February 17-18, 2010
Feb 17 05:27 Keep Believing That Feb 17 06:59 Kelliher's Dictatorship Feb 17 08:31 The Union-Democrat Unholy Alliance Feb 17 14:19 It's the Spending, Stupid Feb 18 01:19 How Nice Feb 18 06:21 It Isn't All George Bush's Fault? Feb 18 09:52 I'm Changing My Mind
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Keep Believing That
My first reaction after reading Steve Benen's post was "Keep believing what you're writing." Here's what I'm talking about:
For all the palpable anxiety in Democratic circles, there's still time. Sinking poll numbers are largely the result of inaction, Americans want to see results, and they're not getting any. If Dems run for the hills, matters will only get worse.It isn't about the Democrats' tactics. It isn't about the Democrats' communications strategy. It's about their failed economic policies. It's about the damage that the Democrats' health care policies would've caused if they would've been implemented.
When I hear Democrats say that people only have a negative opinion of their health care legislation because they haven't correctly communicated the provisions in the bill, I question whether they watched the videos from August's townhall meetings, where informed citizen after informed citizen 'educated' their legislators.
I recall Claire McCaskill telling the audience that President Obama never endorsed a single-payer health care system. I loved it when someone from the audience hollared "It's on YouTube." It isn't that we don't know what's in these bills. It's that people like Betsy McCaughey, Keith Hennessey and King Banaian read the bills and published specific language from the bills on their websites.
We knew what was in the Democrats' health care bill. We rejected the tax increases, the individual mandates and the fines for not buying health insurance policies that the federal government approved.
Another thing that Democrats should do is keep sending President Obama into races where Democrats are currently in trouble :
President Obama kicks off what might be called his "Save the Senate" tour this week, heading west to campaign for two embattled Democrats trailing badly against Republican challengers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.If President Obama does for Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray what he did for Martha Coakley and Jon Corzine, we'll owe President Obama a big debt of gratitude for tying Democrats to his radical agenda.
With high-profile Democrats already bailing out of re-election campaigns, Sen. Evan Bayh's decision on Monday to drop out of the race in Indiana brings the number of retirees to five, Mr. Obama is putting his popularity and fundraising prowess on the line as he tries to help his party hold the majority in the Senate.
Finally, I hope DNC Chair Tim Kaine told the truth when he said this:
"In the two governors races, and Massachusetts things didn't go our way," he said. "We know it's going to be a challenging and tough cycle. Historically it always is. But we're not panicked people. When a couple races don't go our way, we don't panic. If we would, we never would have won the White House in '08."What a buffoon. Things didn't just not go their way in a couple of statewide races. They got manhandled in states that they've owned for years. Independent voters rejected their policies by margins of 2:1 and 3:1. They lost Virginia, a state President Obama carried by 8 points, by almost 20 points. They lost Ted Kennedy's seat by a healthy margin. In all 3 states, the swing from President Obama's margin of victory to this year's election was approaching 30 points.
Tim Kaine can act nonchalant all he wants but candidates are panicking. Byron Dorgan, Evan Bayh and Christopher Dodd didn't suddenly retire because they saw nothing but smooth sailing ahead. (No, I don't buy this weekend's polling that showed Bayh ahead by 15+ points. Rasmussen's polling showed him in a dogfight with John Hostettler and trailing Mike Pence. I'll trust Scott Rasmussen's polling. PERIOD.)
Unless President Obama abandons his radical agenda, Democrats will have to plenty to worry about. People want common sense leadership, not Alinsky-style radicalism.
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Scott Hudson at 17-Feb-10 06:18 AM
It's tough to gauge whether folks like Benen actually believe what they say. I am open to the likelihood some progressive voters have withheld support from Democrats in protest of health care bills which "don't go far enough," or tactics which have not worked. It's especially likely voters in that category contributed to the Brown victory.
But it's also clear folks reject the Obama agenda. I mean, when you NEED a super-majority because you can't possibly reach compromise, that tells you something about the extremist nature of your agenda.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Feb-10 06:21 AM
Walter, I couldn't put it better. You're exactly right, especially about the "extremist nature" of their agenda.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 17-Feb-10 06:24 AM
Eight years of Bush-Cheney-Coleman for the festering zit to form, breaking out pus-filled months before 2009 began.
