December 16-17, 2009
Dec 16 01:07 This Isn't Reform Dec 16 02:03 The Party Of Tolerance Strikes Again Dec 16 03:18 Ellison's Jobs Plan Typical DFL Thinking Dec 16 11:01 If He's Even, He's Leavin' Dec 16 12:20 Did Brian Melendez Sit On His Hands? Dec 16 14:37 Democrats' Year End Review Dec 16 23:50 Fisking Tarryl's Op-ed Dec 17 08:43 The TEA Party Movement's Impact On Election 2010
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
This Isn't Reform
After reading the CBO's letter to Sen. Evan Bayh , there's no way I can call the Democrats' legislation health care reform without feeling like I'm being dishonest. Here's the first part of the letter that jumped out at me:
In addition, the proposal would: establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance "exchanges" through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the amount they would pay to purchase that coverage; make a public insurance plan available through those exchanges in certain states; penalize certain individuals if they did not obtain insurance coverage and penalize certain employers if their workers received subsidies through the exchanges; provide tax credits to certain small employers that offer coverage to their workers; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); levy an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; impose fees on insurers and on manufacturers and importers of certain drugs and medical devices; and make various other changes to the federal tax code and to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs.First off, I'm betting that the individual mandates won't become law because they're unconstitutional. Never in American history have the courts ruled that a person has to buy something. The Roberts Court won't let those provisions stand.
Next, the Democrtas' health care legislation will expand Medicaid, which will bankrupt the states, forcing them to raise their taxes to pay for their share of the costs. I've said before that Medicaid expansion is the mother of all unfunded mandates. It will put states in worse financial straits than they're already in.
BTW, the fact that more Democratic governors aren't complaining about this budget-busting measure should speak volumes about whether there's a Democratic governor that's serious about being fiscally responsible. We already know that there aren't any Democrats with a spine in Washington. One-by-one, all the so-called moderates have been bought off in the name of giving President Obama a victory. BTW, Amy Walters' post is highly instructive on the matter of Democrat moderates:
Democratic insiders I've talked to on the Hill don't sense a coming intraparty battle between frustrated moderates and the more liberal wing of the party. An off-the-record conversation with a senior Blue Dog member elicited no scorn for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.During various blogger conference calls this year, Republican leadership has stated unequivocally that they don't think there is such a thing as a moderate Democrat. The GOP leadership says a number of them cast themselves as centrists, which isn't the same as being a centrist.
Back to the matter at hand. I don't give a damn whether President Obama gets a victory if the price of victory means higher unemployment, higher state and federal taxes and penalizing people for buying insurance policies that the federal government now deems unacceptable.
HSAs have been around awhile. People who've used HSAs like them for the most part. While they aren't THE SILVER BULLET SOLUTION to health care, they're certainly an important component of reform. That the Democrats' legislation contains a penalty for HSAs should tell you that the Democrats' legislation isn't about reforming health care or health insurance, that it's about controlling people's lives.
The Democrats' legislation also includes massive new taxes on pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. Those tax increases will certainly be passed onto consumers, driving health care costs skyward.
Rather than actually reducing health care costs, the Democrats' bill hides the rising cost of health care with taxpayer-subsidized subsidies on health insurance premiums. The Democrats' legislation doesn't reduce health care costs. It just hides them with mirrors and trickery.
That isn't reform. It's just doing whatever's needed to impose government control on our lives.
This analysis proves that this bill doesn't reduce health care costs. It just masks them artificially:
Nongroup PoliciesHere's the important point to take from this: If we did nothing, nongroup policies would be cheaper than they'll be if President Obama signs this bill into law. Again, that isn't reform. Let's remember, too, that those subsidies aren't free. They're paid for with major tax increases.
CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.
Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees' costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people's decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.This paragraph should frighten people.
TRANSLATION: The federal government will impose on everyone insurance that they deem important. That means We The People don't get to make that decision.
This paragraph also says that it's the paragraph that says that health care costs will jump. It tells us that because there's more things covered. Anytime that a consumer doesn't feel the cost of doing something, the tendency is to overuse it.
It's like going to a buffet and eating until you're stuffed. People in that situation tell themselves that they're gonna eat alot because they're going to get their money's worth. Whether it's doing something healthy is irrelevant. All that matters is that the extra plates of food seemingly don't cost extra. The trick is to realize that it's already 'baked into' the price at the cash register.
Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.This is just another reminder that the Democrats' plan doesn't lower costs without raising taxes to 'subsidize' health insurance premiums. Any plan that relies on raising taxes to make a government-mandated product affordable is a red flag. It says that, surprise surprise, costs aren't being contained. Instead, they're still rising.
A Broader Scope of Benefits Would Increase Nongroup PremiumsAccording to the CBO's analysis, the HHS Secretary would be authorized to define what our "essential health benefits" are without additional approval from Congress. This is Congress abdicating its responsbility as the balance to the executive branch's check. If this legislation is passed, the HHS secretary won't need to justify his/her actions before taking action.
