December 14-15, 2009
Dec 14 03:56 Will TEA Party Women Change the GOP? Dec 14 10:44 President Obama's Downward Slide Continues Dec 14 12:19 BOI Finds LtCol Chessani Not Guilty Dec 15 03:20 Dayton: "Read My Lips. Tax the Rich" Dec 15 00:36 2010 Is Beginning to Look Alot Like 1994 Dec 15 04:42 Speaker Kelliher's "Mistake"? Dec 15 05:39 Health Care Update Dec 15 07:55 Fisking Peter Orszag On Health Care
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Will TEA Party Women Change the GOP?
If you believe this article , which I wholeheartedly do, then it's entirely plausible that women will lead the next conservative movement. I don't care who leads conservatism's next revolution as long as there's room for everyone who prefers limited government and low taxes over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid model.
WHEN Stacy Mott, a stay-at-home mother of three children, started writing a blog after the election of President Barack Obama last year, she had no involvement in politics and simply wanted to vent her frustration at financial bailouts, healthcare reform and legislation to combat climate change. The former marketing executive at Toys R Us quickly found she was not alone. One year on, her blog, Smart Girl Politics, is an organisation with 23,000 members and co-ordinators in almost every state.Obviously, conservatives have felt like the GOP abandoned them in their pursuit of popularity. That won't fly with the people who are leading the TEA Party Movement. The lesson to be taken from Rasmussen's polling isn't that this is the start of a third party but rather that TEA Party activists are intent on rebuilding the GOP by insisting that it stays true to its principles.
"There are a huge amount of people out there who are angry at Obama and big government but feel the Republican Party is not representing them," said Rebecca Wales, who left the party's campaign team to become Smart Girl's communications director. "What we are seeing is an outpouring of conservative values."
In recent months, the US has witnessed an astonishing growth in similar right-wing grassroots organisations across the country, loosely grouped under the label Tea party.
Although it has no leader, no clear origins and a vague objective of "taking back America", it is emerging as a powerful force in next year's congressional elections. A poll last week found that if it were a party, the movement's candidates would be more popular than the Republicans. According to the Rasmussen survey, Democrats have 36 percent of the vote, the Tea party 23 percent and Republicans 18 percent.
I'm proud that I get to say that my representative in DC, Michele Bachmann, is one of the leaders of the TEA Party movement. Having spoken with her about this several times, I know that she gets it. I'd go so far as saying that Michele, Mike Pence and Jim Demint know more about what's important to TEA Party activists than any other DC politicians.
The Tea party is now preparing for its first national convention in February. The headline speaker will be Sarah Palin, poster girl of the American Right, whose memoir is topping bestseller lists. Palin is not the only female firebrand embraced by the Tea party people. "We also like Liz Cheney (the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney) and Michele Bachmann," said Wales.The article then announces this:
Bachmann is a member of the "birthers", who question whether Obama was born in the US, and the "deathers", who claim that government cost-cutting under the President's healthcare plan would prevent older Americans from receiving vital treatment.Minnesota Independent won't even say that Michele Bachmann is a birther:
UPDATE: Salon reports that Bachmann was simply playing an assigned role to help postpone all votes until Monday evening, when she in fact voted in support of the resolution , along with everyone else in Congress, where it passed unanimously.The left won't stop taking cheapshots at Michele or Sarah Palin. The nastiness the national media showed toward Sarah Palin in last year's presidential campaign wasn't hard-hitting. It was pathetic. When the press started asking whether Trig was Gov. Palin's son, they did it off of a hint of a rumor. They didn't need proof. They didn't do any fact-checking. They did that without hesitation or regret.
The national media is starting to get to that point with Michele, too. She isn't complaining, though. If there's anyone that can give as good as she gets, then keep fighting, it's Michele. The Democrats' cheapshots and their media enablers' attacks haven't fazed her. She just keeps moving forward.
If Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, Michele Bachmann and other conservative women want to help revitalize the conservative movement, I'm cool with it. I'll never say that we have too many outstanding conservative thinkers. There's no such thing as having too many energized, charismatic conservative leaders.
Posted Monday, December 14, 2009 4:02 AM
Comment 1 by Sheila at 14-Dec-09 10:56 PM
Hi Gary-good piece,
I started a co with a girlfriend to promote this idea of conservative women reaching other women and it's taking off, even here in liberal MN...so here's a shameless plug for your readers looking for Christmas presents for the conservative women in their lives :) www.coolconservativegear.com
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Dec-09 12:30 AM
Sheila, I encourage conservatives, whether they're men, women or young people, to engage in a certain level of shameless promotion.
Keep me posted on how your business is doing. I suspect that it'll have a substantial following.
President Obama's Downward Slide Continues
It isn't surprising that President Obama's unpopularity keeps rising , especially considering his pursuit of the most radical agenda in U.S. history. Thus it comes as no surprise that his JAR has taken another major hit:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.The news gets worse:
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That's the lowest level yet measured for this president. Previously, his overall approval rating had fallen to 45% twice, once in early September and once in late November.It isn't likely that things will improve anytime soon. Democrats are saying that a win on health care will improve things. I'd argue that it'd sink him further if the legislation that's currently being discussed is passed. The Democrats' health care legislation would hurt hospitals, forcing many rural hospitals into the red or into bankruptcy. I can't imagine driving hospitals out of business helps improve President Obama's job approval rating.
Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve.
Yesterday, I wrote about the Democrats' budget . It hasn't been lost on the American people that President Obama has increased spending by almost a third in less than a year in office. That certainly isn't playing well in Peoria or in Tennessee for that matter.
One of the emerging trends this year is the utter disintegration of independents' support for the Democrats' radical spending agenda. That's certainly continuing, with only 36 percent of independents supporting President Obama.
If things don't turn around fairly soon, Democrats will start distancing themselves from President Obama in public. They'll still want him to do fundraisers for them but they'll likely prefer him to stay in the shadows down the home stretch more often than not.
Posted Monday, December 14, 2009 10:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Dec-09 04:10 PM
I agree that the Afghan war expansion was unpopular; Bush-Cheney redux. What was 0bama thinking?
30,000 troops - that was Bush and Condi, and Gates. Now it's the Bush clone, Obama, the Condi clone, Clinton, and the Gates clone, that you have to agree with, Gates.
Who wants that war? Pipline companies, but who else?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Dec-09 08:25 PM
Afghanistan is about the only thing he's come close to getting right thus far. President Obama gave himself a B+ thus far. I'd give him a D at best. The stimullus failed. The economy is still in the crapper. Government is taking a greater percentage of our lives on a seemingly daily basis.
Dayton: "Read My Lips. Tax the Rich"
Mark Dayton isn't the sharpest knife in the DFL's drawer but he's sunk to a new low with his latest campaign slogan :
While almost all the DFLers argue that the wealthy should pay their "fair share," Dayton is the most explicit and aggressive about it.Mr. Dayton isn't proposing a tax on "the rich." He's proposing a full frontal assualt on small businesses. He won't get small businesses to "pay their fair share." He'll get them to leave Minnesota for better business climates like Utah, Colorado, North and South Dakota.
"Read my lips: Tax the rich," is one of his favorite campaign slogans. During a candidate forum Monday at Macalester College in St. Paul, he said that it's not only fair but also that the wealthy can afford to pay more.
He called for taxing the top 10 percent at the same rate as other Minnesotans, 12.1 percent of their incomes, and said that change would raise $3.8 billion over two years.
The Revenue Department's Wilson told Minnesota Public Radio that Dayton's proposal would require a 40 percent income tax increase on those top earners, raising their rate from 7.85 percent to around 13 percent. That would be by far the highest income tax rate in the nation.
