February 1-2, 2009
Feb 01 02:14 The New Gang Of Seven? Feb 01 22:32 The Right Attitude Feb 02 02:29 The End of the Apathy Feb 02 03:19 E.J. Dionne Proposing GOP Win-Win Situation? Feb 02 11:30 Our Vision vs. Their Attacks Feb 02 12:41 Pelosi Reverting To Partisan Tactics? Feb 02 13:15 Whatever Happened To Obama's Lobbyist-Free Administration? Feb 02 22:26 Daschle 1, Ethical Behavior 0
Prior Months: Jan
The New Gang Of Seven?
In the early 90s, a gang of 7 committed conservatives got together on a regular basis. Among those attending were Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich and Minnesota's Vin Weber. That Gang of Seven fueled Newt's revolution that brought the GOP back to majority status in the House. Salena Zito asks whether another Gang of Seven is forming . Here's the key section of Ms. Zito's column:
An emerging leader for the gang is Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., probably the most trusted member of the GOP leadership and the one who looks out for GOP House members.From everything that I've heard, Ryan is the ultimate wonk in this bunch. I've had the pleasure of participating in a couple blogger conference calls with Mike Pence. Saying that he "seems ready to take on the status quo every day" is the perfect characterization of him. Kevin McCarthy is a rising star in the House GOP. Others worthy of mention are Jeb Hensarling, Tom Price, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn.
Some conservative "young guns" in the House who could work with Cantor on a "Gang of Seven, 2.0":
These talented legislators blend newsness and experience, and they are the future of what the Republican Party should look like.
- Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Former congressional staffer for his predecessor, Rep. Bill Thomas, and former minority leader in California's state legislature. Aggressive, equipped with a non-stop motor, he's established himself as a leader in the House.
- Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Smartest guy in the room on policy; cares about conservatism both as an intellectual and a political movement.
- Mike Pence (R-IN). Gifted communicator with a Reaganesque quality and a strong following in the evangelical and conservative communities.
He seems ready to take on the status quo every day.- Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). An all-around talent, smart, very capable, she's an incredibly hard worker who's held a tough district through some difficult elections.
- Duncan Hunter - The Son (R-Calif.). A veteran who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, he is poised to take up his father's mantle as an expert on national security issues.
- Tom Rooney (R-Fla.). Scion of the Pittsburgh Steelers family; a veteran who taught at West Point, and a young up-and-comer on national security.
While the House GOP is a smallish bunch, with 177 members, the vast majority of them are solid fiscal conservatives. They showed that they're pefectly willing to oppose awful legislation when they voted in unison against the not-so-stimulating stimulus bill. Here's something significant that Ms. Zito said about their voting against the stimulus:
GOP boldness did not defeat President Obama's stimulus package, passed last week without a single House Republican vote. But it did send a message from the minority party: "We are not going to lie down."If I've learned anything about politics, it's that pushing back against your opponent is the best way to force them into making mistakes. I've learned another important political tool: Asking the right why questions will put people on the defensive. Mssrs. Pence, Ryan and Cantor as especially skilled in these areas.
As House Republicans look to be relevant in the Obama era, a new group of leaders must emerge to challenge the way things are done under one-party rule. They must force the changes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to deliver; they must focus on process, on mastering House operating rules. They should pick fights with Speaker Pelosi, not President Obama.Picking fights with Speaker Pelosi is easier to do than picking fights with President Obama. Life is easier, too, when you've got a leader like Eric Cantor holding the group together by standing for time-tested conservative principles.
I don't know what the next midterms will be like but I'll guarantee that the 'GOP brand' will make a strong comeback in 2010, thanks in large part to the Gang of Seven, 2.0.