Under the legislation, new nongroup policies would cover a broader scope of benefits than are projected to be covered by such policies, on average, under current law. In particular, the legislation would require all new nongroup policies to cover a specified set of "essential health benefits," which would be further delineated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and would be required to match the scope of benefits provided by typical employment-based plans. As a result, new nongroup policies would cover certain services that are often not covered by nongroup policies under current law, such as maternity care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, nongroup insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, so premiums would have to increase to cover the resulting costs.
It isn't reform when the legislative branch cedes to the executive branch authority to impose changes without the executive branch first getting the consent from the legislative branch.
The other little secret that the Democrats don't want people to know is that the tax increases contained in their legislation will likely trigger the next round of layoffs. Just when the economy is showing signs of showing signs, the Democrats appear prepared to dump this job-killer in our laps.
That isn't reform. It's a tool of economic destruction.
The bad news for Democrats is that it's the starting point to the counter-revolution.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:18 AM
No comments.
The Party Of Tolerance Strikes Again
Another day of LTEs in the St. Cloud Times, another liberal attack Michele Bachmann . That's as surprising as finding out that President Obama is a narcissist. We've all seen the DFL use lies to advance their agenda. This time, though, it's too far over the line to not slap down. Here's what Luther Rotto said:
Recently a public health study concluded the lack of affordable health insurance caused about 45,000 deaths annually in the United States. A state-by-state breakdown shows Minnesota with 305 deaths per year. (Minnesota has the lowest percentage of uninsured.) Assuming those deaths are spread evenly across the state's congressional districts means the 6th District's share is 43 deaths per year.This is what stupidity looks like. It didn't dawn on Mr. Rotto that Michele might've voted against the bill because it's bad policy. Instead of just defending Michele while she's in Washington, I'm gonna turn things around and embarrass the daylights out of this idiot.
Indicating this was no biggie to her, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently voted in lockstep with the rest of the Republicans in Congress against the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which provides affordable health care for those without access to it. Seventh District Rep. Collin Peterson voted the same way. In his district, about 37 people die each year because they can't get insurance.
Why on earth would our elected representative vote against legislation that would save more than 40 6th District citizens from death every year? Does Bachmann think this is merely a fiscal issue and not a moral one? Or maybe she thinks they are all Democrats.
Why would you want your representative to vote for a bill that (a) raises taxes, (b) institutes individual and employer mandates, (c) raises health care costs and (d) likely triggers the next wave of layoffs? Even a liberal idiot should figure it out that the Democrats' bill isn't about reforming health care, that it's about controlling We The People.
Why would anyone think that imposing penalties on people who've purchased HSAs is voting for something worthwhile? Why would people think that voting for legislation that imposes unconstitutional mandates on people is smart policy.
Poll after poll after poll has shown support for the Democrats' legislation in the high 30s. The most support I've seen for the Democrats' legislation was 41%. CNN's most recent polling showed 61% of the people polled opposed the Democrats' legislation.
Logically speaking, the Democrats appear to be attempting to argue that taking the side of 60% of the people isn't in the political mainstream. Good luck with that argument. Let me know how that turns out next November.
When it comes to Michele Bachmann, the Left doesn't appear capable of controlling their anger.
The 'Party of Tolerance' appears to have struck again.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Dec-09 08:05 AM
Pace yourself. If you are going to put the smackdown on every liberal idiot with free speech rights, you're going to nova regardless of how easy each one of them is. There are still 30+% of the folks that think this incomprehensibly and irretrievably bad bill is a good idea. That's a whole army of idiots.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Dec-09 08:23 AM
Thirty+ percent don't win many elections, Jerry, which is where their approval rating is heading if this legislation gets signed.
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 16-Dec-09 08:54 AM
Gary, Gary, Gary....don't you realize that according to Democrats their policy is not bad. It's perfect but only if you nasty Republicans would just sit down and shut up and be good little 2nd class citizens.......
LL
Comment 3 by eric z. at 16-Dec-09 10:26 AM
Bachmann is Bachmann, and there are many things many could say of her.
J.Ewing is right about few approving the flat tax proposal being pushed out as healthcare reform.
Yet the GOP likes flat taxes, or so I thought.
And it's a to-be-privatized flat tax, and I thought the GOP liked privatization.
Everyone pays - premiums are set by a panel without citizen voting - and firms are required to participate or be fined. Individuals are required to participate or be fined. All aspects of taxation - except that it is privatized.
And it is a flat tax. Millionaire or pauper [with a subsidy], for the same coverage and risk profile, pay the same, no graduated ability-to-pay scaling.
And with the paupers being at higher risk, if not a flat tax it is a retrogressive one.
Republicans should love all about it. Progressives should say the reps in the halls of Congress are ripoff artists. Disguising the ripoff in a flood of conflicting paper, ultimately to be a single ripoff of the poor and a sop to the healthcare-industrial complex.
Enjoy.
