January 1-3, 2010
Jan 01 09:13 Just Keep Thinking That Jan 01 10:29 Cause & Effect? Jan 01 12:38 The Lobbyists vs. the Children Jan 02 11:11 Kurt Zellers Criticizes DFL's Lack of Leadership Jan 02 14:34 Ben Nelson Cries Uncle, Hatch, Blackwell Push Forward Jan 02 22:19 Election 2010: The Minnesota View Jan 03 21:18 Vikings Roll Behind Favre, Rice, Defense
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Just Keep Thinking That
Uberliberal activist Steve Rosenthal and William Dailey are having a fight for the alleged soul of the Democratic Party. According to this article , Rosenthal thinks he's got the solution:
What lifted Democrats last year among their base, independents and those previously disengaged from politics, Rosenthal argued, were Obama's promises: expanding health care, a new approach to energy, spending more on education and especially a promise to revive the economy that would help those of modest means.It's that type of thinking that's putting smiles on GOP strategists' faces. The true believer wing of the Democratic Party, with President Obama as their Radical-In-Chief, will soon march themselves off a cliff.
"He gave a worried and anxious America hope and a plan that called for restoring America's middle class," wrote Rosenthal. Obama coalition voters still want "change," according to Rosenthal, who writes that the way to boost Democratic fortunes is to deliver, not to follow the path of moderation that the party so often trod in the '90s.
"They don't want their elected officials to go back to the days of legislating 'small things' (school uniforms come to mind)," Rosenthal argued. "To win them back, to engage them at all in 2010, Democrats need to pass real health care reform, then move aggressively on a jobs, jobs, jobs (it cannot be said enough) program with strong workers' rights."
If there are any adults left in the Democratic Party, they're gulping, not sipping, Maalox these days. Here's a Rosenthal opinion that I pray happens:
So, he continued, run on this agenda and "put Obama on the ballot in 2010" for the sort of minority and youth voters that turned out in droves for him last year.Mr. Rosenthal isn't paying attention. President Obama turned off young people when he went on his irresponsible spending spree. They now know that they'll have to pay higher taxes and suffer through higher inflation rates as a result of President Obama's spending spree.
President Obama also turned off youth voters with his litany of broken campaign promises. They bought into the idea that President Obama would be idealistic, filled with fresh ideas. Instead, they've seen a corrupt, Chicago-style machine politician. Now that he's lost their trust, the youth voters won't be returning.
This Washington Times article indicates that Democrats know they're in trouble:
Democratic leaders are girding for a political war over the health care overhaul heading in to this year's midterm elections, preparing strategies and raising funds to fend off attacks by Republicans eager to capitalize on voter discontent.Sen. Menendez's statement about Republicans spinning the Democrats' "health care victory" is itself spin. The American people HATE the Democrats' plan. They're frothing at the mouth angry about the policies and they're more upset that the Democrats aren't listening to them on health care.
Analysts from both parties predict the sweeping impact of the proposed health care changes, which will affect every American, to be the overriding issue, with the strongest and most personal impact in 2010.
Democratic leaders acknowledged this week in last-minute party fundraising appeals that they expect Republicans to come out with both guns blazing in pursuit of major gains in the House and Senate.
"They will spend the next 11 months spinning our health care victory into a weapon and hitting us with it. We might have the momentum now, but we must show the GOP and the pundits that we can sustain it until the 2010 elections," said Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
"Now that they lost this battle, they will be focusing their fight, and their millions and millions of dollars, on defeating us," he said.
If there's one thing that I've learned watching politics, it's that money is largely irrelevant when people are this viscerally upset about an issue.
Mr. Rosenthal will find out quickly that it's one thing to have voters disagree with this or that policy but that it's far worse when don't trust a political party. When the trust is betrayed, elections go very, very badly.
Posted Friday, January 1, 2010 12:56 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 01-Jan-10 12:49 PM
"The American people HATE the Dmeocrats' plan"
Gary - what are Dmeocrats?????
LOL
LL
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Jan-10 12:52 PM
They're Democrats taught in DC's public schools.
Cause & Effect?
Is this leading to this ? Here's the first this:
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering "the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm." Mayo's move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.When the Mayo Clinic organization announces that they won't accept more Medicare patients because they're losing too much money ($840,000,000), there's bound to be a dramatic, predictable reaction. This utterly refutes the Democrats' claim that their Medicare cuts won't lead to rationing.
"Many physicians have said, 'I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,'" said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. "If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn't make sense to do more of it."
Medicare Loss
The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government's health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
Mayo's hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program's payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
"We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed," Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. "It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients."
This also proves that the Democrats' health care policies won't save money without price controls. As baby boomers retire, the Democrats' Medicare cuts will lead to rationing, the quality of their care decrease and ultimately cost lives.
Here's the second this:
Democrats have lost yet another touted recruit, this time in Kansas.The Democrats' recruitment campaign is going poorly because their agenda has turned people off. It didn't help that leadership kept pushing moderates off the cliff for 'the greater good.'