Here's what Rep. Steve Gottwalt thinks about the DFL's recently establishing a "Small Business Caucus":
Dear Neighbor:The DFL is trying the same techniques as President Obama: Talk like a moderate, then stab people in the back when they aren't looking. The DFL-dominated legislature has repeatedly voted for raising small business's taxes while attempting to increase spending irresponsibly. Let's remember that Speaker Kelliher said that the DFL House caucus was a " fiscally moderate caucus ":
It's interesting how priorities change for some people with shifts in the winds of politics. As conservatives fought for small businesses, and opposed higher taxes and more regulation over the last few years, the liberals running the state legislature pursued a decidedly anti-business agenda full of tax increases and more regulatory burdens.
Then, late this summer, as anger over massive deficit spending and expansion of government swept our nation, several of the more vulnerable liberals in our state legislature decided to form a "Small Business Caucus," claiming to be friends of small businesses. Now, these "born again" liberals are offering an online survey seeking small business input just several weeks ahead of the 2010 legislative session.
How absurd! Were they not listening over the last few years? Where were these lawmakers as businesses large and small told them loud and clear: "Stop taxing and regulating us to death"? Where was their concern for small businesses as they voted time and again for massive tax increases, and incredible regulatory burdens?
Sitting amid the unpacked boxes in Majority Leader Tony Sertich's office, Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Sertich said the top priorities are "affordable and accessible health care," a stronger education system and property tax relief.We're still waiting for affordable health care, the stronger education system and for the DFL show even a modicum of fiscal responsibility. Fortunately, Gov. Pawlenty intervened in 2008 to force property tax relief down the DFL's throats.
"Those are the big three," said Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis.
Add to those three a fourth element that may surprise some: fiscal responsibility.
"We're a fiscally moderate caucus," Kelliher said of the sprawling 85-member majority that now includes significant numbers of moderates from the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.
After 3 years of playing games, the DFL is finally willing to just say stright out that it lives to increase taxes, especially on small businesses. That's because putting in place conditions that help a business thrive isn't a priority, especially with Mr. Dayton.
The DFL has controlled the Senate for well in excess of 15 years. They've refused to budge from their 1970s ways. They're still stuck thinking that what worked in the 70s still works in a different millenium. If the DFL won't change directions, then they need to be rejected at the ballot box.
The GOP has a plan to help Minnesota return to being the state of prosperity. That's because they actually believe in small businesses. They've been defending small businesses as long as I've been watching them.
The moral of the story is simple: No GOP, no prosperity. Know a GOP majority and you'll know prosperity.
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:20 AM
Comment 1 by Steve at 16-Dec-09 03:58 AM
Good news, the national health care bill being opposed by all Republicans in Congress, except maybe one, will be a boon to small business:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib268/
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Dec-09 07:47 AM
Watch for the next round of layoffs to start if it gets signed into law. BTW, it isn't reform. It's the start of a command-and-control health care system, with the secretary of HHS telling doctors what procedures & tests will be paid for, with the government telling people what their health care policiies will look like & telling medical device manufacturers that their devices will cost more.
That's before we're talking about the rationing of care for senior citizens.
The good news is that the people turn on the Democratic Party for ruining their health care system.
Welcome to the Revolution, Babe.
BOI Finds LtCol Chessani Not Guilty
I just got TMLC's press release on breaking news that a Board Of Inquiry, aka BOI, has found Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani not guilty of misconduct. Here's the heart of their statement:
ANN ARBOR, MI ; Late last Friday afternoon (Eastern Standard Time), after three hours of deliberation, the military Board of Inquiry ruled LtCol Chessani was not guilty of misconduct and should not be demoted.The BOI's requiring Lt. Col. Chessani to retire is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I can't even imagine what that ruling means to Lt. Col. Chessani. This is more proof that John Murtha's anti-war diatribe was politically motivated. It's further proof that the gutless wonder from Johnstown, PA, doesn't put the troops first.
