February 22, 2010
Feb 22 06:00 That Isn't The Problem Feb 22 07:09 Kelliher's Dictatorship, Part II Feb 22 08:20 Thank You, Bill Bennett Feb 22 09:01 Will Crist Switch Parties or Just Drop Out? Feb 22 14:56 This Is Scary
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
That Isn't The Problem
The opening of this LA Times article indicates that Democrats are either spinning reality or they're badly misreading what's happening. Here's what I'm referring to:
Reporting from Washington - As voters lose patience with political gridlock, the Obama administration is embarking on a strategy aimed at putting Republicans on the spot: Either participate in bipartisan exchanges initiated by the president, or be portrayed as the party of obstruction.Personally, I'm leaning towards the opinion that Democrats are spinning this because nobody's stupid enough to think that the people are upset most with gridlock. What people are upset with is the Democrats' spending habits. They aren't happy with the Democrats' radical agenda, starting with the Democrats' health care legislation. By telling the American people that Republicans vehemently disagree with the Democrats' health care legislation, the Democrats are telling people that Republicans agree with people that the Democrats' bill should be stopped.
Democrats have consistently said that the American people want health care reformed. They often cite that 63 percent of the people agree with that. The Republicans don't argue that point. They just highlight the fact that more people want nothing done than they want the Democrats' legislation enacted by a nearly 60 percent-40 percent margin.
The American people also are upset that Democrats haven't listened to them. They don't like the Democrats' special deals, especially the deal that unions got on their Cadillac health insurance policies. They hate the crony capitalism that the Democrats are playing.
Right now, it's not clear voters blame one party more than the other for paralysis in Washington. A recent poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal showed that voters are as apt to blame congressional Republicans as Democrats for the standoff. Virtually everyone surveyed agreed there is too much infighting in the capital.Right now, it isn't clear that voters are all that upset with the gridlock that's preventing the Democrats' radical health care legislation from being enacted. There's likely alot of frustration over the Democrats' unwillingness to put legislation together that the people actually believe will lower their health care costs and their health insurance premiums.
This is just pathetic journalism:
In a flurry of recent public appearances, President Obama has sent a message that he is prepared to embrace GOP ideas. But he is also signaling that if Republicans balk at compromise, he'll exact a political price.It's true that President Obama has talked about bipartisanship. It's equally true that he hasn't actually indicated that he's willing to scrap the legislation that Republicans and the American people have rejected. With HHS Secretary Sebelius announcing that Democrats would use the bills passed by the House and Senate as their starting point, they've actually told the American people that they're still ignoring the American people. If that's his way of "exacting a political price" on Republicans, then I'm betting that Republicans are praying for that type of treatment.
Republicans, said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, "have a role to play in solving problems in this country, or be accountable to the electorate for choosing not to."That spin is pathetic. Until now, Democrats, especially in the House, have locked Republicans out of the process. On the House side, Democrats allowed ONE AMENDMENT during the floor debate. Unless the Democrats show that they're willing to open the process up, they'll be in danger of looking obstinant.
Susan Estrich might have something in this article :
Years ago, when I was working in politics, I had a meeting with our pollsters that I'll never forget. After a particularly detailed (and negative) survey, one of the guys who had been polling for years leaned over to me and said, "We have a very big problem. People just don't like our candidate." Not an ideological problem. Not a problem with his experience or positions. They just didn't like him.Simply put, the American people have rejected the Democrats' legislation. They don't object to preventing the Democrats' legislation from becoming law. They're objecting to the Democrats preventing passage of health care legislation that would fix the health care problems.
Of course, you can't tell your candidate that the people don't like him. So we looked at each other and shook our heads. There is only one way to translate that result. Candidate, we said to him, the people don't know you.
The White House is trying to treat the problem with its health care proposal as a communications problem. It's not that people don't want the plan; they just don't know how great it is. Our fault, says the president, for not communicating more effectively.
Not so fast.
The American people know that the Democrats' bill:
- is loaded with tax increases (except if you're in a union);
- doesn't bring down health insurance premium costs;
- doesn't reduce health care costs;
- gives government the final say in whether a patient gets the treatment he needs.
The Obama administration and their willing allies at the LA Times can spin the health care issue all they want but that won't help because the American people have rejected the bill for what's contained in the bill.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2010 6:08 AM
Comment 1 by Liz at 22-Feb-10 09:34 AM
I read the Susan Estrich column over the weekend and laughed at the parable (so to speak) about the candidate not being liked. I read something this morning that opined that Obama wants a win, so he's pushing a bad bill and doesn't care how many Democrats he sacrifices to do so. I'm fairly liberal and I think this whole reform thing has been mismanaged from beginning to end! And I can't see how the Dems in DC can't see that! It's astounding to me.