Comment 4 by Luther Rotto at 18-Jan-10 11:41 PM
The Idiot responds:
Struck a nerve, apparently. Last time I checked, you folks LOST the election. Why? Enough voters figured out the party of the greedy self was interested only in helping those that have keep it, and, by whatever means (including government intrusion into the private and public economy), get more of it. This creed is not only immoral, but, ultimately, destructive of our way of life.
This philosophy has given us the most expensive health care system per capita on earth that, and this is the sad part, doesn't even cover everyone! And, it's getting more expensive day by day while providing protection to fewer and fewer citizens. The people who make money from others' suffering will, sooner or later, take your money, too.
Protecting its citizens would seem to be a government's prime directive. I can't think of any more present danger than the constant threat of ill health. Why is providing that protection such an odd concept to grasp?
So, good luck with looking to Bachmann and her ilk for your future. The only future they are interested in is their own.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-10 11:50 PM
the party of the greedy selfLike the greedy insurance companies that contributed 10s of thousands of $$$ to Martha Coakley? Like the greedy unions that insist that people who aren't unionized pay taxes for their Cadillac plans while the unions get a $60,000,000,000 exemption?
I can't think of any more present danger than the constant threat of ill health.Might I suggest terrorists flying into Detroit on Christmas Day representing a greater threat?
Good luck with 2010. You'll need it badly. That plus ACORN on steroids.
Ellison's Jobs Plan Typical DFL Thinking
After reading Keith Ellison's latest e-letter, the first thing that popped into my head was that it was typical of DFL economics 101. Here's part of Rep. Ellison's e-letter update:
One of the top priorities I have in the Congress is building lasting prosperity for families in the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota. Creating new jobs and assisting those who are looking for work is critical to this plan. I've brought together a broad coalition of groups including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, the Center for Community Change, and the Economic Policy Institute to formulate a plan to create one million new jobs. This coalition represents the best of America's economic minds coming together with the goal to create one million well-paying jobs that rebuild our infrastructure, serve our communities, and make America competitive again.What do the AFL-CIO or SEIU know about creating jobs? Before asking that question about LCCR, I checked their About Us page . Here's what I found:
Current PrioritiesAgain, what does LCCR know about creating jobs?
Ensuring equal opportunity
Protecting civil rights, civil liberties, worker protections, and equal opportunity
Promoting civic engagement
Building stronger communities and families
Reforming the nation's criminal justice system
Guarding the crossroads of civil rights and civil liberties
When I went to EPI's page, I noticed this link :
Fiscal relief to states creates jobsHere's the heart of the American Jobs Plan:
Fiscal relief to struggling state and local governments is critical to prevent many public sector layoffs and create jobs in the private sector, EPI's American Jobs Plan shows.
The Economic Policy Institute recommends a five-point American Jobs Plan to create jobs and stem the unemployment crisis. The plan calls for the nation to strengthen the safety net (including unemployment compensation, COBRA health coverage, and nutrition assistance); provide fiscal relief to state and local governments; make renewed investments in transportation and schools; support direct creation of public service jobs; and establish a new job creation tax credit.Strengthening the safety net won't create private sector jobs. Providing fiscal relief to state and local governments won't create private sector jobs either. Updating our transportation infrastructure will create jobs but ARRA was supposed to accomplish that. Creating public sector jobs certainly won't create private sector jobs but it will explode the already historic deficits even further.
Here's the 'other gem' in the American Jobs Plan:
The American Jobs Plan is an efficient and effective way to create jobs. We estimate that the plan will create at least 4.6 million jobs in the first year , at a total first-year gross cost of roughly $400 billion. This entire cost can be recouped within 10 years by enacting a financial transactions tax (FTT), which would take effect three years after enactment. An FTT is a highly progressive way to raise revenue by imposing a small tax on the sale of stocks and other financial products.TRANSLATION: Spend billions of dollars on public sector unionized jobs, tax the rich, then pray that nobody minds the tax increases or notices that the plan was a failure on the same magnitude as the stimulus.
ODD THOUGHT: I'd love hearing King's thoughts on whether the American Jobs Plan would create jobs.
I'd highlight the fact that President Obama keeps saying that we have to put our financial house in order. I'd hope that that'd be Rep. Ellison's priority, too. Unfortunately, it appears as though President Obama and Rep. Ellison put a higher priority on irresponsibly spending the taxpayers' money than they put on exercising a little bit of fiscal responsibility.
This isn't a jobs plan. It's another 'Pay off the Democrats' cronies' bill.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:18 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Dec-09 01:34 PM
according to an union newsletter the Treasurer of the AFL-CIO had a five point job plan.
One point was to extend unemployment benefits (find hard for that creating jobs)
Another point was create green jobs. You know there might be a lot of jobs in industries like oil drilling and coal mining if those businesses which are dying to spend the money and do it are allowed to do it.
More aide for state governments.
Wow.