Nevertheless, the Board's ruling produced a mixed result. It ruled Chessani must now retire because he displayed "substandard performance" by failing to conduct a more detailed investigation of the civilians killed as a result of the house clearing actions of four Marines after they were ambushed in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005.
The Board's decision came after a 1+ hour impassioned closing argument on behalf of LtCol Chessani made by Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise. Muise argued Chessani was a scapegoat to appease the anti-war media and anti-war politician John Murtha. "Here's your scapegoat. Here's your fall guy," said Muise as he pointed at Chessani, who sat silently at the defense table.
There's no longer any arguing that Murtha put political motivations ahead of his consideration of the Haditha Marines. He didn't get a single fact straight in making these accusations, as I've proved with this timeline . He didn't wait for the investigation to be completed. He lied about where he got his information from.
"It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.According to the findings of facts, there's no question that there was a firefight that night in Haditha. In fact, then-Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore refuted Murtha's allegations with his testimony:
The battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.Capt. Dinsmore watched the firefight by monitoring the drone footage as the UAVs circled over the scene of the firefight. You can't get more direct refutation of Murtha's accusations than that.
To review, here's what Rep. Murtha said when first questioned where he got his information from:
Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about." Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."That's a bunch of BS. We know this because he quickly changed his story:
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.The last I checked, the Commandant of the Marine Corps isn't an officer in the field. It wouldn't be a stretch to think that Marine Corps Commandant is stationed in the Pentagon.
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17. On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
What's more is that Gen. Hagee didn't brief Murtha until a week after he'd made his accusations.
The charges have been dropped against Capt. McConnell, Capt. Stone, Sgt. de la Cruz, LCpl Tatum and LCpl. Sharratt. Lt. Grayson was found not guilty. SSgt. Frank Wuterich is the only man left of the 8 Haditha Marines that hasn't been acquitted or had his charges dropped.
It's time that the military end this persecution of SSgt. Wuterich. The murder charges have been dropped against the Marines fighting in the firefight. The so-called cover-up has now been dealt with. I've said from the start that there wasn't a cover-up despite what Murtha said. Now that's an official finding of fact.
It's also time for the gutless wonder from Johnstown to publicly apologize for his political anti-military accusations. Finally, it's time for Murtha to retire from the House. He's exceptionally corrupt in addition to his willing to throw the Haditha Marines under the bus.
Posted Monday, December 14, 2009 12:34 PM
No comments.
2010 Is Beginning to Look Alot Like 1994
Liberal pundits have claimed that 2010 wouldn't be another 1994 bloodbath because things are different this time. Specifically, they've said that one of the reasons why Republicans won 54 seats that election was the extraordinary amount of open seats that fell into the GOP's hands.
Of course, that's revisionist history, with chairmen like Dan Rostenkowski and Jack Brooks getting the ouster as well as sitting Speaker Tom Foley getting defeated. Other big name Democrats biting the dust were Dan Glickman and Frank McCloskey.
Now the Democrats' pundits had better start worrying because the rats are abandoning Speaker Pelosi's sinking ship :
Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon will not seek re-election in 2010, becoming the fourth Democrat sitting in a swing district to retire in the last several weeks.No Democrats had retired before the 09 elections. Now that they've seen how independents have fled the Democratic Party en masse, the retirements are coming faster. Gordon faced a particularly stiff uphill fight, running in a decidedly pro-Republican district in a decidedly pro-Republican year.
"When I was elected, I was the youngest member of the Tennessee congressional delegation; now, I'm one of the oldest," Gordon said in a statement announcing his decision. "In fact, I have members of my staff who weren't even born when I took office. That tells me it's time for a new chapter."
Gordon has held the central Tennessee 6th district since 1984 but was headed to his most serious race in recent memory in 2010 as national Republicans had aggressively recruited against him due to the GOP lean of the seat. (Arizona Sen. John McCain carried it with 62 percent in 2008 and President George W. Bush won it with 60 percent four years earlier.)