Posted Sunday, February 1, 2009 2:14 AM
Comment 1 by Mickey at 01-Feb-09 04:02 PM
Economic Stimulus. H.R. 5140, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, passed 385-35 on January 29, 2008 (Roll Call 25). It would provide about $150 billion in economic stimulus, including $101.1 billion in direct payments of rebate checks (typically $600) to most taxpayers in 2008 and temporary tax breaks for businesses. Creating money out of thin air and then spending the newly created money cannot improve the economy, at least not in the long term. (If it could, why not create even more money for rebates and make every American a millionaire?) The stimulus has no offset and thus increases the federal deficit by the amount of the stimulus because the government must borrow the rebate money. A realistic long-term stimulus can only be achieved by lowering taxes through less government and by reducing regulatory burdens.Marsha Blackburn voted FOR this bill.(Source: The New American ; July 21, 2008)
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
She is no conservative.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=614
Mickey
Comment 2 by John Lofton, Recovering Republican at 02-Feb-09 10:40 PM
Forget, please, "conservatism.," It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
The Right Attitude
I've been a Michael Steele fan since he was elected the Lt. Gov. of Maryland. He's articulate, fiscally conservative and innovative. According to this Time Magazine article , he's got the right idea for building the party. Here's the paragraph that first caught my attention:
He said he would make clear to local party leaders that "if you want to be chairman under my leadership, don't think this is a country-club atmosphere where we sit around drinking wine and eating cheese and talking amongst ourselves. If you don't want to drill down and build coalitions in minority communities, then you have to give that seat to someone who does."One of the main points in the plan put together by Patrick Ruffini and his partners at RebuildTheParty.com is titled the 435 district strategy :
The 435 district strategy. By 2012, the Republican Party will field candidates in all 435 Congressional districts in America, from inner city Philadelphia to suburban Dallas, and our leaders must be held accountable for progress towards this goal. With an 80 plus vote margin separating Democrats from Republicans in the House, it's time to widen the playing field, not narrow it. While our targeting has gotten narrower, honing in on a class of seats we feel entitled to because they lean Republican, Democrats have been stealing traditionally 60-40 Republican seats right and left. It's time to return the favor.Let's ask some simple questions on why fighting for bigger blocks of votes in every demographic group and community is important. Here's some questions I'm asking:
1) What are the odds that minority business owners like higher taxes and more burdensome regulations than white business owners? Businessmen are businessment. They like making money, which means that most businessmen, regardless of race, like lower marginal tax rates and less intrusive regulations.
2) Considering the fact that a significant portion of the Hispanic population are church-going Catholics, what's the likelihood that Republicans can appeal to them by emphasizing President Obama's abortion-on-demand agenda? Shouldn't Republicans put a priority on significant weekly outreach to the Hispanic population?
3) Can we afford to leave any voting block unattended? Even if we had a big coalition, which we don't, I'd still argue that we can't. The thought of not competing for votes in every neighborhood disgusts me. The thought that there are CD chairs whose defeatist attitudes causes them to write off their district disgusts me, too.
Fighting for every vote puts Democrats on the defensive. Each time we force the Democrats to fight to win traditionally Democratic seats, the more we narrow their playing field.
Jennifer Rubin's article is must reading for those interested in rebuilding the party. Here's one of the suggestions she makes to Chairman Steele:
First, Steele should offer to debate DNC Chairman Tim Kaine coast-to-coast on the Democrats' stimulus plan and the economic crisis. This is the number one issue on voters' minds, and for once the Republicans are making headway. The public is souring on the House Democrats' spend-a-thon disguised as a stimulus bill. And Republicans have an attractive message: cut the pork, reduce taxes, and, if we must spend gobs of money, do it on worthwhile infrastructure and needed national defense projects. Steele is a capable and likeable figure who could communicate this message well. And a debate offer would signify that the Republicans aren't afraid to take on the administration when it is wrong. (It would also give Steele a high visibility platform to re-establish the GOP's populist credentials, by among other things, taking on the Obama administration's not very New Politics, including the White House's proclivity to hire ex-lobbyists and tax cheats.)I'd seriously doubt that Tim Kaine would debate Chairman Steele. Steele is far more charismatic and articulate than Gov. Kaine.
