February 16, 2010
Feb 16 00:48 Don't Bet On It Feb 16 05:57 Why Weren't Governors Invited? Feb 16 06:58 Starting With a Flawed Principle Feb 16 07:32 Credible Polling or Cronyism? Feb 16 10:08 Heads, We Win, Tails, They Lose Feb 16 11:51 Rep. Sertich: Still the Smartaleck
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Don't Bet On It
TNR's Jonathan Chait thinks that the Senate health care bill has a pulse . I wouldn't bet on it, especially following Evan Bayh's surprise retirement .
Friday brought yet more reason to think health care reform has a pulse--still a bit weak, perhaps, but getting stronger.What's needed for health care to pass is for the House to accept the Senate bill. That isn't likely following Sen. Bayh's surprise retirement announcement. I'm betting that there are alot of nervous Democrats after that cataclysmic event. I'm speculating here but I'm betting that, after Sen. Bayh's retirement, they're more than a dozen votes short of passing the Senate bill.
It came when President Obama issued his formal invitation to the bipartisan meeting on February 25 . The invitation sketched out the who (Congressional leaders and ranking committee members from each party, plus a few guests), the where (Blair House), and the what (opening remarks followed by discussion about key policy questions.)
Voting for a bill that Democrats have hated from the outset is bad enough. It's quite another thing to cast that vote knowing that voting for it will end your political career. We've already seen how spineless congressional Democrats are.
Chait is already showing his willingness to spew this administration's talking points in these paragraphs:
Republicans want to make this event, and, indeed, this whole debate, a referendum on the Democratic health care reform plan. Obama wants to make this a referendum on what to do about the nation's health care problems, with each party putting forward its ideas. And it looks to me like Obama will get his way.I can't imagine why Chait would attempt to say that Republicans don't have a plan, especially after President Obama complimented Paul Ryan for his health care plan during the House GOP retreat. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll provide Mr. Chait with the link to the Patients' Choice Act.
If the Republicans don't post a plan, everybody will see that the GOP isn't serious about health care reform. If the Republicans do post a plan, they'll have to defend it. That might look even worse, given how unpromising their ideas are, although I realize that's a matter of opinion.
I hope Chait will stop spewing this administration's talking points without first examining them first. It's embarrassing to see a high profile pundit not even be able to get his facts straight.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Feb-10 02:59 PM
And I am absolutely certain, Gary, you would be saying the very same thing had past balloting yielded a Governor Hatch.
Uh-huh. Sure.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-10 04:13 PM
What does Mike Hatch have to do with this post?
Why Weren't Governors Invited?
Tim Pawlenty's appearance on Greta van Susteren's On The Record raised the question of why President Obama isn't making his Health Care Summit a true discussion about reforming health care. It's Gov. Pawlenty's contention that the discussion should include governors since they're part of the health care reform equation. It's more than a legitimate point, in my opinion.
"I think he should expand the circle. Not just talk to members of Congress. If you want to fix the health care system, talk to people who have done it, including practitioners but also including governors, from both parties. We're the ones on the ground with these programs ," Pawlenty said.That's a more than reasonable suggestion since governors will be asked to administer the Medicaid changes if the bill passes. Governors have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't in administering Medicaid.
It's just my opinion but I think the reason why President Obama didn't expand it to include governors is because he isn't interested in having a truly open discussion on all the best solutions to health care. That's my opinion because, from the outset, Democrats see the health care debate from the standpoint of controlling people's lives. It really isn't about fixing a broken system.
As expected, the DNC attacked Gov. Pawlenty when he outlined his health care plan. First, here's
His proposals:Here's Brad Woodhouse's snotty response:
1. Give incentives for employees to pick high-quality, low-cost plans, ala Minnesota public employees.
2. Pay for performance, like Minnesota's QCare program.
3. Tort reform, something Republicans have long pushed.
4. Allow inter-state health care purchases, an idea Pawlenty began pushing last year, mentioned in his State of the State speech and, according to some experts, is already theoretically allowed.
5. Link health insurance to the individual, rather than the job.
"We welcome Governor Pawlenty to the debate on how to best address our looming health care crisis. However, he seems to have not been paying much attention to the debate ( too busy delivering $100,000 campaign checks from wealthy donors perhaps? ). Governor Pawlenty seems to have missed the proposals that Democrats have been discussing for the last nine months. If he had been paying any attention at all, he would know that Democrats, in fact, have included health care portability in their proposals, and the President has specifically said that he would be willing to work with Republicans on liability reform. And prohibiting discrimination against consumers with pre-existing conditions has always been a core principle of the President's reform efforts. Rather than jumping into this conversation after serious proposals have been debated for months, the Governor might have taken the time to study up on the issues."A series of questions arises from Mr. Woodhouse's snotty response, starting with his comment that "the President has specifically said that he would be willing to work with Republicans on liability reform." If President Obama thinks liability reform is an important part of health care reform, why doesn't the Democrats' legislation already include a serious lawuit abuse reform provision?