And I'm very worried about what could happen as we head down the path toward government-run health care. Look no further than England. I have a friend from there (has lived in states for probably 25 years now) and she just keeps saying we have no idea how good we have it. Her father has waited years for a procedure. Years. Then there's David Sharman's personal story about his hip replacement surgery, "Hip Replacement in Kettering General Hospital." The secondary title says it all "Another Way to Look at it." He intends the book for readers interested in the state of modern medical care, because they might find useful information that could prevent mistakes. Just what you want with your surgery -- mistakes! Because of all the drugs he was given, he lost his memory for a year after the surgery. Thankfully, he's recovered it now. Do we want this here?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-10 10:28 AM
Liz, thanks for that comment. The answer to your question is no, we don't want that here. It's built on the wrong premise.
Kelliher's Dictatorship, Part II
In my post titled " Kelliher's Dictatorship ", I wrote about how Speaker Kelliher and Majority Leader Sertich shut off debate without discussion of the bill as a whole. Today, I'm highlighting Rep. Tony Cornish's op-ed , which explains why he didn't even vote on the bonding bill. Here's Rep. Cornish's explanation:
I didn't vote on the bonding bill. I would have voted no. I told a Mankato Free Press reporter the same thing when he accompanied the Mankato delegation to the Capitol. I didn't vote because of the disrespect and confusion caused by the DFL.
During Speaker Kelliher's time as Speaker, the DFL has specialized in creating confusion, spending too much and silencing the minority party. It's one thing to defeat the minority party's amendments.
It's another when they don't give the minority party the chance to debate a bill. That's what cowards do.
People who know that they're on the side of the angels on an issue don't gavel the debate closed. They appreciate the opportunity to highlight that they're on the side of the angels. That Rep. Sertich called the question indicates that he didn't want people to know that they'd thrown together a massive bonding bill that was filled with pork for the DFL's special interest allies. Thankfully, Rep. Cornish's op-ed provides us with a partial list of that pork:
The reasons I would have voted no? American Indian Resource Center for $6.6 million dollars. $5.7 million dollars for Red Lake School when we can't get a penny for a school that is falling apart in Wells. $1.2 million dollars to the Perpich Center for the Arts. Near $40 million for trails. $4 million dollars for a volleyball center in Rochester. Millions for sculpture gardens and nature centers. $16 million for the Ordway Performing Arts Center. $17 million for Orchestra Hall.
The appropriations that I'm most disgusted by are the money for the Ordway, Orchestra Hall, the $40 million for trails statewide and the sculpture gardens and nature centers. First off, these things shouldn't get government funding, especially while the state budget is written in red ink. Second, if they are funded, shouldn't they be funded by the revenue generated from the Legacy Act? Third, I'd love hearing Rep. Sertich justify spending money on these projects.
I'm betting he can't justify these expenditures. I'm betting that that's why he called the question to cut off debate. He didn't want the House GOP to have the time to talk about the pork in this bill. The DFL got stung 2 years ago when much of the debate focused on building gorilla cages at Como Park and other pieces of pork.
Let's expose what this bill really is. Republicans should move to change the bill's title to being "The DFL's annual stimulus bill" because that's what it is. The DFL won't put in place policies that build a 21st century economy. Instead, they tout the bonding bill as their "jobs bill." The projects funded by the DFL's annual stimulus bill are construction jobs.
Since the time that the first billion dollar bonding bill passed to today, there are fewer construction jobs today than there were then. I'd love hearing the DFL explain how that could happen. I'm pretty certain I know why but I'd love hearing their explanation. I suspect that construction in Minnesota is down because businesses aren't expanding or moving here. There's only one way to change that trend. Rep. Cornish explains why here:
Your government should provide jobs in this manner? Baloney! Form a bill that gives the money to small businesses in investor tax credits and low interest loans. Get the regulations and mandates off their backs and reduce paperwork and permitting processes. That'll give you free-market driven jobs instead of temporary government-based jobs. Invest in business, not government welfare.
The DFL won't create an entrepreneur-based, free-market-driven economy because they're wedded to their government-can-do-many-good-things economic model. The only way we'll get the private sector creating new jobs is by getting rid of the DFL and their confusion and censorship-loving tactics.