This would be a win-win situation for the RNC. If Gov. Kaine debates Chairman Steele, our chairman would be the most eloquent advocate for his party's principles. Better yet, Chairman Steele would be the optimistic, charismatic advocate on stage. If Gov. Kaine refuses to debate, it'll look like he's intimidated by Steele.
Here's another suggestion Ms. Rubin has for Chairman Steele:
And finally, Steele needs to find an appropriate day-to-day communication strategy during the Obama presidency. Far too often the message coming from the RNC is nitpicky, unduly nasty, and unhelpful in furthering the policy or political objectives of the party. None of this static is helpful. Fine tuning the tenor of the message (less angry, more humor, more fact-based) and focusing on the big ticket items and over-arching themes will help keep the party on track.If ever there was anything I agreed with more, I wouldn't know what it was. The tit-for-tat nonsense that we've seen from the RNC and the Minnesota GOP doesn't win people over. It doesn't inspire people, some of whom think of themselves as independents but are really conservatives waiting for conservatism to be properly explained to them, into becoming rabid conservative activists. The nitpicky, sniping messaging doesn't lay out a conservative vision, either.
Barack Obama didn't win because he offered an appealing vision for where he wanted to take America. He won because (a) he let people their vision of America onto him and (b) the GOP didn't offer voters a vision. Our daily mission should focus on how we'd return the United States to a prospering economy. Our vision should focus on eliminating Wall Street corruption and getting credit flowing again without an endless parade of bailouts.
We've got alot of work to do to restore the conservative brand but it's worth doing. Besides, it's the right thing to do. Finally, America will thank us for caring about their prosperity and security. That's when we'll return to being the majority party in the United States.
That can't happen soon enough.
Originally posted Sunday, February 1, 2009, revised 02-Feb 2:21 AM
No comments.
The End of the Apathy
Everybody knows that the GOP has been, to be polite, apathetic the last 2 election cycles. That isn't news. What's news is that the apathy appears to be abating. There are several explanations for the GOP's disappearing apathy. One of the biggest reasons for the GOP's apathy disappearing is Eric Cantor keeping his House colleagues from voting for the Democrats' Porkulus bill . Another reason why conservatives aren't apathetic is due to Michael Steele's election to be the next chairman of the RNC.
The biggest reason for the apathy vanishing act is because President Obama foolishly picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Michelle Malkin has rightfully titled this episode The Rush Revival . Here's the most astute observation Michelle makes in her NY Post column:
The stimulus bill is a prime example, a collection of pet projects connected by no coherent ideological strategy except spending. Do Democrats really support it because it's a good bill? Or is it simply because Republicans oppose it?Harry Reid tried picking a fight with Rush. Sen. Reid still winces each time he thinks about the damage Rush inflicted on him. President Obama was riding high in the polls. The media's reporting was embarrassingly fatuous. President Obama made the mistake of picking a fight with Rush.
Either way, picking a fight with Rush was disastrous for the White House. Obama's criticism of Limbaugh, and by extension, the broader influence of conservative talk radio and grass-roots activism, galvanized the base. Let's face it, there's been a little bit of moping since the November losses. Conservatives retreated into think tanks and blogs, trying to figure out what went wrong, sure that the public mood for empty promises would sour soon enough.
The reason President Obama's picking a fight with Rush on the stimulus bill is that it gave Rush the opportunity to highlight all the pork earmarked for the Democrats' special interest allies. Support for the Porkulus bill started dropping the minute Rush started telling his audience that the bill wasn't about stimulating the economy.
Not only did support for the bill start dropping at that point but it's also the point at which Rep. Cantor was able to convince the House GOP that this was the perfect opportunity for the GOP to stand up to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.
It isn't a stretch to think that Rush provided political cover for Blue Dog Democrats and GOP squishies to pull their support from the bill in the House.
Another indicator that Republicans are getting pumped is the number of articles offering suggestions to Chairman Steele that are popping up everywhere .