No wonder why we're not creating any jobs.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
If He's Even, He's Leavin'
Basing my opinion on Scott Rasmussen's polling , I'm betting that Charlie Crist's chances of replacing RINO Mel Martinez in the U.S. Senate are slim and dwindling. Here's what Mr. Rasmussen's polling shows:
Governor Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio are now tied in the 2010 race for the Republican Senate nomination in Florida.Republicans in most states want principled people. They don't want people whose guiding principles aren't found in that day's polling or by who's the popular politician that week. Charlie Crist is nothing if not a politician who's guided only by what keeps him popular.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters finds Crist and Rubio each with 43% of the vote. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.
Marco Rubio doesn't suffer from that affliction. From what I've seen, he's both principled and he's a good listener. He's a conservative through and through. Washington won't change him because he knows what his beliefs are and what his constituents want.
Most importantly, it's obvious that Mr. Rubio knows that his constituents are the residents of Florida, not the chattering classes of DC or K Street lobbyists. That's what led to Tom DeLay's demise.
Statements like this are fueling Mr. Rubio's campaign:
Yesterday's vote on a $1.1 trillion spending bill is the latest sign that Washington continues ignoring the American people by failing to reign in out-of-control spending. It is outrageous that businesses and families have to trim their budgets, while Congress continues wasting away their tax dollars on a bill like this with more than 5000 earmarks and pay increases for government workers.It's time that Republicans stopped with the earmark thing. It's time that they said no to President Obama's irresponsible spending, too. I pointed out here that the Democrats have increased the federal budget by 33 percent in less than a year. When President Obama criticized the "Wall Street fat-cats", he ignored DC's fat-cats because he's fine with growing government at a disturbing rate. How is Washington's greed for our money not worse than Wall Street's greed?
Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of a 2009 congressional spending spree that started with a $787 billion stimulus and may end with a $1 trillion health care plan. Americans are right to be gravely concerned about this continued spending with money our government simply doesn't have.
As Congress prepares to use its next spending bill to increase the nation's debt limit and President Obama talks about spending America's way out of recession with a second stimulus, lawmakers must come to grips with how their excessive spending today is threatening our fragile economy as well as the long-term future of our nation.
Charlie Crist wouldn't challenge President Obama over that, especially considering he's still waffling on Stimulus II :
Unfazed by the original stimulus' failure, the President is now calling for America to "spend our way out of recession" with a second stimulus that Governor Crist says he is open to supporting. It marks Crist's re-embrace of the notion that more government spending can create lasting jobs and prosperity after months of conflicting and deceptive messages about his enthusiastic endorsement of the $787 billion stimulus.Crist thought that all he had to do was check all the Republican boxes and he'd win Mel Martinez' seat:
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist defended his Republican credentials on Monday, insisting it would be "hard to be more conservative than I am on [the] issues."OH REALLY??? It isn't hard being more conservative than a guy who supported the initial failed stimulus bill, then was fiscally irresponsible enough to still consider supporting another round of spending that would largely benefit the Democrats' political allies instead of creating the jobs that we badly need.
I don't doubt that Crist thinks he's a conservative. He's just wrong about that. A Republican that agrees with the most liberal president in the last 40 years on two of the most liberal pieces of legislation isn't my definition of a conservative.
That's why I'm getting out the butter. I'm getting it out because Crist is toast.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 16-Dec-09 05:19 PM
Republicans want principled people you say.
That implies you feel Michele Bachmann is a principled person.
She sure dumped Bush in a hurry when he was no longer a fundraising help. Ate custard together when money was to be shook from the trees, smooched after the SOTU speech, then ...
I suppose expediency might be a dimension of being principled.
Did Brian Melendez Sit On His Hands?
Though I agree with Chairman Sutton that figuring out Minnesota campaign finance law isn't difficult, I don't agree with him when he says that the DFL doesn't share in the blame for Speaker Kelliher's mess. I'm saying that after reading this quote :
For instance, lobbyist Ted Grindal said Tuesday that he gave $1,000 to the DFL party at Kelliher's urging but it was for general party expenses and not directed for her use. "It was without any strings attached," he said.My gripe isn't with Mr. Grindal. He wrote a check for the DFL at Speaker Kelliher's request. My question is with DFL Chairman Brian Melendez. Specifically, I'd like to know if it's common practice at the DFL to credit a candidate's account if the candidate coaxed a person to contribute to the DFL.
If the contribution came "with no strings attached", how'd Speaker Kelliher's campaign account get that money? Considering that Mr. Grindal had already maxed his contributions out for Speaker Kelliher's gubernaorial campaign, wouldn't contributing to the DFL be a way to circumvent Minnesota's campaign finance laws?