Notice, too, that Mr. Woodhouse didn't talk about the two main points in Gov. Pawlenty's proposal, incentivizing employees to pick high-quality, low-cost plans and pay for performance. I'm betting Mr. Woodhouse didn't want to touch those proposals because they'd highlight Gov. Pawlenty's success in stabilizing health insurance premiums. I'm betting that Mr. Woodhouse doesn't want anything to do with Minnesota's high-quality, low-cost plan because people are told to be good health care consumers.
That's the opposite of the Democrats' plans. Democrats don't want to talk about changing their plans because (a) they'd have to defend their plan's failings and (b) they don't want people to know that their criticisms of Republicans as the 'Party of No' were PR stunts that weren't rooted in the truth.
Finally, inviting governors to the summit would give them the opportunity to expose President Obama as a man lacking gravitas on this complex, multi-faceted issue. The thing that this administration has done is hide President Obama's lack of policymaking experience.
There's two reasons why President Obama wasn't able to win people over to supporting the Democrats' health care provisions. First, the legislation he was touting didn't lower health care costs or health insurance premiums. (The fact that he had to deliver 29 speeches on health care tells me that the legislation was lousy. If it was great legislation, it'd sell itself to a great extent.)
Second, he isn't capable of winning people over in terms of supporting legislation. Though he tried repeatedly, each speech he delivered dropped support for the Democrats' health care legislation. In fact, that's what's happened on pretty much every subject he's given a speech on.
The bottom line is that governors would be invited if this was a serious discussion aimed at putting great legislation together. That's the type of environment Bill Clinton thrived in. By comparison, it's the type of environment this administration shies away from.
Thanks to Gov. Pawlenty's bringing the subject up, Democrats have been exposed as having put together inferior, unpopular, health care legislation.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:11 AM
No comments.
Starting With a Flawed Principle
The DFL's biannual 'Jobs Bill', aka the bonding bill, exposes the DFL's economic failings. That's because it exposes their belief that wealth creation and job creation starts with government spending.
With that exposed, let's look at the 'progress' the bonding bill is making :
The debate over government's role in job creation will surface again Monday at the State Capitol, when the House is expected to vote on a proposal to borrow $1 billion for public construction projects.First, this isn't an attempt to trash everything in the bonding bill. Maintaining and improving Minnesota state assets like schools and roads can be justified to most people.
DFL leaders say the large bonding bill will provide an economic boost throughout the state by providing needed construction jobs. The list of projects range from college buildings to hiking trails.
DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher says final approval of the measure needs to come quickly.
"Minnesotans who are out of work are not really interested in a delay in this bill," said Kelliher. "It takes a number of days to contract a project after it gets approval and signature by the governor, and we want to be sure we don't lose the entire construction season out of this."
The purpose of this post is to question why the DFL leadership thinks that money spent on billion dollar bonding bills is better spent than cutting taxes on small businesses. There's a far greater likelihood that small businesses, when given the opportunity to make profits, will create more jobs that are sustainable for several years at a time.
For the most part, projects created by the bonding bill are here today, gone next month. Why are creating those types of projects such a high priority? Why shouldn't we put a higher priority on creating a tax climate that appeals to Minnesota's small businesses, incentivizes businesses to expand in Minnesota and that doesn't pick tax winners and losers?
I stated here that the DFL's tax credits were the DFL's attempt to pick economic winners and losers by giving tax breaks to industries that are their political allies while subjecting other industries to high income tax rates. Shouldn't government be in the business of giving everyone a level playing field? More importantly, shouldn't tax relief be as broad-based as possible so that everyone prospers, not just the DFL's political allies?
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:58 AM
No comments.
Credible Polling or Cronyism?
After reading this post , I'm fairly certain that I don't trust the polling being 'reported'. Here's what was said that made me suspicious:
Former state Sen. Jim Waring holds a substantial lead in the GOP primary race to replace the retiring Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), according to a survey conducted by a polling firm affiliated with his campaign and leaked to the media .Here's the results of the 'polling':
Waring 50What makes this polling less than credible is that Dan Quayle's son Ben filed to get into the race for Shadegg's seat last week. Whether you agree or disagree with former Vice President Quayle's political views, there's no way that his son wouldn't even register in a poll.
Gorman 27
Crump 9
Parker 7
Others 6
The other thing that makes me suspicious is that the poll was leaked to the press by a polling company working for the man with the most to gain from this 'news'.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:37 AM
No comments.