Any legislative leadership group that prefers censorship over open debate isn't worthy of majority status. That's why the DFL must be relegated to minority status ASAP.
I'd like to close this post by thanking Rep. Cornish for exposing the DFL's corruption and their love of censorship. Thanks to legislators like him, Republican activists are fighting the good fight again.
Originally posted Monday, February 22, 2010, revised 16-Apr 5:24 PM
No comments.
Thank You, Bill Bennett
If I had the opportunity, I'd personally thank Bill Bennett for his NRO op-ed in which he demolishes the false premises that Glenn Beck espouses. Here's the best shot Dr. Bennett gives Mr. Beck:
Second, for him to continue to say that he does not hear the Republican party admit its failings or problems is to ignore some of the loudest and brightest lights in the party. From Jim DeMint to Tom Coburn to Mike Pence to Paul Ryan, any number of Republicans have admitted the excesses of the party and done constructive and serious work to correct them and find and promote solutions. Even John McCain has said again and again that "the Republican party lost its way." These leaders, and many others, have been offering real proposals, not ill-informed muttering diatribes that can't distinguish between conservative and liberal, free enterprise and controlled markets, or night and day. Does Glenn truly believe there is no difference between a Tom Coburn, for example, and a Harry Reid or a Charles Schumer or a Barbara Boxer? Between a Paul Ryan or Michele Bachmann and a Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank?For months, these people, along with Eric Cantor, Thad McCotter, John Shadegg, John Boehner, Lee Terry, Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett and Patrick McHenry have said that the Republican Party lost its way. Michael Steele told Glenn in an interview on his TV show that there's no reason why Glenn should trust Republicans on spending until they show that they've changed their ways. Steele's answer, which is the right answer, impressed Glenn so much that he held Steele over for a second segment.
Still, Beck insists that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats . Simply put, that requires Beck to ignore the votes that Republicans have taken against the stimulus bills, President Obama's budgets, Pelosicare/Obamacare , etc.
Yes, it's true that I still worry about Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich and Lindsey Graham but I'm not the least bit worried in the House. Yes, it's true that I'd worry about Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee spending too much because that's their history. I wouldn't worry about Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty spending too much because they've vetoed bill after bill that would've spent too much.
Based on that information, why should I listen to Glenn Beck when he goes on one of his frequent rants against the Republicans? I've said this before and I'll repeat it again: if a person's credibility is shot, they've got nothing. At this point, Beck's credibility on this issue is nonexistent. It's time that Mr. Beck started speaking based on the facts of today, not the things that happened years ago.
Third, to admit it is still "morning in America" but a "vomiting for four hours" kind of morning is to diminish, discourage, and disparage all the work of the conservative, Republican, and independent resistance of the past year. The Tea Partiers know better than this. I don't think they would describe their rallies and resistance as a bilious purging but, rather, as a very positive democratic reaction aimed at correcting the wrongs of the current political leadership. The mainstream media may describe their reactions as an unhealthy expurgation. I do not.Glenn Beck's anti-big spending diatribes are like a shot from a sawed-off shotgun. My criticisms of individual Republicans are more like shots fired from a finely tuned target rifle. Beck's criticisms are just as likely to hit innocent bystanders as anyone. My criticisms only hit the people who've misbehaved.
I still appreciate the great research work that Glenn Beck has done. His work outing the radicals in President Obama's administration, from Van Jones to Cass Sunstein to John Holdren, has been outstanding.
I'll close this post with this observation from Dr. Bennett:
The first task of a serious political analyst is to see things as they are. There is a difference between morning and night. There is a difference between drunk and sober. And there is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. To ignore these differences, or propagate the myth that they don't exist, is not only discouraging, it is dangerous.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2010 8:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Feb-10 09:07 AM
There is a fundamental difference between EVERY Republican and EVERY Democrat. Obamacare passed with 60 Democrats for and 40 Republicans against. Now there are 41 Republicans. Does anybody want to say there isn't a dime's worth of difference between those two circumstances? Party identification alone isn't fully indicative of how an individual votes, unfortunately, but it's a darn good guide when your choice is one or the other.
Comment 2 by Eric Heins at 22-Feb-10 11:23 AM
Hearing 'mia culpa' from GOP legislators, who set the stage for the current Dem majority (McCain, Bush, Bennett, et al.), means pretty dam little when the Tea party movement has a knife to their throat.