Based on Tom Bakk's reaction , I'm betting that they think Speaker Kelliher got preferential treatment:
"We're all out working really hard every day by going to all kinds of forums and contacting delegates and trying to raise money," Bakk told MPR's Tom Scheck . "I think the assumption on everybody's part is that we all have an equal chance to secure the endorsement. If you don't, and the process is rigged, why would you make the commitment to abide by endorsement if it's not a fair process."I think it's time for Chairman Melendez to explain why the DFL routed a campaign contribution from a lobbyist to the DFL into the campaign account for Speaker Kelliher. I think it's time for Chairman Melendez to explain why this contribution to the DFL is apparently being used to get around Minnesota's campaign finance laws.
If Chairman Sutton wants to cut the DFL slack, that's his choice. However, I'm not that willing to cut the DFL that much slack. I'm not convinced that this wasn't an attempt on the DFL's behalf to surreptitiously help Speaker Kelliher.
Finally, while I question the DFL, including Chairman Melendez, I still have to put most of the blame for this on Speaker Kelliher. If she doesn't know Minnesota's campaign finance laws by now, especially one as straightforward as this, then she's too incompetent to run Minnesota's state government.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 16-Dec-09 05:14 PM
It's an interesting situation.
A number of people saying different things - but mainly that a mistake, a number of mistakes were made.
How it resolves, and how quickly, will be an interesting thing to keep watching.
I expect mainstream media will keep attention on this - it is something they can understand, and not complicated in terms of levels of nuance, as is, for example, healthcare reform.
Also, megabuck amounts are not at stake, so they cover this while raising the debt ceiling gets passing attention and Walz has to ask how Afghanistan will be funded because the press is not asking.
Comment 2 by Mike Bryant at 17-Dec-09 09:06 PM
They originally said that they thought they had done it that way for the last Gov campaign and later found out that was wrong when a second candidate asked about doing it this way also. They were selling their own list and at least they weren't just giving it to one candidate. Sure there is an issue with directing the contributions, but it's really small compared to the campaign violations of the past.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Dec-09 01:53 AM
Mike, I agree with you in that this wouldn't rate as a big scandal in terms of campaign finance laws, though it is a violation of Minnesota's campaign finance laws. What I find suspicious is the fact that the contributions that were sent to the DFL by a Kelliher donor then got sent to the Kelliher campaign. It's just a hunch but I wouldn't be surprised if Melendez is siding with Speaker Kelliher.
Democrats' Year End Review
I've always appreciated people who kept their sense of humor when facing adversity. That's probably why I appreciate Rep. Thad McCotter's wit and snarkiness in this year end review:
Democrats' Year End Review: Coming Out of Left FieldIt's disgraceful that the Democrats have spent money at this rate. In 2007, I railed against the DFL legislature here in Minnesota for passing a budget that would've increased spending by 17 percent over the 2008-09 biennium. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the DFL's budget, forcing them to 'cut' their spending increase to 9.3 percent. This year, the federal budget increased by 33 percent. The last deficit under President Bush was approximately $460,000,000,000.
Washington, DC ; As the House prepares to wrap up its 2009 legislative agenda, U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI), who chairs the Republican House Policy Committee, commented:
In this giving season, let's see what the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have voted to stuff in Americans' stockings this year:
- Americans got higher unemployment, taxes and deficits;
- Seniors got half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts;
- Terrorists got new rights, trials and cells on American soil; and
- Government bureaucrats got raises.
"As these Lefty heavy hitters race around their bases," said McCotter, "Americans can but conclude: 'Democrats: too costly, too crazy, too quickly.'"
The first Obama deficit came in at $1,420,000,000,000. The deficit from the first two months of the FY2010 budget are substantially bigger than last year's deficits. Instead of capping spending, the Democrats want to pass a health care legislation that'll spend $2,500,000,000,000 the first 10 years it's fully implemented. They're also talking about Stimulus II, which will spend north of $300,000,000,000.
What's worse than just spending that much money is that it won't create jobs. It's yet another payoff to the Democrats' allies.
In addition to 'getting' higher deficits and higher spending, Pelosi's Democrats voted to 'give' us $700,000,000,000 in new taxes through Pelosicare. Pelosi's Democrats also voted to give us almost $2,000,000,000,000 in new taxes via the National Energy Tax, aka Cap and Tax.
In passing the National Energy Tax, instead of giving each of us a lump of coal, Pelosi's Democrats instead are trying to give us a windmill in our Christmas stocking. (Considering the size of windmills vs. the size of Christmas stockings, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out windmills aren't a good fit. Coincidentally, Cap and Tax isn't a good fit for America's energy consumers or for its economy.)
It's apparent that the Democrats aren't interested in spending at irresponsible rates. It's apparent that they're only interested in paying off their political allies in the public employees unions. That's what I'd call crony socialism.
Knowing that Pelosi's Democrats won't stop their irresponsible spending spree without force, the only logical thing to do is to give 50+ Democrats an early Christmas present in the form of pink slips in next year's elections.
After all, they gave us rising unemployment this year. Shouldn't we return the favor next year?
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:45 PM
No comments.
