedly urged their colleagues to slow down, if only long enough for legislators to obey the Constitution and actually read what they’re voting on. Furthermore, one after another, the Republicans offered bipartisan alternatives, only to be shut down and shut out.

In reality, the Democrats are the REAL Party of NO, and here are several reasons why:

1. TARP. Even before the election, Democrats accused the Republicans for not supporting the TARP bailout of the biggest, richest banks. For questioning the moral right of the government to pick and choose which bank should be allowed to take taxpayer cash and then use it to become richer and more powerful, the Republicans were already being called the “Party of Doing Nothing.” But the Democrats were the ones who said NO to sensibility and moderation.

2. Stimulus. When the Stimulus came around, the GOP was already stereotyped as “The Party of No” for not supporting a comprehensive recovery plan. But the Republicans denounced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (pronounced ERROR) as an inflation of welfare. Republican lawmakers issued dozens of amendments, but they were killed in committee by the Democrats, who said NO to steering tax money toward solid infrastructure projects this year.

Even progressive activists who advocated investment in public works as a good stimulus were unhappy with the expansion of welfare by ARRA. The progressives knew nothing in the stimulus package would actually help the economy or build public infrastructure. And, the Democrats said NO to stimulating the economy through tax breaks and targeted stimulus measures as the Republicans had requested.

3. Budget. The Democrats’ 2010 budget was released with great fanfare, and received by the public with great anxiety. Never before had so much money been committed to so many special interests. In response, the Republicans issued a structural blueprint of how they felt the next budget should progress: their plan called for moderation in the tough economic climate, especially as the IRS released a warning on revenue loss.

The incumbent Democrat leadership responded with ridicule, saying their budget had no numbers, and the media declared the GOP dead in the water. Within a week, the Republican alternative budget was fleshed out with numbers, but it was too late. Speaker Pelosi had the votes to pass her monolithic creation. And the Democrats said NO to compromise and NO to respect for the American taxpayer.

4. Cap-And-Trade. Rep. Henry Waxman’s job-destroying Global Warming bill was rushed through Congress. The quicker, the better. So many special interests stood to benefit from the penalties on American manufacturers, grants for unproven green industries, and carbon trading  in the gambling house called Wall Street. All while doing literally nothing to alleviate climate change.

Immediately, the Republicans submitted their comprehensive “New Manhattan Project” for encouraging the strategic development of alternative energy. Grants for research and development would expand to full federal funding where progress toward sustainable energy solutions were proven. But Rep. Waxman denounced the bill as “a prize-giving competition” compared to his bill. The Democrat Party said NO to rewarding innovation and creative problem-solving.

5. Health Care Reform.Time and time again, Rep. Rosa DeLauro has denounced the Republicans for being a party without ideas, a party of “No.” In her House floor statement of April 29, 2009, Rep. DeLauro said:

If you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they were missing in action over this last 8 years. It is hard to believe that they were in charge. It is a little bit like “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.” They were gone from the playing field over these last 8 years. We will not let a party of “no” stand in the way of a reformed health care system that the majority of Americans so desperately want.

Long before Senator Kennedy’s terrible AHCA and Rep. John Dingell’s even worse AAHCA, there was the Republican’s bipartisan Patient’s Choice Act (PCA). It would enact major reforms to the industry and still keep government from intruding on the all-important doctor-patient relationship. The PCA promises to reward innovation, allow doctors the freedom to practice medicine as they see fit, and broaden the patients’ choices, while streamlining administrative work, reducing liability costs, and cutting down on fraud.

But the PCA is going nowhere. That’s because the Democrat leadership has said NO to giving the American people the right to choose what’s best for themselves and their families.

6. “Bipartisanship”. Like the rest of the veteran incumbent Democrat leadership, “bipartisanship” in the 111th Congress is simple: Vote with us! Or get NOas an alternative. Rep. DeLauro unequivocally stated:

We will work to craft bipartisan legislation, but the American people are not interested in process. They are interested in results.

For 12 years, the Democrat minority thundered about bipartisanship, about being included in the legislative process because they had been voted into office by Democrat constituents. President George W. Bush responded by including Democrat proposals into his agenda. The result was massive deficits. When Rep. DeLauro said,

But let’s be clear. It was under their leadership that a $5.6 trillion surplus turned into the historic budget deficit that President Obama and this Congress inherited a deficit of well over $1 trillion in 2009.

She really meant, “Let’s be clear. It was under Democrat guidance and authorship and pressure that massive entitlements were signed into law.” Only audacious denial of facts allow Democrats to get away with blaming the last Administration for debts and deficits when their administration will be tripling deficits each and every year!

Here is the truth about the last eight years: The problem was bipartisanship, offering the Democrat opposition a voice that did not belong to them. Because of this, an era of prosperity and record tax revenue still kept us trillions in debt.

When it comes to the last eight years, the blame game is rightly bipartisan. Both parties frittered away a great opportunity to use record revenues to balance the budget and reduce the debt while protecting manufacturing jobs.

What has happened since January 2009, however, sits squarely in the lap of the real Party of NO: The Democrats.