So, you expect a miracle cure?
And the failed policies accompanied the failure plunge.
What is following "failed economic policy" where Wall Street profiteers were allowed to get away with things causing the Bush-time Enron failure to pale by comparison, and your side in lockstep opposition to every reasonable reform step, and you complain about the other side?
Record Reagan-like deficits year in and year out by Bush-Cheney war via borrowing; eight years of that failed economic policy, and you complain about the other side?
Gary, you know better.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Feb-10 07:06 AM
I don't expect a miracle cure. However, I do expect that the people elected to fix the problems implement policies that actually fix the problems.
The biggest problem out there right now is unemployment. The Democrats' solution? Pass a pork-filled stimulus bill that kept public employee union workers employed but that didn't get private sector workers back to work. The Democrats' solution to high unemployment that their policies made worse? Health care legislation that contains massive tax increases on all Americans, whether they're rich or poor or middle class.
As for "Wall Street profiteers", people like Christopher Dodd & President Obama drank at those troughs, too. You know that to be true. Don't act like Democrats come to that discussion with clean hands.
You know better.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 17-Feb-10 10:06 AM
Seems to me the only chance the Democrats really have is for Obama to start sounding like a pragmatic moderate. Unfortunately he has probably come to the point in time where even that will not help, because he's already blown his credibility. Lying with stirring oratory is still just lying. Poor fellow, it's the only tool he really has.
Comment 4 by The Lady Logician at 17-Feb-10 05:31 PM
"So, you expect a miracle cure?"
Well Obama and his supporters PROMISED a miracle cure Eric. Remember the speech where he said that the day he secured the nomination would be remembered as the DAY the seas stopped rising and the world began to heal?????
Now let's talk about the FACT that this President and this Congress OWN EVERY PENNY of debt that has been incurred since Jan 21, 2009. They have, in 1 short year, out done 8 years of Bush-Cheney-Coleman (you forgot Haliburton there Eric).
LL
Kelliher's Dictatorship
Monday night, Speaker Kelliher, Majority Leader Sertich and the DFL showed how a democracy can quickly devolve into a dictatorship.
The House GOP quickly responded to the DFL's anti-democratic actions in this post :
If this sounds familiar, it's because it is. They've done this before . And before that . And even before that .The videos that I linked to prove that the DFL leadership hasn't hesitated in stopping debate when they're debating unpopular legislation. In recent years, the bonding bill has been nothing more than a shot of adrenaline to temporarily boost a sagging economy. We've reached the point of diminishing returns.
In fact, since taking control of the Legislature in 2007, Minnesota House Democrats have silenced debate 7 times. Prior to 2007, the rare procedure had only been used 5 times since 1971 .
Rather than attacking building a 21st century economy, the DFL leadership is content with stopping debate on legislation that is, at best, a temporary patch that hide the structural deficiencies that they're responsible for creating.
It's important that we ask the DFL why they insist on stifling debate on how best to create jobs when so many Minnesotans are unemployed. Is it because they don't want to give the GOP time to expose the pork in their 'jobs bill'? Is it because the DFL doesn't want people to know how much of that pork is directed at their political allies?
It used to be that DFL stood for Democratic-Farmer-Labor. Now, DFL stands for 'We don't do democracy' and 'We don't do transparency'. That's what happens when a majority party becomes an obstructionist, status quo party bereft of ideas.
Albert Einstein famously said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Each year since taking the majority in the House, the DFL has passed a 'jobs bill'. Each year, the results have fallen short of their expectations. Isn't that the definition of insanity ?
Is it possible that Speaker Kelliher and Majority Leader Sertich shut down debate because they didn't want their legislative insanity exposed?
Finally, what does it say about the DFL legislators that voted to cut off debate? Doesn't it really say that they're spineless puppets in Speaker Kelliher's and Majority Leader Sertich's twisted play?
If Minnesotans want a legislature that shares their priorities and their policy beliefs, they'll need to get rid of the DFL majority because the DFL's leadership is bereft of ideas. That's why they're that defensive.
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 17-Feb-10 09:32 PM
You keep using the slogan "a twenty-first century economy" and all I see is trickle down.
That's last century.
The century before last, when J.P. Morgan was a person, not merely a legacy Wall Street bandit operation.