State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) just announced her withdrawal from the race to face Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). She becomes the fifth formidable recruit to bow out in recent weeks.
"I have been forced to make a decision between honoring the pledge I made to the people in my Senate district and my firm conviction that the people of the 2nd congressional district deserve a truly independent voice in Congress," Kelly said in a statement. "This has been a very hard decision, but it is the right one."
Kelly joins several recent dropouts, including businessman Jack McDonald, a well-funded challenger to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) who announced last week that he wouldn't run. The others are Ohio state Rep. Todd Book, who was running against Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio); former Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers, who was running for Rep. Zach Wamp's (R-Tenn.) seat; and Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, who was running against Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.).
Potential candidates will decide that they won't run knowing that they're seen by Rahm Emanuel and Speaker Pelosi as interchangeable, replaceable parts.
The Democrats' radical agenda is, in my opinion, leading to a poor candidate recruitment campaign. That's why they're facing a difficult election cycle.
Posted Friday, January 1, 2010 10:34 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 01:26 PM
Are you saying taxes should be raised to pay more via Medicare? What's the message? Pay more for Medicare by not raising taxes, but by borrowing more? I thought that was only the GOP plan for running wars.
Mayo Clinic treated Jordan's King Hussain. Do we need to be royalty to get in the door?
What is your point? I don't understand.
The Lobbyists vs. the Children
Leaders of the DC School Choice movement issued this statement blasting the Democrats for the slow dismantling of the DC Opportunity Scholarship program:
"House and Senate Appropriators this week ignored the wishes of D.C.'s mayor, D.C.'s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.'s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This successful school voucher program-for D.C.'s poorest families-has allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.Rep. David Obey wrote this into the 2009 Omnibus Bill that funded government for FY2009. After a large public outcry over this, they modified it to say that those children already getting scholarships would continue getting their scholarships through their graduation.
The decision to end the program, a decision buried in a thousand-page spending bill and announced right before the holidays, destroys the hopes and dreams of thousands of D.C. families. Parents and children have rallied countless times over the past year in support of reauthorization and in favor of strengthening the OSP.
Yet, despite the clearly positive results and the proven success of this program, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jose Serrano, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Secretary Arne Duncan worked together to kill the OSP. Funding the program only for existing children shrinks the program each year, compromises the federal evaluation of the program, denies entry to the siblings of existing participants, and punishes those children waiting in line by sentencing them to failing and often unsafe schools.
What is incredibly disappointing to low-income families in Washington, D.C. has been the silence of President Barack Obama. The President, who benefited from K-12 scholarships himself, worked on behalf of low-income families in Chicago, and exercises school choice as a parent, has stood silently on the sidelines while his Secretary of Education belittled the importance of helping such a small number of children in the nation's capital.
Now, the fate of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and the low-income children it serves and could serve depends on the willingness of Congressional supporters to insist that the FY 2010 budget allows additional children to participate in the OSP. We call on President Obama and Senator Durbin to stand up and do the right thing. Stand with the children of low-income families in Washington, D.C. who deserve access to a quality education right now-not five years from now-but right now. These children deserve that opportunity."
This is proof that the Democrats put a higher priority on collecting campaign contributions from the NEA than they put on helping minority children. This is a perfect example of 'the machine' at work. The children don't have lobbyists. The NEA does. There's no arguing who won that fight. The children didn't stand a fighting chance.
The theme for Al Gore's 2000 acceptance speech was the people vs. the powerful. In 2004, John Edwards' campaign stump speech was about "the Two Americas". Based on the Democrats' ending the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, it's obvious that the Democrats consistently side with powerful unions rather than with parents with underprivileged children.
It's apparent that the Democratic Party hasn't responded to the needs of DC's children. Every Democrat that voted for the FY2009 Omnibus bill should be defeated in 2010, starting with Rep. Obey. Here's a suggestion: Donate to Sean Duffy's campaign . The sooner we defeat Rep. Obey, the better.
Posted Friday, January 1, 2010 12:46 PM
No comments.
Kurt Zellers Criticizes DFL's Lack of Leadership
House GOP Leader Kurt Zellers issued the following statement on the DFL and unallotment:
ST. PAUL, December 31, 2009 ; ST. PAUL, December 31, 2009 ; MinnesotaThe DFL's budget was so haphazard that they didn't even get unanimous DFL support for their tax increases. Had anyone told me before the session that DFL legislators would refuse to walk Speaker Kelliher's plank on the DFL's tax increases, I would've taken that bet without hesitation. In contrast, in 2007, support for the DFL's main tax increase proposals was unanimous.
House Republican Minority Leader Kurt Zellers (Maple Grove) said today Judge Gearin's initial ruling on the unallotment lawsuit will force Minnesota Democrats to get serious in 2010 about the responsibilities they ignored in 2009. He also said that this political dispute deserves a solution from the legislative chambers and the Governor, not espoused from an activist judge making law and 'practice-budgeting' from the bench.