At the start of the presidential election cycle, people had opinions on what the RNC, NRCC and NRSC should do. Most of it was offered in justifiably angrey tones. That's been replaced by people offering suggestions in hopes of getting on the same page as Chairman Steele, Leader Boehner and the House leadership team. Jennifer Rubin's article isn't harshly worded. Salena Zito's article is written from a positive perspective, too.
There's still much work to be done but the shift in attitude is a welcome sight. Conservatives armed with a positive attitude have a history of success. (Just ask Speaker Tom Foley in 1994.) I'm not predicting a dramatic turnaround. I'm just saying that people have rewarded Republicans when we've been the party of ideas and solutions.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 2:37 AM
No comments.
E.J. Dionne Proposing GOP Win-Win Situation?
As best I can tell, E.J. Dionne's column presents Republicans with a win-win situation . Here's what I'm referring to:
The coming week will test the strength of President Obama and the Democrats: Will they lose their nerve, or will they face down a rapidly forming conventional wisdom that will allow them to claim "victory" only if their economic stimulus package passes with substantial Republican support?I pointed out here that the Democrat-written bill, as currently configured, is owned in toto by Capitol Hill Democrats. If they stick to their guns, which is what John Kerry is advocating , they'll own this disastrous bill.
Up to now, Obama has handled his own public image with the same dexterity he showed in the campaign. His outreach to Republicans is popular because a streak of anti-partisanship has run through the American soul since the founding of the republic. From the time he announced his candidacy, Obama has broadened his appeal by speaking to this mistrust of parties.
I'm betting that they'll rewrite the bill. They're getting clobbered by conservative talk radio and the Right Blogosphere for all the pork that's heaped into this bill. That hasn't stopped E.J. from arguing against making concessions to Capitol Hill Republicans:
For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.It's difficult to accuse Republicans for "rank partisanship" when 11 Blue Dog Democrats joined with all 177 Republicans in voting against Ms. Pelosi's lardfest of a bill. It isn't just difficult to accuse Republicans for "rank partisanship" after Sen. Ben Nelson, (D-NE), said that he couldn't support the bill as it's currently written .
E.J. can rest assured that Rush will highlight the Blue Dogs' opposition to the House bill. He can rest assured of the fact that Rush will highlight Ben Nelson's opposition to the bill, too.
The Democrats can either turn tail and rewrite the bill or they can own a bill that won't create jobs but will drive up inflation. Either way, though, this is a win-win situation for the GOP.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 3:20 AM
No comments.
Our Vision vs. Their Attacks
The DCCC is launching a campaign against 28 Republican representatives. The official title of this campaign is Putting Families First. In their press release , they make this outlandish statement:
House Republicans just don't get it. They celebrate being the party of no and status quo, while more than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs, the stock market has plummeted wiping out nearly $7 trillion stock market wealth and endangering thousands of investors' nest eggs, and one in 10 homeowners was delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure this fall.What the Democrats lack in intelligent policy proposals, they make up for in chutzpah. The bill that House Democrats passed included $4,190,000,000 in "neighborhood stabilization activities" led by ACORN and like-minded organizations. How is that putting families first?
Until President Obama foolishly picked a fight with Rush, the bill contained $200,000,000 for maintaining the National Mall and manicuring the lawn surrounding the National Mall. How is that putting families first?
Because Ms. Pelosi's Democrats put together a bill that spends unprecedented amounts of money but doesn't produce much, we'll soon get hit with high inflation rates. High inflation rates are essentially a hidden tax on families, eroding their buying power and their abiliity to save for retirement and their children's college educations. How is that putting families first?
Now is the time for Chairman Steele to put a working group together to put our pro-prosperity agenda together. Name Newt as the group's chairman. Include legislators like Jim DeMint, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan on that working group. Putting Washington outsiders like Carly Fiorina and/or Fred Smith on the panel would give the panel instant credibility.
Most importantly, it would produce an agenda that truly puts families first.