Where did you get that rather quaint slogan?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-10 12:41 AM
Don't argue with what's worked, Eric. Just because you hate "Wall Street profiteers" doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't work. We know that socialism doesn't work. It's failed everywhere it's been tried. Government doling out money for this or that project isn't necessarily socialism but I'll guarantee it isn't capitalism.
As for the slogan, I thought of it when I understood what the two parties' priorities were. The DFL hasn't put a priority on reforming the way government operates. It hasn't questioned whether all the things that the state budget funds are still necessary. The House & Senate GOP have done the examination each of the last 3 years.
That's what differentiates them from U.S. Senate Republicans. Criticize them all you want. They deserve it. Not the Republicans in the state legislature. (For the most part.)
The Union-Democrat Unholy Alliance
John Stossel's article is the best written article I've seen in terms of exposing who Democrats really represent. Here's the opening of Stossel's article:
The government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.A year ago, Rep. David Obey, (D-WI), wrote into the omnibus spending bill a provision that will end the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which I wrote about here :
But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet...As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."
How revealing is that?
It's time that Chairman Obey was honest. If he was honest, he'd admit that this policy isn't "for the children", that it's 'for the NEA'. If there's anything I can't stand, it's elitist legislators treating us like we can't figure things out for ourselves. Chairman Obey is treating us like we're totally gullible.I said then what I'll repeat now: Democrats are the party that puts the NEA's priorities ahead of the priorities of underprivileged kids. The NEA's stranglehold on education policy, especially with regards to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, is proof beyond all doubt.
What's worse is that he's telling the children enrolled in this obviously successful program, and their parents, that public schools are just fine, that these children's safety isn't a policy priority to the Democrats, that giving these children the best possible opportunity isn't as important as appeasing the NEA.
These paragraphs display Stossel's utter contempt for the union-Democrats powers-that-be:
The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?Next year, I hope someone like Andrew Breitbart or PJTV's Stephen Crowder film the NEA's protests so that the NE is exposed as looking out for the NEA first, last and always. I'm being charitable when I say that the NEA's actions are reprehensible. I wish I could think of a more descriptive, powerful word but I can't right now. (Perhaps Mitch can help with that?)
Parents care about their kids and want them to learn and succeed, even poor parents. Thousands line up hoping to get their kids into one of the few hundred lottery-assigned slots at Harlem Success Academy, a highly ranked charter school in New York City. Kids and parents cry when they lose.
Yet the establishment is against choice. The union demonstrated outside Harlem Success the first day of school. And President Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program.
Stossel continues his indictment of government schools with this salvo:
Tooley finds as many as six private schools in small villages. "The majority of (poor) schoolchildren are in private school, and these schools outperform government schools at a fraction of the teacher cost," he says.I hadn't thought of this before but this is a perfect fight between liberal and conservative ideology. Private schools represent the best in local control of policy. Government schools are the perfect illustration of what happens when local control of education policy is ceded to unions rather than parents.
Why do parents with meager resources pass up "free" government schools and sacrifice to send their children to private schools? Because, as one parent told the BBC, the private owner will do something that's virtually impossible in America's government schools: replace teachers who do not teach.
Shouldn't that be the argument conservatives make in terms of why we need to take power away from the unions while empowering parents? Shouldn't we argue that parents care more about their children than unions do? Shouldn't we argue that giving parents the ability to terminate teachers that aren't teaching is the right education policy?
At minimum, shouldn't we argue that we're better off giving parents the flexibility to do what's right for their children? Surely, there isn't a coherent argument against giving parents that ability, is there? At minimum, shouldn't we argue that competition is always better than letting a monopoly run roughshod?
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:06 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Feb-10 09:40 AM
I've always said that the best argument for school choice is to throw unions' argument right back at them. Just ask why, if the public schools are so vastly superior, are they afraid of allowing parents to choose the public schools? Just give parents a voucher for the full amount of state aid in that district, and let them take it to the school of their choice -- public, private or home -- and see how it falls out. The public schools will have a natural monopoly for the first few years, anyway, and they can begin the process of becoming more competitive while the alternatives are getting organized. Those who are already doing well, or who get their act together quickly enough, they never face serious competition, and that's okay. The schools doing the worst will face heavy competition and will soon go out of business, which is an absolutely stellar result.