Every Democrat that abandons Pelosi's sinking ship makes candidate recruitment that much easier for the GOP. Everyone knows that it's easier to recruit candidates for open seat races than it is to recruit to run against an incumbent, though it's true that some incumbents are less imposing than others.
There's another thing that must be taken into consideration for this election. Democrats are democralized, especially if the gutted version of health care passes. In fact, according to AllahPundit's post , a new lefty CW is emerging:
Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.That's something Kos posted on his Twitter feed. In the spirit of bipartisanship, and acting on behalf of the Right Blogosphere, I hereby extend my hand to Markos in the effort to kill this bill.
I suspect that Democrat activists will be upset after this. I certainly understand their frustration. The lesson that the left should learn from this is that it outran public support for the bill. Had they listened, they would've heard the American people saying that they were going too far.
After all, a recent CNN poll showed the public opposing the bill by a 61-36 margin.
Regardless of what happens going forward, John Q. Public will remember that the Democrats didn't hesitate in ignoring the will of We The People. Along with the retirements, that's something that 2010 has in common with 1994.
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:42 AM
No comments.
Speaker Kelliher's "Mistake"?
Last week, the campaign finance spat that Speaker Kelliher got involved in didn't seem like that big a deal. Thanks to new revelations, though, it's beginning to feel like this scandal might be with us awhile.
Tony Sutton has used the best analogy I've heard yet in explaining why Speaker Kelliher's "mistake" isn't the innocent event that Brian Melendez is portraying it as:
Sutton used as simple an analogy as he could to clarify the cash/services issue.The laws governing the size of campaign contributions aren't complicated. Chairman Sutton again puts things in perspective quite effectively:
"If I give you $500 for your campaign for governor," he said, "I can't then turn around and give you $500 worth of copy paper."
"These people have been around," said Sutton. "They know the rules. It's so basic. When you file to become a candidate, you get a book: Here's the rules, follow them. It's not that hard."I certainly agree with Chairman Sutton that veteran politicians should know the campaign finance rules. Where I disagree with Chairman Sutton is when he says that he doesn't think the DFL "did anything wrong." Chairman Melendez is a high priced attorney at one of the most prestigious law firms in the upper Midwest. He's also been the DFL chairman for as long as I've been following state elections.
I'd want to know whether Speaker Kelliher cut a check for the Voter Activiation Network data before the DFL sent that information to Speaker Kelliher. I'd also want to know whether any other candidates have bought this information. If other candidates' campaigns cut checks for the information, then that should apply universally.
When this story first broke, Keliher said that 3 people, including lobbyist Rich Ginsberg, had written a check to the DFL to pay for Speaker Kelliher's access to VAN :
Friday, Kelliher said she made a mistake by directing donors to give to the DFL Party to help pay for her access to the party's voter database. Kelliher said the party learned the process was illegal and returned $1,500 in contributions.I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like a great way to get around Minnesota's finance laws. It also sounds like the DFL was working in concert with the Kelliher campaign. That isn't the way to build trust with the other DFL candidates. It's worth noting that R.T. Rybak also got caught breaking Minnesota's campaign finance laws:
Rybak's gubernatorial campaign was required by the campaign finance board to return $26,000 to his mayoral campaign.What the Rybak would've spent the money on isn't clear but that isn't chump change. That's alot of money. While the average voter isn't going to dig into campaign finance laws, I'm betting that they'll worry whether people who didn't follow the rules are worthy of their trust. While I don't see this as a dealbreaker for Speaker Kelliher, I still think it's something that'll dog her the rest of her campaign.
"Here are the two people many consider their leading contenders," Sutton said, "and they're both violating rules. It just shows that the new left doesn't believe the rules apply to them. In their way of thinking, the end justifies the means."
That's a high price to pay for such a "mistake."
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:42 AM
Comment 1 by DeKay at 15-Dec-09 01:03 PM
Mr Sutton is not one to talk. Unless you have the memory of a small child, you would recall Sutton's embroilment in campaign finance law.