Putting a fact-based rapid response team is important, too. The RRT's priumary responsibilities would include issuing statements on the pork and bad policies contained in the Democrats' legislation. It would also include highlighting the unsustainable spending contained in the Democrats' bills.
Something that shouldn't be part of the RRT's responsibilities is engaging in tit-for-tat sniping matchings. The goal of every communication should be to persude people to join our movement. It shouldn't be about sounding snippy. When you criticize portions of the Democrats' agenda, stick with the facts. Don't get personal.
Something else that should be in the RRT's toolbox should be a sense of humor. Poking fun at the Democrats' policies highlights what needs highlighting without sounding irritable. It's ok to stick the proverbial dagger in. It's just best if you do that with a smile on your face and a cheerful disposition.
Here's another portion of the Democrats' misinformation campaign:
According to Politico, House Republicans celebrated voting against economic recovery while at their retreat last week:While it's true that small portions of Ms. Pelosi's bill would have provided economic stimulus, it's more accurate to say that large chunks of the bill are payoffs to the Democrats' political allies. The payoff portions of the bill do nothing to stimulate the economy. These parts of the bill will, however, trigger high inflation rates.
But the mood Thursday night here at the posh Homestead Resort was buoyant after Wednesday's vote, in which every Republican opposed the Democrats' stimulus bill. The assembled Republicans rose in a standing ovation Thursday night when Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio showed them a C-SPAN video of the vote itself, according to people present.
Here's the real choice that Leader Boehner and Minority Whip Cantor: They could vote for a fatally flawed bill that would've hurt American families with high inflation and high unemployment rates or they could vote against it and tell Speaker Pelosi and President Obama that they wouldn't sign onto was more about paying off the Democrats' political allies than it did in terms of advancing policies that would lead us back to sustained prosperity.
It's worth noting that Republicans didn't just oppose the Democrats' pork plan. They offered an alternative plan which would've put people back to work.
The difference between the Democrats' bill and the House Republicans' bill is that the Democrats' bill is filled with pork while the House Republicans' bill includes tax cuts that put people back to work.
The House Republicans' bill is the only plan that substantively put families first. We should cheerfully preach that message to anyone who'll listen because it's a great message about real hope and intelligent change.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 11:57 AM
No comments.
Pelosi Reverting To Partisan Tactics?
I'm shocked...shocked I tell you...to find out that the House Republicans' voting against the 'Mother of all Porkfests' is causing Speaker Pelosi is reverting to her time-tested partisan tactics . Here's what Politico is reporting:
When the book is written on Nancy Pelosi's reign as speaker of the House, the thinnest chapter just might turn out to be: "Bipartisanship and the 111th Congress."It isn't difficult to argue that Speaker Pelosi is a vindictive person if you cross her. The Politico's reporting that Heath Schuler and Paul Kanjorski are in Ms. Pelosi's doghouse supports the theory that crossing Ms. Pelosi is the fastest ticket to politically irrelevancy.
To hear her aides and associates tell it, Pelosi entered last week on her best bipartisan behavior, hoping that billions in tax cuts would be enough to lure six to 10 Republican House members to vote for the $819 billion stimulus plan.
To Republicans, it was a typical Pelosi pose, and they accused her of ramming one of the biggest spending bills in history down their throats while scaling back President Barack Obama's tax-cut proposal to fund 40 years' worth of liberal wish-list items.
In the end, the GOP unleashed a Rush-and-Drudge media campaign on funding for contraceptives and resodding of the National Mall tucked into the package, and Pelosi was genuinely surprised that every single Republican House member voted against it.
As a result, the speaker's public commitment to bipartisanship may quickly yield to a depressingly familiar pattern of partisan combat that comes along with her new role as Obama's human shield.
None of this was entirely unexpected, but the window of opportunity is closing fast for Republicans. And a handful of Democrats who defied her on the stimulus, especially Reps. Paul E. Kanjorksi of Pennsylvania and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, may also find themselves shut out, Pelosi associates and Democratic aides tell Politico.