It's the Spending, Stupid
A year after President Obama signed the stimulus bill, there's little proof that it was worth the money spent on it. Despite the Obama administration's protestations, few people think that the stimulus bill has created jobs :
When it comes to job creation, just 6% say the stimulus package has created jobs , but another 41% expect it will do so. 48% think it won't.In Minnesota, Tim Walz hasn't expressed any regrets in voting for what I've called "the trifecta of infamy ", the stimulus, Cap and Trade and Pelosicare:
The myth that Tim Walz is an independent-thinking voice for southeastern Minnesota was laid to rest Saturday night when Tim Walz voted for the biggest expansion of government since LBJ's Great Society . In voting for the Pelosicare tax- and spend-fest, liberal Democrat Tim Walz scored a 'trifecta of infamy', voting for the failed stimulus bill, the job-killing Cap and Tax bill and now the government takeover of the American health care system.Adding another mountain of debt on us is also part of Rep. Walz's plan :
Asked Monday if he expected any Republicans to cross the aisle and vote for a new jobs-focused stimulus package, regardless of what was in it, Walz replied: "I don't expect to have any. If we voted to say today was Monday, I don't think we'd get many [Republican] votes."Rep. Walz hasn't tired of spending other people's money. It isn't likely that he'll tire anytime soon so it's best that we got rid of him. Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton thinks so, too :
House Republicans stood united against the first stimulus bill in January, a disciplined opposition that has largely continued to hold the line on major issues like health care reform, when all but one Republican voted against the Democrats' bill.
Walz said he's looking for the new bill to be "more focused on transportation," to the point that it's "the core of the jobs bill." If I had my way, I would have had more transportation funding the first time," Walz said.
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton today issued the following statement on the one year anniversary of President Barack Obama's signing of the stimulus bill.I couldn't agree more. Tim Walz isn't "an independent vote for Minnesota." He's been a reliable puppet for Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda.
"One year after Tim Walz voted for the $787 billion 'stimulus' which he called a 'life preserver,' it's clear this pork laden bill has done nothing to get Americans back to work. In addition to his votes for job-killing cap and tax legislation and government run health care, Walz's irresponsible vote for the 'stimulus' demonstrates that he is a rubber stamp for the failed Pelosi agenda of bigger government, bigger taxes and bigger deficits. To get our economy moving, it's time southern Minnesota gave Walz a pink slip."
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:19 PM
Comment 1 by Cindy at 17-Feb-10 02:45 PM
Rep. Marty Seifert on the House floor talking about Cap and Trade in MN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjVbWi0PgI&feature=player_embedded
"SF4 - The Renewable Energy Act - Establishing Energy Standards and Tradeable Renewable Energy Credits"
See additional comments here: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/
(Scroll down to: 'Marty Seifert The "Green" Candidate;' Click on comments.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,
We are in the midst of an important campaign for Governor. It is important we know our candidates well before making personal endorsements and voting at the upcoming conventions.
I think we can all agree our next Governor has to be solid in his convictions and unwavering in his commitment to bringing prosperity and a balanced budget back to Minnesota, our businesses, and our families. We cannot elect a Governor who is willing to compromise with liberals or special interest groups especially on legislation that will hurt Minnesota.
Above is a link to a video of Rep. Marty Seifet speaking on the House floor about the Minnesota Cap and Trade Bill or The Renewable Energy Act that established renewable energy standards and tradeable renewable energy credits (SF0004/HF0004 in 2007). This is the epitome of Cap and Trade.
Click on the link, and you will see Rep. Seifert: (1) express congratulation to himself and others for compromising with the Democrats and environmentalists on the MN Cap and Trade Bill, (2) say, "This bill is a beginning not an end," (3) state, "we need to see a lot more than what we see here today," and (4) "while it's not a perfect product for everyone on my side of the aisle, I will be supporting it and urging others to do the same."
Is this your Marty Seifert? Do we need another politician who is willing to throw his own party and state under the bus to protect his career?
Please join me in saying, "NO!" to career politicians like Marty Seifert who are willing to compromise away our core beliefs in an effort to protect a political career.
Join me in supporting the best choice for Governor, Rep. Tom Emmer, a confirmed conservative who voted NO! on Cap and Trade in Minnesota, and who recently introduced legislation to repeal Rep. Seifert's Cap and Trade bill. See this link: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/pressrelease.asp?pressid=3714&party=2&memid=12260
Learn more about Rep. Tom Emmer at: EmmerForGovernor.com
All my best for the upcoming conventions!