Fisking Tarryl's Op-ed
Tarryl's Stib op-ed in this morning's edition is a perfect example of a politician who hopes that the people will read the headline, then skip the substance behind the issue. The subject of Tarryl's op-ed is H.R. 4173, which I've nicknamed as the "Too Big To Fail Bill." Here's Tarryl's opening shot at Michele:
It should be common sense. The financial crisis we're in is in large part due to years of letting Wall Street, including banks and credit card companies, run wild with little government oversight. Taking steps to bring them back under control shouldn't be all that controversial.Apparently, Tarryl didn't see Rep. Brad Sherman's quote . Here's what Rep. Sherman said:
Somehow, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann missed that memo ("Giving more power where power is not due," Dec. 11). Last week she voted against much-needed financial regulatory reform, saying no to a bill that represents the chance for a historic shift in the way our financial institutions do business.
The bill establishes a permanent bailout authority or, as Rep. Brad Sherman (DCA) described it, "TARP on steroids."Did Tarryl want Michele to vote for a bill that included a provision that gives the Treasury Secretary permanent authority to write bailout checks without seeking congressional approval? That's what H.R. 4173 provides for. There isn't a thinking person around that'd want that much authority invested in the executive branch.
Here's Tarryl's next misguided criticism:
The regulatory reform that Bachmann characterizes as a Wall Street giveaway was relentlessly attacked by Wall Street itself, which spent millions in advertising and millions more on lobbyists to try to beat it, weaken it and fill it with loopholes. That Bachmann joined Wall Street in that attack probably tells you all you need to know about who she's representing in this fight.Tarryl is digging herself a hole on this one. The reality is that Michele voted against the bill to preserve a time-tested principle known as checks and balances. Giving a cabinet secretary the ability to write bailout checks without congressional approval is downright irresponsible.
QUESTION: Does Tarryl really want to argue for voting against preserving checks and balances? That's what she's doing thus far in criticizing Michele for not voting for this bill.
Here's an outright fabrication:
It puts an end to bailouts by making sure that taxpayers aren't on the hook for Wall Street's risky decisions.It does nothing of the sort. Rep. Brad Sherman says it does the exact opposite. FYI: Rep. Sherman is one of the most liberal representatives in the House of Representatives. In fact, Michele voted against TARP last fall. Now Tarryl's arguing that Michele wants TARP to burden taxpayers? Tarryl may lack alot of things but she's got world class chutzpah.
Michele Bachmann talks a good populist game about changing from the old ways of doing business. We should all agree that it's time to put an end to Wall Street's shenanigans. But given a choice between representing her financial supporters or the people of the Sixth Congressional District, she voted to let Wall Street keep doing business in its old, bad ways.Again, Tarryl, Michele voted against Wall Street. If H.R. 4173 is signed into law, Wall Street will be able to lobby the Treasury Secretary for a bailout if they engage in risky behavior. Since alot of the recent Treasury Secretaries are former employees of Goldman Sachs, how difficult would it be for them accomplish that? I'm betting it wouldn't be difficult at all.
That may not surprise you when you look at the more than $100,000 that Bachmann took from banks, credit card companies and similar financial interests. Most special interests fund their friends, not their enemies.Tarryl, does that mean you'll return the campaign contributions from special interest groups like SEIU, AFSCME, IBEW, the painters union, and the United Steel Workers Union? Those organizations' PACs have contributed $25,000 to Tarryl thus far. Their contributions wouldn't have anything to do with them wanting to buy your vote on EFCA, would it?
Tarryl, you know about EFCA, right? That's the legislation that Sen. George McGovern said would eliminate the right of people to cast a secret ballot for organizing or rejecting unions:
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.Tarryl, it seems to me that you're not representing Main Street. You wanted Michele to vote for a bill that would've given the Treasury Secretary the authority to write out bailout checks to his Wall Street cronies. In addition to that, you've been bought and paid for by the unions that want you to cast the vote that eliminates secret ballots during union organizing campaigns.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act , and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement . Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder , free from fear of reprisal.
How is that looking out for Main Street?
Tarryl spent the entire op-ed whining about Michele not representing Main Street. I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how raising taxes on small businesses is representing Main Street. I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how spending the entire surplus in 2007, including the one-time money, while the economy was slowing down was representing Main Street.
The simple truth is that Tarryl's never met a tax increase she wouldn't vote for. The truth is that Tarryl is as reliable a vote for the liberal special interest groups as there is in St. Paul. Imagine what she'd do in the lobbyist capitol of the world.
Now THAT'S a frightening thought.
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:50 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 17-Dec-09 02:01 PM
The bailout fund will be like FDIC for banks, in that it will be a segregated fund paid into by the players -- pay to play.
The problem I see, now, on the ground and in the hustings, is concentration of regional banking at the expense of community banks.
The commercial real estate bubble is trailing housing, and FDIC is on a policy of concentration - the failed banks are almalgamated into existing structures, making bigger structures.
If the GOP were smart they would push that focus in the House Finance Committee, and ask to audit FDIC as well as the Fed.
Too big to fail - vs - too small to compete globally; is that what the "experts" are worrying over?