There's another message behind Ms. Pelosi's putting Rep. Schuler in her doghouse: It's fine to be a Blue Dog. It isn't fine voting like a Blue Dog.
Speaker Pelosi has essentially said that Rep. Schuler is a token moderate, that he's a 'show-and-tell' piece. Ms. Pelosi's saying that Democrats are the big tent party. It's unfortunate that their tent is filled with doghouses for those that don't reflexively obey Ms. Pelosi.
It's worth noting that Speaker Pelosi's brand of bipartisanship is cutting a number of tax cuts that President Obama wanted, then getting upset with Republicans for not following like lemmings. That isn't small D democratic rule. That's autocratic rule, which has typified Ms. Pelosi's reign as Speaker.
If this reporting is accurate, Speaker Pelosi might be get a private doghouse in the West Wing:
"Remember, you have a speaker who has dealt with that for a couple years. She dealt with it as minority leader, she dealt with it as speaker [under President George W. Bush]," another staffer close to Pelosi said.Speaker Pelosi playing chicken with a president with 60+ percent approval ratings is a surefire way of winding up in the political hospital. Maintaining an attitude that the Speaker would tutor President Obama also speaks to Speaker Pelosi's arrogance.
"What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks," the person added. "They're all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night."
The only way a politician can successfully attack President Obama is with logic, sound policies and with an absence of condescension. Speaker Pelosi's actions suggest that Speaker Pelosi foolishly believes she's running DC and that President Obama is her underling.
My final analysis is that Speaker Pelosi's partisanship and arrogance is giving friend and foe alike justifiable justifications for abandoning her.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 12:46 PM
No comments.
Whatever Happened To Obama's Lobbyist-Free Administration?
Throughout the campaign, then-Sen. Obama railed against lobbyist-filled administrations. That tough talk continued through the transition. Unfortunately, President Obama's actions haven't matched his tough talk :
So to sum up: Lobbyists use their insider knowledge and connections to make money from special interests and because they do so directly (call their former colleagues, for example), they must register as lobbyists. Tom Daschle used his insider status and knowledge and connections to make money from special interests but because he did not directly lobby (rather than calling a former colleague, he would tell the special interest who to call), he did not have to register as a lobbyist. And so he can work in the Obama administration.Ed has a more biting post up here . Let's start with the editorial Ed cites:
This isn't about Tom Daschle-he was a very good senator, and will undoubtedly be a good and conscientious secretary of Health and Human Services, if confirmed.
But it does illustrate, again, the problems with sweeping rhetoric and lobbyist ban that President Obama has employed. By painting all lobbyists as evil influence peddlers and loudly proclaiming that they would have no place in his administration, he opened himself up to ridicule whenever he did (inevitably) bring lobbyists and quasi-lobbyists into his administration.
It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.Thinking that a Chicago Machine politician is a corruption-fighter is pure foolishness. That President Obama has waived his no-lobbyist rule 17 times in less than two weeks in office says everything that needs to be said about his commitment to reforming Washington.
Dreams are dreams. Facts are facts. President Obama is surrounded by corrupt lobbyists ready to sell America cheap.
Take the example of the newest exposure of doubletalk from Obama! After calling for clean Governance, he appoints a Treasury Secretary who "forgot" to pay for his 'business tax' for years! Tom Daschle, a top lobbyist in Washington, who has amended his U.S. tax forms to pay back taxes with interest, is now Obama's best choice for America's chief health official.
Would you believe, Obama had to issue 17 waivers on his own rule in less than two weeks for allowing lobbyist enter his Administration and control Governance of America!
Put differently, it's pure fiction and hype. It isn't reality.
This post wouldn't be complete without including Ed's observation:
But Obama appointing lobbyist after lobbyist to government positions, with enforcement power, despite his promise not to do that at all? Crickets chirp among the American media. I guess they've outsourced their Truth-to-Power divisions to India.That's spot on observation on Ed's behalf, which is what we expect from him.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 1:20 PM
No comments.