Cindy Westrup, SD52
Lu@usfamily.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty's Cap and Trade Bill for Minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=law&year=2007&sn=0&num=3
Comment 2 by eric z. at 17-Feb-10 09:27 PM
That poll sure has people dissing the GOP.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-10 12:44 AM
Yeah, like 6% of the people think that the Democrats' failed stimulus has created jobs. The thing that the Obama administration hasn't figured out is that their selling the stimulus as a success story just destroys their credibility with independents. Good luck this fall. You'll need it. ALOT!!!
How Nice
This afternoon, I got an email telling me that my representative, Larry Haws, is getting a lifetime achievement award. My first reaction was "How nice." My second reaction was "This guy's worked in the public sector half a century." Here's the press release:
St. Paul, MN - State Representative Larry Haws, District 15B, was named one of the Trust for Public Land's first-ever Legislative Leadership Award recipients.
State Rep. Haws has brought a thirty-two year regional park history to the state legislative table. As Saint Cloud Park Director, Haws developed the Saint Cloud national recognized park system. Under his leadership the park system grew from 33 parks and 400 acres to 90 parks and 1,000 acres. Park Director Haws established the Minnesota original "Adopt a Park Program" that recruited an army of 2,000 volunteers to plant, paint and clean city parks, saving thousands of tax dollars. With this background Rep. Haws has been able to speak factually on the importance of regional city and county parks that serve citizens not served by state or metro parks. He authored and passed legislation that will develop a five-year plan and a 25-year framework for non-metro regional parks.
"The Trust for Public Land is pleased to present this leadership award to Rep. Larry Haws," said Minnesota State Office Director Susan Schmidt. "Rep. Haws has initiated efforts to insure that regional parks and natural lands throughout the state, areas such as St. Cloud, benefit from the new Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment funding."
"It is an honor to be a part of the great success of The Trust for Public Land that is evident in the advances being made in our parks and natural land and protection throughout Minnesota," said Rep. Haws.
Haws came to Saint Cloud as a math teacher and a coach. He worked in the Saint Cloud Park Department and was a Park Director for 18 years. Haws also served as Stearns County Commissioner for seven years and he is now our State Representative for the Saint Cloud area.
Rep. Haws will receive his Legislative Leadership Award from The Trust for Public Land on February 19, 2010 at an Annual Legislative Kick-Off Luncheon at Como Park Zoo and Conservatory at 12:30 p.m.
There's no denying that Haws has been involved in St. Cloud's Park and Rec Department just like there's no denying that Larry will do a great job getting his fair share of the tax revenues so he can 'bring home the bacon.' Here's my only question about Larry: When is he going to start voting for tax reform and tax cuts?
Last year, St. Larry, along with Larry Hosch, voted against Keith Downey's angel investment tax credit amendment that would've kept high tech companies like VitalMedix from moving to Wisconsin:
Another Minnesota tech startup is moving across the border, prompting renewed questions about the competitive standing of the state's business climate.
VitalMedix, a Minneapolis biotech firm, said last week that it is negotiating leases in Wisconsin and expects to move to either Hudson or New Richmond within the next 90 days.
Jeff Williams, the company's CEO and founder, said VitalMedix's relocation will enable it to benefit from Wisconsin's friendlier business climate, including its tax investment credits law that encourage financial support from so-called angel investors.
"The investment climate (in Wisconsin) for small (biotech) companies like ours is more favorable" than Minnesota's, said Williams, previously CEO-in-residence of the Venture Center at the University of Minnesota. "Right now, it is more difficult to raise money in the Twin Cities for small companies."
It's difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Larry Haws serves on the Bioscience and Workforce Development Policy and Oversight Division. Considering the fact that he serves on a committee dealing with the bioscience industry, isn't it logical that he'd vote for legislation that would keep a bioscience company in Minnesota?
I wonder how many science majors at SCSU would vote for him if they knew he'd just voted to let a bioscience company leave Minnesota. I'm betting that they'd be upset that he didn't do enough to keep good paying bioscience jobs in the state.
Let's hope the next person to represent 15B puts a higher priority on building a 21st century private sector economy than St. Larry, the patron saint of the public trough.