Heads, We Win, Tails, They Lose
Based on this article , Republicans should be jumping for joy after Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise retirement announcement. Here's what they should be celebrating:
Hoosier politics took an unexpected turn Monday night when Democratic Senate candidate Tamyra d'Ippolito accused the White House of conspiring with party officials to secretly draft Rep. Baron Hill to run against her.I don't know if Rahm is colluding with Baron Hill or not but just the thought of Baron Hill being the endorsed Democratic candidate opposite Dan Coats should have every majority-loving Republican smiling brightly. Getting Hill would be proof that there is a God in Heaven. Then again, getting Ms. d'Ippolito would be proof of that, too.
As the only other Democrat in the field, d'Ippolito became the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination when Sen. Evan Bayh announced Monday that he would not seek re-election. Indiana Senate candidates must collect 4,500 signatures to appear on the ballot, including 500 from each of the state's nine congressional districts.
As of 9:30 p.m. Monday d'Ippolito told The Daily Caller she was 1,000 signatures short and had volunteers across the state planning to work through the night to accomplish the goal before the noon deadline on Tuesday.
However, d'Ippolito said she was informed Monday that Hill, a blue dog who represents Indiana's 9th District in the House, already has the necessary signatures and is sitting on them until the deadline. She accused White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel of colluding with Hill and the Democratic party county chairs to secretly supplant her as the nominee.
"I can't confirm so I'm working feverishly to find out if this is the deal. If it is, there's something unethical going on in Indiana politics," d'Ippolito said. She then referenced Emanuel's Jan. 9 appearance at a fundraiser for Hill in Bloomington and accused the president's top political aide of playing kingmaker during that visit.
God, I love it when the Democrats' plans fall apart.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:10 AM
No comments.
Rep. Sertich: Still the Smartaleck
Anyone who's watched Rep. Sertich 'debate' Republicans on the House floor know that he's got a habit of being a smartaleck, always looking to tweak Republicans. This post proves that he's still just as lippy as ever:
During Monday's debate of the DFL-backed $1 billion bonding bill in the House, there was this exchange between House Majority Leader Tony Sertich and Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate:There's more to this than just tweaking a GOP gubernatorial candidate. What Rep. Sertich is defending is the right of the DFL to spend money on things charitably characterized as pork . With the state facing a $1,200,000,000 deficit, spending any money on shade trees is wasting money, then putting that irresponsible spending on the state's credit card.
"These jobs that you're talking about creating are only going to be around for the next year or two," said Emmer, echoing a Republican criticism that construction jobs created by the bonding bill would only be a temporary fix to the state's troubled economy. "This is outrageous.
"We got shade tree programs in here...shade tree programs, Rep. Sertich. How many jobs will shade tree programs create?" Emmer asked.
Replied Sertich: "If there are politicians around here that think that these are not [good] jobs, these temporary jobs, I suggest that those politicians should consider their jobs temporary as well."
I'd love hearing Rep. Sertich justify the DFL's spending money on landscaping and shrubbery, then putting it on the state's credit card. I'd love hearing his justification for spending this money while we're facing this major deficit.
In 2007-08, the DFL criticized the GOP for wanting to put such trivial things on the state's credit card as roads and bridges. Now, the DFL is essentially insisting on putting such high priority items like shrubbery and landscaping on the state's credit card.
I'd argue that the DFL's priorities aren't in touch with Minnesota's priorities. I'd further argue that the DFL is only in touch with their political allies.
Furthermore, I'd love to hear Rep. Sertich explain why putting shrubbery and landscaping on Minnesota's credit card is a better use of the taxpayer's money than cutting taxes that would incentivize small businesses to create jobs and expand their businesses.
I'd love hearing Rep. Sertich explain the difference between bonding bills and a stimulus bill. It's difficult to tell them apart since both appear to do nothing to improve Minnesota's business climate while spending money on projects that the DFL's political allies want. I'd argue that the law of diminshing returns would kick in after awhile. In fact, I'd argue that we've reached that point already.
If I don't get a response from Rep. Sertich, I'll just conclude that the bonding bill is just the DFL's attempt at applying a temporary fix to Minnesota's economy rather than building a 21st Century economy.
Remember, folks, that the DFL is the party that wants to fund a twentieth century government and that the GOP is the party that wants to build a 21st century, entrepreneur-friendly economy.
This pattern won't change until the DFL is the minority party. The DFL knows that (a) this $1,100,000,000 capital investment bill will be vetoed and (b) that Gov. Pawlenty's veto will be sustained. This is a sop to the DFL's special interest allies, especially their union allies.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:51 AM
No comments.