Daschle 1, Ethical Behavior 0
According to Max Baucus' statement on Sen. Daschle's confirmation to be the next HHS Secretary, it's apparent that keeping corruption out of government takes a back seat to advancing his agenda. Here's a portion of Sen. Baucus' statement:
"The ability to advance meaningful health reform is my top priority in confirming a Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I remain convinced that Senator Daschle would be an invaluable and expert partner in this effort," said the Montana senator in a statement. "I am eager to move forward together."What's a little corruption in government, especially when the corrupt politician is a close friend? It's apparent that Democrats don't care about corruption. That's what their actions tell us. If you don't believe me, look at all the corruption in this administration and amongst Pelosi's chief lieutenants
It's especially insulting that they think that someone from within their inside-the-Beltway club is the only person in the world who can fix our problems. They're thinking that we're a bunch of simpletons who can't fix anything if our life depended on it but we're the soldiers that comprise an Army of Davids .
Sen. Baucus stating that Sen. Daschle is the key to "meaningful health reform" is proof that Washington hasn't noticed that the private sector started working on months ago. During last fall's candidate debates for the Minnesota legislature, Josh Behling talked frequently and forcefully about the changes he helped institute in Century Granite's benefit packages. Josh especially touted HSAs, which would go a long ways in turning people into health care shoppers instead of health care consumers.
Rep. Steve Gottwalt talked extensively about other private sector-initiated reforms, especially in the context that companies had a financial interest in reforming health care, meaning that the status quo is inefficient and costly. Given companies' incentive to drag help insurance into the 21st century, doesn't anyone think that the best thing that government can do to speed health insurance reform would be to eliminate the federal and state mandates on insurers while helping promote competition?
Here in Minnesota, there are three health insurers: Blue Cross, Health Partners and United Health. They're the only insurers licensed to sell insurance in the state. What's the likelihood that Sen. Daschle will break their monopolistic hold in Minnesota, especially when one of the companies was run by the wife of a prominent Democratic legislator? Think in terms of no chance or slimmer.
Different parts of government can assist in initially putting data bases together that rate the clinics and hospitals in terms of cost for various procedures or which clinics and hospitals provide the highest quality in terms of the various surgeries or treatments and such.
Where having a bureaucrat like Sen. Daschle would cost us in efficiency is his thinking inside the box and within the context of him being a lifetime bureaucrat. Bureaucrats have a control fetish. If something doesn't fit within their flowcharts, the typical bureaucrat simply rejects the idea. They simply can't resist trying to control it.
In other words, Daschle represents the worst of all worlds. He's corrupt and he's a control freak. Personally, I'd rather entrust an Army of Davids to figure out the best solutions that increase efficiencies while giving working families a variety of appealing options.
That's why Sen. Daschle isn't the great savior his Democratic colleagues are making him out to being. He's just another bureaucrat who's part of the club. for more on that, check out John Hinderaker's post on Sen. Daschle :
Tom Daschle is a man of little ability who, as far as history records, has never had a creative or original idea about any public policy issue. Nevertheless, through a combination of assiduous delivery of pork to his constituents, slavish devotion to the Democratic Party and ethical flexibility, he rose almost to the top of the heap in Washington, DC. In my view, Daschle has been a borderline crook through most if not all of his Senate career. But that didn't stop the Democrats from electing him their leader in the Senate, nor did it deter a highly lucrative career after John Thune defeated him in 2004.In other words, he's highly paid because he's influential, not because he's a particularly astute policy person. Put differently, he's ethically challenged and well connected.
Barack Obama's nomination of Daschle to head the Department of Health and Human Services has brought to light one aspect of the seamy underside of life in Washington. After his defeat, Daschle went to work for Alston & Bird, a law firm that also does lobbying. Daschle isn't a lawyer, so he can only have been working on the lobbying side of the shop, yet he has never registered as a lobbyist. Still, his connections apparently were valuable enough that Alston & Bird paid him $2.1 over the past two years.
That alone is justification for rejecting him.
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009 10:31 PM
No comments.