Originally posted Thursday, February 18, 2010, revised 16-Apr 5:26 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 18-Feb-10 04:44 PM
The usual model is that some political entity forms a "Minnesota [political entity] Association" to do two things. One, help each other feather their personal and/or civic nests. The other is to take turns in some sort of rotation recognizing each and every member.
So it was last night at the District 281 School Board. All seven members got some sort of certificate from the Minnesota School Board Association, even the newly elected member attending just his 4th Board meeting.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Feb-10 11:39 AM
Rex, Thanks for paying attention to these issues. People that aren't reading your blog aren't doing everything they can to stay informed on education issues.
It Isn't All George Bush's Fault?
After reading the first few paragraphs of E.J. Dionne's column , I didn't have to figure out why Democrats are such a mess these days:
WASHINGTON -- If you want to be honest, face these facts: At this moment, President Obama is losing, Democrats are losing, and liberals are losing.Saying that President Obama would be "seen as shrewd and successful" in this economy is projection of the highest order. Others might say that it's delusional. It's also laughable to hear yet another Democrat whine about Republicans obstructing Democrats prior to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.
Who's winning? Republicans, conservatives, the practitioners of obstruction, and the Tea Party.
The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts, and the way the United States Senate operates. What's not responsible is the supposed failure of Obama and the Democrats to govern as "moderates."
Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won January's Massachusetts Senate race. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful.
What really stopped Democrats was the American people. They've told this administration and this Democratic majority time and again that they hate the Democrats' health care legislation. The Democrats didn't care. They just kept pushing. In January, the American people pushed back. When they did, they stopped the arrogant Democrats dead in their tracks.
In 2008, Democrats loved telling Republicans that elections have consequences. That's right. They do. Now the Democrats are learning that, not only do elections have consequences, but that policies that don't fit into America's mainstream will be rejected.
Here's more of Mr. Dionne's shoddy analysis:
The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true, and this is actually an indictment; it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing.The Democrats' stimulus bill is horrible legislation. The Democrats' stimulus bill didn't do anything to get entrepreneurs to start expanding their businesses and hiring new employees. The only thing it did was create huge, unprecedented deficits.
The Democrats' health care legislation is worse than the stimulus bill because it contains hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that hit the middle class and small businesses. The Democrats' health care legislation dictates what types of coverage a person can buy. People that don't meet those requirements are fined. Since when is the federal government telling you what to buy or you'll be fined a great thing?
The thing that's refreshing about Dionne's column is that he isn't blaming Republicans for everything that's gone wrong:
The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions; remember the politically lethal Nebraska payoff for Sen. Ben Nelson?; made the process look even seamier. The bill's conservative opponents shrewdly focused on such side issues and on made-up issues like the "death panels."Get that? In the gospel according to E.J., it's all the moderate Democrats' fault. If they weren't so obstinant about appearing semi-sane, E.J. thinks we'd have a signed bill and liberals would be dancing in the streets after a big Rose Garden signing ceremony.
Nobody wants to admit that on health care, the moderates won all the big fights. Single-payer was out at the start. The public option died. A Medicare buy-in died. The number of Americans who would be covered shrank. The insurance companies held on to their antitrust exemption. If a bill eventually becomes law, as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot, the final proposal will be much closer to the moderate Senate version than to the more progressive bill passed by the House.
That's a nice storyline. Unfortunately, it isn't rooted in the truth. The truth is that We The People killed the bill. The approaching midterm elections, complete with polls showing major incumbents trailing, didn't hurt either.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely. But if liberals and Obama are so smart, how did they, or, if you prefer, "we", allow conservatives to make this argument so effectively? Why do the mainstream media give it so much credence?What helped conservatives make their argument so effectively is that they had truth on their side. In fights of this magnitude, having the best arguments and the truth on your side makes things easier. The other thing that helped was that, contrary to progressives' beliefs, universal health care coverage has never been popular outside the Democratic Party's liberal fringe.
I understand E.J. Dionne's frustration. I said that this would be their reaction if health care didn't pass. Dionne wouldn't be so frustrated had the Democrats not outrun common sense and the American people.
It's just that simple.
Posted Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:25 AM
Comment 1 by Rick at 18-Feb-10 10:14 AM
"Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won January's Massachusetts Senate race."