Or is it just Wall Street calling the shots whether it's the GOP or the Dems in the White House? Whether it's the GOP or the Dems having a House or Senate majority?
The lobbying firms are where we see true bipartisan make-up, Gary. I am not saying that's how it should be. Only that it's how it is.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 17-Dec-09 02:05 PM
Second point, you say: "Tarryl is digging herself a hole on this one. The reality is that Michele voted against the bill to preserve a time-tested principle known as checks and balances. Giving a cabinet secretary the ability to write bailout checks without congressional approval is downright irresponsible."
What then of the Fed? It is giving banking, without any government control to speak of - an organization owned and run by banks with the New York Fed being the key of the several branches in decision making. Big banking running things.
Is that, to you better or worse than the Treasury running the money?
WWRPD - What would Ron Paul do?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-09 02:48 PM
Eric, I think giving the TreasSec. a free hand in determining bailouts is an awful thing but I also think thatthe Fed controlling how much money gets into the system is troublesome at times, too.
Comment 3 by Cameron French at 18-Dec-09 01:40 PM
Gary Groos,
My name is Cameron French and I work for Congressman Brad Sherman. The Congressman asked me to contact you regarding this post. He is quoted as referring to the bill before the house as TARP on steroids. He did make that comment on the original bill which changed very dramatically in committee.
Here is a link to his floor statement speaking in favor of this bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVX3qpCMWI
Thank you.
Comment 4 by Cameron French at 18-Dec-09 01:41 PM
I apologize. That message is for Gary Gross.
The TEA Party Movement's Impact On Election 2010
I've read a number of articles recently about how the TEA Party might hurt the GOP if the TEA Party goes the third party route. I don't doubt that the Democrats, both the elected officials and those in the Agenda Media, want to stir up trouble. The bad news for them is that that ain't happening. The TEA Party Movement is about putting the spine back in the GOP. This reporter is just the latest to not understand the TEA Party Movement:
The Florida GOP race is being followed closely by national political watchers to see what, if any, impact the tea party movement might have amongst GOP voters. In other political races, the "tea party" has threatened to run its own candidate if the GOP candidate isn't far enough to the right. The problem for the GOP is that if a tea party candidate can shave off enough support from the Republican candidate, both parties will lose.BULLLETIN TO THE MEDIA: The TEA Party doesn't exist. It isn't a political party. It's a movement.
Notice the little shot about the tea party "has threatened to run its own candidate if the GOP candidate isn't far enough to the right." Considering how far left GOP politicians like Linc Chaffee, Lindsey Grahamnesty and Chuck Hagel have wandered, it's more accurate to say that TEA Party activists just want Republicans to return to the principles of fiscal discipline and personal liberty.
TEA Party activists just want GOP politicians to stop spending like liberals. They want to see more GOP politicians with a Barry Goldwater libertarian streak . We want more GOP politicians acting with the fiscal discipline of former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich.
Fortunately, the House GOP is developing a great core of elected officials whose priority is to return to Chairman Kasich's ways. People like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachman, Thad McCotter, Kevin McCarthy and others have stepped forward, much to the delight of TEA Party activists nationwide. For that matter, TEA Party activists are thrilled to see John Kasich's return to electoral politics as he tries to unseat a once-popular Democratic governor in Ohio.
Here's reporter Tim Kephart's closing:
For example, the Rasmussen poll found that on a generic ballot, the Republicans have a seven point lead over Democrats in the 2010 Senate race. But, if a "tea party" candidate jumps into the race, everything changes. Rasmussen found in a three-way race, Democrats would pull in 36 percent of the vote, the tea party candidate will bring in 23 percent and Republicans would finish last at 18 percent.I'll repeat: This isn't about abandoning the GOP. It's obvious that alot of conservatives stayed home in 2006 and 2008. That's changing, dramatically, starting with the 2009 elections. Don't think that that intensity will vanish in time for the 2010 election, either. If anything, look for the TEA Party movement to gather momentum.
The TEA Party Movement is more relevant because Pelosi's Democrats have spent money at an alarming rate. There used to be a time when the only people who showed interest in "the debt" were economists. That changed, as Norm Coleman told me recently, when they started talking about the deficits in terms of trillions of dollars.
The first TEA Party event I attended was the Tax Day TEA Party here in St. Cloud. The biggest worries people attending the event had were bailouts, fidelity to the Constitution, the now-failed stimulus bill, elected officials actually reading bills before voting on them and Janet Napolitano worrying that military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan posed a a terrorist threat.
The day after the event, I asked Dan Ochsner when reading legislation before voting bacame a radical principle. I told Mr. Ochsner that the radical was President Obama, who was taking over car companies and banks, not people who insisted on following the Constitution.
The context that the TEA Party Movement came up was in connection with the 'Fight In Florida' between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. It's fair to characterize Crist as Establishment's candidate whereas Rubio is the darling of the TEA Party activists. When Crist jumped into the race, the NRSC quickly endorsed him, saying that his name recognition and fundraising ability made him the best bet to keep the seat in GOP hands.