Go here if you dare and are not totally indoctrinated in the Republican party and can still think for yourself.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_27039523085+0
For those who can handle the truth go here for more:
http://thecuckingstool.blogspot.com/2009/12/silent-no-more.html
Gross, LFR, is one big crybaby snarkfest.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Dec-09 03:13 PM
DeKay, I know that you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, I know the RPM had its own debacle. What you don't know is that Sutton was brought in to clean up the mess created by someone else.
As for the cheapshot, I can't say that I'm surprised. It isn't the first time that a liberal has shot his mouth off in such an undignified way. Way to stay classy.
Health Care Update
Last night, the Democrats 'caved' on expanding Medicare to appease Sen. Lieberman. Sen. Reid tried projecting a positive tone:
"Democrats aren't going to let the American people down," Majority Leader Harry Reid said after a closed-door meeting called to discuss last-minute trade-offs in the legislation that President Barack Obama has made a top priority. "I'm confident that by next week, we will be on our way toward final passage."That sounds familiar to what Sen. Reid said last week. That proposal didn't last a week. That's why I'm hesitating before I start thinking it's a done deal. I'm not convinced that this legislation will get the approval of the American people.
This legislation still has $460,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts. It's still got $400,000,000,000 in tax increases at a time when our economy is struggling. The legislation still contains individual and employer mandates. The legislation still will include lots of restrictions and other mandates, too. The legislation won't cut insurance premium costs and it certainly won't reduce the deficit or bend the cost curve downward.
In the end, this bill is somewhat better but it's still terrible legislation. That's because it's coming at the problem from the wrong approach. If you want real reform, you need to start with reducing costs to people. That means reducing the number of coverages mandated by the government. HSAs and high deductible policies should play a prominent role in reform.
We also need to get government out of the health care industry as much as possible. Their Medicare reimbursement rates contribute greatly to the cost-shifting onto private insurance.
The tax increases included in Sen. Reid's legislation will also cause a new round of layoffs just when the economy is showing signs of showing signs. Sen. Reid's legislation will drive up labor costs by increasing taxes on small businesses. It isn't a stretch to think that passing the Democrats' legislation will hurt the economy.
In other words, it's a new headline but it's the same tired old story. The Democrats' legislation is a bassackwards approach to reform, which is why the people are people are consistently and loudly rejecting it.
One positive thing it might do, albeit on a tiny scale, is that it'll force Congress into hiring body guards and purchasing body armor. That's assuming that they'll return to their districts and states.
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:42 AM
No comments.
Fisking Peter Orszag On Health Care
It's amazing the type of BS that this administration has tried peddling. This morning, it's OMB Director Peter Orszag's turn to get fisked. Here's the fantasy that he's peddling:
The Journal makes three fundamental claims. The first is that health reform represents a huge risk to the federal budget, and will end up exploding the deficit, because it relies on an array of speculative policies to control costs.People aren't that gullible, Mr. Orszag. We've seen how the CBO scoring is manipulated. We've read about how the taxes are collected for 10 years but the expenditures are only paid out for 6 years.
What the Journal misses is the crucial difference between this health reform effort and the flawed supply-side economics that drove the country into the deep deficits of the 1980s: we are insisting that the legislation be deficit neutral as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in addition to including a variety of delivery system reform and other cost-containment measures for the long term. In other words, unlike supply-siders, we are not waiting for magic savings to appear. Instead, we are relying on hard, scoreable savings, not the long-term cost-control measures, to pay for the expansion of health care coverage. This "belt and suspenders" approach provides a crucial fiscal backstop, and it's the prudent, realistic, and wise thing to do. (Note to the Journal ed board: here's the link to the CBO score of the Senate legislation, in case you'd like to read it.)
I'd further add that it isn't wise to brag about deficit neutrality. Increasing taxes by $400,000,000,000 and cutting Medicare by $460,000,000,000 will cause the CBO to score it as reducing the deficit but that doesn't mean the legislation isn't expensive.