1: If we head toward socialism at 20 mph or 200 mph, we're still headed in the same direction. THAT is the reason tea partiers see little difference 'tween the (old?) GOP & Dem's.
It is time to head in a different direction!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-10 12:37 PM
If we head toward socialism at 20 mph or 200 mph, we're still headed in the same direction. THAT is the reason tea partiers see little difference 'tween the (old?) GOP & Dem's.As a TEA Party organizer, I haven't heard any TEA Party activists say that there hasn't been a change in how Republicans are voting now vs. when they were the majority party. It's sad to see you haven't noticed that we ARE heading in a vastly different direction. Perhaps if you stopped your whining & if you started doing research, you would've noticed that.
Comment 3 by Eric Heins at 22-Feb-10 11:29 AM
The way the GOP must 'prove' itself to the likes of Beck and myself is by cleaning house COMPLETELY. Dump all the neo-cons (Bennett & Cheney) and RINOs (Snow & McCain). Then we'll talk. Until then kiss my Harry Heiny
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-10 12:31 PM
If you demand total purity, you're preaching the gospel of being in the permanent minority. Thankfully, there's far more people who are buying into the TEA Party movement, a return to proper constitutional boundaries & limited government. If you require running out all of the candidates & legislators you deem unworthy of conservative support, then I'll know that you're a spoiled brat.
I'd strongly encourage you to pick up your ball & go home so that mature people can get down to the serious business of being a principled political party.
Comment 4 by Eric Heins at 22-Feb-10 04:01 PM
Well, I'll just put it this way. The Republicans blew their opportunities in Congress and somewhat in MN too. This says to me that they aren't 'true believers' in constitutionally limited gov't and free markets. Too many of those same people remain in office for me to trust the GOP's recent moves to placate. I will judge them by their actions. In the mean time if I get a chance to replace them with people willing to DO something to scale back gov'ts AND in the process punish the old GOP'ers ... I'm all over that.
The 'permanent minority / electability' argument worked when GWB used it. It don't fly any longer with me.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 22-Feb-10 08:02 PM
Big tent?
But Gary, Tea Party sentiment is not pro-GOP. It is anti-establishment, and the GOP is half of the two party establishment.
Never mind the difference here, there. The Tea Party discontent is not a bunch of people saying, "Yippee, we' are going to get co-opted by the GOP." I don't see any but the Bachmann-Palin fringe calling it that, and they're outside that real Tea Party tent looking in.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 22-Feb-10 10:39 PM
Gary:
I've tried to post a couple of times on this and my computer lost the post when I hit entered.
Keep in mind:
One, Beck's criticism is the leadership that doesn't seem to get it. The NRSC for example is wanting to give us Crist (who wants the stimlus plan) or Carli in California (who supports cap and trade just like Boxer). The Republicans in New York 23 gave us a liberal Republican who supported health care and when she thought she was going to lose dropped out and endorsed the democrat while her name on the ballot caused the Democrat to win.
Two, Beck is a recovering alocholic. He knows how important it is for people to admit that we have a spending problem. Yes a lot of Republicans have voted right on major bills, but a couple supported the stimulus bill, a couple supported the so called jobs bills, a couple supported cap and trade, a bunch wanted earmarks.
And three, what is wrong with reminding people that we have a spending problem and cut spending!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Walter Scott Hudson at 24-Feb-10 11:36 PM
Beck never said there was no difference between the two parties, only that the difference at large was a matter of degrees. It is possible to analyze a party's general course without disparaging those individuals within it who are making good decisions.
Guys who beat their wives say their sorry too. Until they stop with the beatings, it doesn't really matter.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Feb-10 11:55 PM
Beck has said that there isn't any difference between the parties. I know because I watch his show. His credibility shrinks when he says it, then praises the Republicans who actually believe in limited government & constitutional principles.
During his CPAC speech, he complained that he hasn't heard Republicans say that they overspent during the Bush years. That either means he's lying, he's ignorant or he doesn't consider Mike Pence, Jim Demint, Tom Coburn, Thaddeus McCotter, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor & John Boehner to be Republicans.
That'd be a pretty neat trick considering Rep. McCotter is chairman of the House GOP Policy Committee, Rep. Cantor is the Minority Whip, Rep. Boehner is the Minority Leader & Rep. Pence is the chairman of the House GOP Caucus.
Will Crist Switch Parties or Just Drop Out?