That's typical inside-the-Beltway thinking, which is why Crist is doomed. If 2008 should've taught us anything, it's that candidates with little name recognition can raise huge amounts of money in very little time. The determining factor is whether a candidate has a message that appeals to people. If the candidate has an appealing message, it won't take much time to raise the cash and build the organization.
What we're seeing in the TEA Party movement is the rebuilding of the GOP the right way. Contrary to the CW, TEA Party Activists, and the politicians they support, are brimming with ideas about how to return to Constitutional government, restore fiscal discipline and putting government into its proper place. The dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that TEA Party activists don't hate government.
TEA Party activists just prefer government that doesn't overstep its constitutional boundaries.
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Dec-09 11:03 AM
The biggest mistake I see here is that the NRSC is "endorsing" ANYBODY at this stage of the game. They need to wait until the local Party endorses, and THEN consider whether to back them with national party funds, or not. That decision should be made based on how well the candidate shares the principles of the Party, before any other consideration. Good conservatives can win; "electability" isn't and shouldn't be a beauty contest, buddy-building, or just plain guesswork.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-09 02:49 PM
Agreed.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 17-Dec-09 01:53 PM
"The TEA Party Movement is about putting the spine back in the GOP."
The brain, Gary, is the deficient GOP organ.
Not the spine. The GOP is not the Cowardly Lion. It's never had a heart, but did have a brain in Taft and Goldwater days. Now it's got neither. It has Palin, but no brain. It has the Utah guy, Hatch, but no heart.
The Bachmann-Palin-Dobson sorts of folks, they lack gray and white matter. That's what's the matter.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-09 02:56 PM
With all due respect, Eric, that's a pile of BS. Saying that Michele Bachmann & Sarah Palin aren't smart tells me that you haven't figured out that the principles of liberty, self-reliance & hard work are what's needed, not the too-clever-by-half BS that Pelosi's Democrats have engaged in.
I used to be able to rattle off a list of about 30 GOP politicians who didn't have a governing principle. Arlen Specter once was one of them. Now he's fitting right in with the Democrats. No spine. Just do or say whatever it takes to win.
I just interviewd Rep. Thad McCotter, the Chairman of the House GOP Policy Committee. He, along with Mike Pence & Paul Ryan, are the leaders of the conservative braintrust in the House GOP. I've known about Chairman McCotter for awhile & I've been impressed with him all that time. Now that I've had a policy discussion with him, I'm even more impressed.
Comment 3 by Jazmon at 18-Dec-09 07:23 AM
PASS THE WORD
LISTEN UP!!!
Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George) USMC-H Tea Party FL U.S. 2010 Senate Candidate
This website appears as a watering hole for those thirsty for true freedom and direction for the voice of the people to be heard and acknowledged resulting in real change.
Lack of true organization and leadership leaves these people thirsty, lost and scattered, which is perhaps the intent of those in power. The true rulers DO NOT want us, the people to join together and replace them with forces that represent the people instead of corporation interests who own them.
They prefer for us to be distracted, having a party, drinking chamomile tea and staying calm while they continue business as usual with our money and bodies to run their war machines and fill their private prisons. They mock on us and do not take us serious.
THIS IS A SERIOUS AND CRUCIAL POINT IN TIME!!!
This may be our last and only chance to spur a change, yet talking and drinking tea will not bring about change. We must to have representation INSIDE Washington D.C. We will get nowhere by only circling the sidelines; where they want us to stay, out of their way.
Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George), a USMC-H Vietnam Veteran, is willing to represent the Tea Party in the U.S. Senate without corporation backing. He is not accepting corporate donations; only donations from the people he will represent to meet the qualification fee to be on the ballot. Small donations from people, not corporations, will add up to make it happen. He will be on the ballot; TEA PARTY is an official party in Florida.
The most important donation to his campaign is to PASS THE WORD and get out the vote in Florida, Nov 2, 2010 for U.S. Senate. His approach is to come in helicopter style with a tidal wave of VOTES on Election Day that the establishment will not expect and be surprised to see the Tea Party have someone to represent the People, instead of corporations, within Washington D.C.
People please, put down your tea cup and Pass the Word to vote for Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George), to be inside, in a seat in the U.S. Senate!
He will be the only senator in history who will not owe any corporation interests and will be free to represent the interests of the people. He will focus on helping veterans, the elderly, and education; all areas currently highly neglected. His fight for the Florida St. Johns River and to stop offshore drilling is legend.
He has a degree in literature and will actually read and write. All words will come from him and not speech writers. Isn't that what you want in a senator?
If you are a true American and really want direction and change within the current system that rules us all, go to www.TeaParty.pro and PASS THE WORD to everybody you know.
Contribute to making history and real change in Washington D.C.! Only you can make it happen.
Register to vote. Jazmon
TEA PARTY IS REAL!
Jazmon@TeaParty.pro