Here's another gem from Mr. Orszag:
Which brings us to the Journal's second argument: that Congress lacks the stomach for serious cost control or always undoes the savings later. This is an interesting argument for a newspaper like the Journal to make, when its closest allies on Capitol Hill spent the better part of last week opposing hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings. Moreover, it is fundamentally an argument for hopelessness and inaction in the face of our nation's most serious long-term fiscal challenge: If Congress is institutionally incapable of ever reducing the rate of health cost growth because projected savings are always undone by future Congresses, why even try in the first place?As usual, Mr. Orszag, just like everyone in President Obama's administration, thinks that government is the solution. Mr. Orszag reflexively thinks that the people, including medical professionals, economists and policy experts, can't figure out how to reform health care.
That's arrogance, which is typical of this administration.
The reality is that there are lots of people living beyong the Beltway that know how to improve health care. We know that people who have high deductible policies are great health care shoppers because it's their money that they're spending. We know that HSAs, paid for with pre-tax dollars, are a great way to set money aside to pay for the deductibles of a catastrophic policy.
The other benefits to having this type of health care coverage is that health care can't be rationed and it's totally portable. Think of how liberating that is. The person isn't tied to a company for his/her health care benefits. Also, smart businesses likely will match an employee's contributions to an HSA. Thus, the employee pays less for maintaining a healthy balance in their HSA, the company doesn't pay alot out for health care and the policy is portable.
Another dirty little secret about this type of policy is that employers that don't have to pay out megadollars on health care can pay their employees more in wages .
This isn't to suggest that HSAs are THE SILVER BULLET ANSWER to the health care crisis but it's certainly an important part of the solution.
Eliminating wasteful mandates will lower the cost of an insurance premium, too. A friend of mine living in Massachusetts told me recently that every insurance policy purchased in Massachusetts must include coverage for in vitro fertilization. The cost to Massachusetts residents is expensive, adding hundreds of extra dollars to the cost of their insurance premiums.
We are not setting out a plan with every detail laid out for what the health care system of the future should look like. Thinking that we could lay out in full detail a perfect system today would show a foolish disregard for the dynamism of the health care sector, and of the American economy in general.Mr. Orszag is right. It would be arrogant to think that a bureaucrat , even one as exalted as Mr. Orszag, is capable of laying out in detail what the health care system of the future should look like. Yet that's precisely what they're attempting to do . If the Democrats' health care legislation is enacted, over 100 new bureaucracies will be created, each with its own turf to micromanage and the authority to micromanage what does or doesn't get paid for.
This administration is nothing if not the most control freak-minded administration, easily outdistancing the Clinton administration in that respect. It's time that this administration stopped pretending that they aren't control freaks. The proof of their control freak nature is rather plentiful.
The bottom line is that continuing on the road we are on will overwhelm our economy and our federal budget. The health care plan being considered in the Senate now is built on the best available knowledge and most promising ideas from across the political spectrum. Critics may fear this change, but what we should fear more is doing nothing.Nobody's suggesting that we do nothing. While it's true that doing nothing is preferred to passing the Democrats' legislation, that isn't the same as saying that we shouldn't do anything. I'd further add that Republicans, including some with experience in the health care industry, have a substantial list of things that should be included in any health care legislation. For Mr. Orszag to suggest otherwise is foolish. It's also part of the Democrats' strategy since Day One.
The only way the Democrats will listen to the Republicans' ideas is if the Senate bill crashes and burns. Even then, I'd doubt that they'd listen to the GOP's plans because it'd expose them as extremist ideologues who won't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with them. Giving that type of publicity, especially during an election year, would be damaging to the Democrats.
Try as he might, Mr. Orszag's spin just isn't compelling. He didn't do a thing that won over the American people, which is what's preventing the Democrats' legislation from becoming law.
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:04 AM
No comments.