It was almost 2 months ago that I first heard the opposing rumors about Charlie Crist. One set of rumors said that he'd drop out rather than risk humiliating defeat. The other rumor was that he'd switch parties and run as a Democrat. At that point, I didn't think either rumor was credible. Based on Scott Rasmussen's most recent polling , though, I'm now thinking that Crist might well drop out:
Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio continues to lengthen his lead over Governor Charlie Crist in the contest for Florida's Republican Senate nomination.Charlie Crist can't win this race. The most he can do is desperately attack and malign Marco Rubio, which he's started doing . What's impressive to me is that Marco isn't attempting to avoid debating Gov. Crist . That's the sign of a man with confidence in his abilities and his positions.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Republican Primary voters finds Rubio leading Crist by 18 points, 54% to 36%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent are undecided. Those figures reflect a five point increase in support for Rubio compared to a month ago. Support for Crist has changed little over the past month.
That's why I think this primary is pretty much a done deal. I'm getting out the butter because I think Charlie Crist is toast.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2010 9:07 AM
No comments.
This Is Scary
Now that the Obama administration has released a statement on its health care plan , I have more questions than answers. Since they've only released a statement, we're forced to accept as fact the Democrats' claims. At this point, that isn't something that I'm willing to do. Here's a glimpse at the Obama administration's statement:
One key improvement, for example, is eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid. For America's seniors, the proposal completely closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" coverage gap. It strengthens the Senate bill's provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families, while also strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid to save taxpayer dollars. The threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans will be raised from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and will start in 2018 for all such plans. And another important idea included is improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.The first question I have is how much extending the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback to all 50 states will cost taxpayers. Another question is how much it'll cost taxpayers to close the Medicare donut hole. Third, will the excise tax on so-called Cadillac plans be levied on union thugs just like corporate CEOs?
This should scare everyone:
And another important idea included is improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.Couple that with this:
It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.If we take President Obama at his word, then what he's saying is that (a) government will tell insurance companies that they have to insure everyone and (b) that the federal government will tell the insurance companies what is a fair price & what's excessive. I'll admit that that isn't identical to a single-payer plan. I'll say, though, that there isn't much of a difference between a single-payer insurance plan and and the plan outlined in President Obama's press release.
It's important that we understand that President Obama isn't interested in cutting waste, fraud and abuse. If he was, he would've sent up legislation that would've eliminated waste, fraud and abuse. That isn't dependent on health care passing.
It's important that we understand that President Obama's plan doesn't truly reduce health insurance costs. The premiums are artificially controlled with subsidies, which are paid for by tax increases.
President Obama's plan isn't sustainable. President Obama's plan will doom insurance companies because, according to this AP article , the federal and state governments will be able to set insurance prices:
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department, in conjunction with state authorities, the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers.Ladies and gentlement, does anyone think that a future Democrat administration won't expand that power to essentially turn the health insurance industry into a regulated utility? For that matter, does anyone think that the HHS secretary will hesitate in expanding that authority?
The bottom line is that the Democrats' plan is based on the premise that the government is the only thing that can keep people from getting ripped off. It isn't. The Democrats' plan is also based on the belief that government is needed to lower health insurance premiums through subsidies. That should be a hint that their plan is seriously flawed.
The Democrats' plan also eliminates HSAs, which are wildly popular with the American people.
It's time to put an end to the Democrats' health care legislation once and for all. Whether it's because the government will tell insurance companies what they can charge or them telling insurance companies that they have to insure everyone that applies or whether they're loading the bill with hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases, the Democrats' health care legislation will be rejected by the people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't guarantee that the bill will be defeated.
Posted Monday, February 22, 2010 3:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Feb-10 05:04 PM
CBO announced today that they do not have enough information to score the Obama plan. At least he has one, but of course it's the same old smoke and mirrors, rainbows and unicorns he's been peddling for years. Yes, we're going to give better care to more people for a greatly reduced cost. Yep, that's the ticket.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 22-Feb-10 07:54 PM
No public option, the guy is capitulating to the GOP. No two ways about that. He's more intent on your minority situation than what the vast majority of the people want.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-10 12:10 AM
Eric, the public option is in there. It's just hidden. By having the federal government mandate that insurance companies must cover everyone & by having the federal government setting prices, the federal government can restrict insurance companies' profits. Once they've made it impossible for health insurance companies to make a profit, there would only be one option, the federal government.
BTW, the "vast majority" of people hate the Democrats' legislation, rejecting it by an almost 2:1 margin. In fact, a CBS/Washington Post poll shows that people prefer Congress doing nothing over passing the Democrats' legislation.