As if the election was a coin flip, that the GOP happened to get lucky and win. NO, there was a reason you lost - because of what the DFL stands for.
I'm Changing My Mind
I've been for the Republicans attending the health care summit even though I know it's a presidential photo op. I've changed my mind because of something Betsy McCaughey wrote on the subject:
Republicans are dithering over whether to accept President Obama's invitation to a Feb. 25 health-care summit. The White House says the health bills passed with Democratic support, the Pelosi and Reid bills, will be the basis for talks. Republicans should just say no to a summit based on these bills.King likes to say that "there's no halfway point between right and wrong." That principle applies here. It's important that we first recognize that the American people are a freedom-loving bunch when left to their own devices. Any plan that restricts their liberty enough will draw their ire. Accepting things that limit the American people's liberty isn't acceptable. PERIOD.
These bills reduce American freedom. Forcing people to buy insurance and empowering government to dictate what your doctor does, key elements of these bills, need to be off the table. There can be no negotiation between coercion and freedom.
With that in mind, Republicans should settle on a single plan with a catchy name, like the Patients' Choice Act, then highlight the fact that their legislation would lower health care costs and health insurance premiums without injecting government into health care decisions. Speaking of which, Ms. McCaughey talks about government inserting itself into the doctor-patient relationship:
Also, for the first time in history, government officials are given power over how doctors treat privately insured patients. Doctors who don't adhere to whatever regulations the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes to improve health-care "quality" cannot contract with your insurer (Senate bill, pp. 148-149).I'm pretty certain that people aren't interested in a doctor-patient-bureaucrat relationship. I'm even more certain that they aren't interested in that relationship if they thought the bureaucrat would hinder their physician's treatment of them.
It isn't surprising that Democrats are already taking potshots at Republicans :
Democrats said the Republican proposals would do little to solve the crisis in health care. The proposals are "as skimpy as a hospital gown," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas.What Rep. Doggett apparently hasn't grasped is that the American people are totally capable of making their own decisions. they don't need a 2,400 page bill to help them make smart decisions. Rep. Doggett should learn that smart health care shoppers are using the internet to gather information on what policies best suit them, which hospitals do the best job at the cheapest prices and other important considerations.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, said, "If the Republicans' health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind."
I know that Democrats aren't used to believing that people are capable of making good decisions without the government's help but that's reality. If Democrats don't adjust to that reality, which I suspect they won't, they're in for a difficult election cycle.
I don't take Rep. Miller's comments seriously because Rep. Miller's comments are typical liberal hyperbole. In fact, that's what I expect from him. Rep. Miller has never been in the habit of accepting the fact that Republicans have great ideas because he thinks, rightly, that Republicans trust people to make good decisions. That's a foreign concept to Democrats but it's what libertarian-leaning conservatives believe.
Since President Obama's HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has notified everyone that the Democrats' bills will be the starting point and that the structure was built so that Democrats could control the event from start to finish, there isn't that much to be gained from attending.
If President Obama and the Democrats insist on pushing the Democrats' bills, which the American people have rejected, then the Republicans should state clearly and consistently that they're only open in attending a process where 80+ percent of the outcome isn't predetermined.
Otherwise, they're just attending a made-for-Obama-reelection photo op.
Posted Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 18-Feb-10 10:30 AM
Is your belief that your party will not look obstructionist and unwilling to be sensible, by boycotting the opportunity with a flimsy fig-leaf excuse?
If you believe that argument can be convincingly made, others might not.
I would be surprised if the GOP boycotts since then, what, they can credibly say they never had an opportunity to be heard.
If they attend, and it's televised, what's to stop them from articulating anything the feel appropriate.
Come on, Gary.
Be real.
If you don't go to the wedding you can't complain about not having a dance with the bride.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-10 10:35 AM
For the record, Eric, I'm certain that the Republicans will attend.
I'm just stating a preference that they highlight the fact that Democrats still insist on using their unpopular legislation as a starting point.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 18-Feb-10 06:20 PM
See my post on True North, "Here's what I'd Say" for my take on the subject. I encourage them to attend and make Obama look a fool.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 19-Feb-10 06:18 AM
Appreciate the idea they attend.
But both parties have made healthcare a political football.
That's been inflamed by the lobbyists.
It is counterproductive for the nation.