"We are in this position because of failed leadership by the DFL in the 2009 Legislative Session and their inability to produce a fiscally responsible budget. We should be using the 2010 session to improve Minnesota's job climate and expand economic opportunity, but now it appears we will still have to deal with the budget problems Democrats were unwilling and unable to address last session," said Zellers.
We applaud Governor Pawlenty's leadership and his dedication to fiscal responsibility. Looking forward, the House Republican Caucus is committed to a budget that is balanced and sustainable and does no harm to the Minnesota economy," said Zellers. "Our New Year's Resolution is to end the pandemic of uncertainty about tax increases and new government regulations that is preventing economic recovery. We will continue to offer ways to improve the economy and put job creators and families in the best position for prosperity in 2010 and beyond."
There's a key point that's screaming to be made here, which is that the DFL constantly worries about funding government. Meanwhile, the GOP is focused on building the next great economy.
I can't emphasize this enough: If you build a structurally sound economy, funding government gets easier.
That doesn't mean that the government will fund everything on the liberals' wish lists. It just means that we wouldn't have to constantly worry about funding Minnesota's highest priorities. It's important that we accept that not every societal ill has a legislative fix.
The DFL's mismanagement during the 2009 legislative session is proof that they tried to do "many good things." The DFL didn't focus on building a 21st Century economy. The DFL only focused on funding a 20th Century government.
Until the DFL stops that type of thinking, they'll forever be the status quo party. Being status quo advocates is how a majority party (for now) doubles as an obstructionist party.
Finally, it's important to note that the only thing where the DFL shows modernity in governance is that it's forever thinking of new ways to spend your money. It's time that the DFL learned the definition of these words: priority, NO and fiscal responsibility.
If the DFL doesn't learn and practice those words, they'll soon be replaced by the political party that knows the definitions of those words and who actually votes according to the taxpayers' priorities.
Posted Saturday, January 2, 2010 11:11 AM
No comments.
Ben Nelson Cries Uncle, Hatch, Blackwell Push Forward
According to this article , Ben Nelson is doing everything possible to stop thirteen states' attorneys general to stop thinking about filing lawsuits against Obamacare if and when it becomes law. Meanwhile, Sen. Hatch, Ken Blackwell and Kenneth Klukowski have written a fantastic, well-written op-ed in this morning's WSJ . First, let's start with Sen. Nelson's desperate plea:
"Senator Nelson insisted that he had not asked for the Cornhusker Kickback to be placed in the U.S. Senate version of the health care bill to secure his vote. Senator Nelson told the attorney general that it was simply a 'marker' placed in the U.S. Senate version of the bill and assured the attorney general that it would be 'fixed,' says the memo.If Sen. Nelson is telling the truth, then the pricetag on this bill just got significantly more expensive. If a tiny state like Nebraska's share of the Medicaid expansion costs $100,000,000 over a decade, think of the expense the federal government would pick up for New York, California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas under the same deal.
The document goes on to say: "Senator Nelson said it would be 'fixed' by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state."
Before we get worried about that 'fix', though, let's consider the arguments made in Sen. Hatch's WSJ op-ed:
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends . The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.I'm confident that the Roberts Court would slap down the individual mandate if the Democrats try justifying it under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Like I wrote in this post , that's what the Democrats' likely defense will be based on Speaker Pelosi's reply to a health care/constitutional question:
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing , however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage ; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"Speaker Pelosi's office later issued a statement saying that the ICC was the constitutional provision that gave Congress the authority they needed to intrude on our freedoms:
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." "You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.Sen. Hatch's point on the ICC can't be ignored:
It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity.I've heard Democrats make what I call the 'Drivers License Argument'. It's an argument that I've dismissed for multiple reason. First, car insurance is required by state governments, meaning that there aren't any Tenth Amendment issues . Second, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to partake in a privilege, there's automatically a price that comes along with that privilege. Living is a right guaranteed in all our Founding Documents. A person's existance shouldn't require his/her's purchasing anything.
Third, if you want to make the car insurance/health insurance argument an apples-to-apples argument, then certain adjustments must be made. When a person buys car insurance, the government doesn't dictate that that person purchase full coverage, what the deductible is, whether they have to purchase comp or towing insurance, etc.
In the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation, there are tons of mandates, starting with the individual mandate. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation also fines people for buying HSA's and other policies that don't meet with their approval. (Actually, I suspect that it doesn't meet with a lobbyist's approval but that's just speculation.)
Here's AG McMaster's reply to Sen. Nelson's inquiry:
According to the memo, McMaster responded to Nelson by saying that the goal of the GOP attorneys general was to remove the Nebraska Medicaid provision from the bill and that "he saw no way that he, nor any of the state attorneys general, will support extension of the Cornhusker Kickback to every state nor be a part of a deal like that."TRANSLATION: Take a hike.
The AGs aren't interested in negotiating. The AGs' interest is in defending the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Nelson's interest is in spinning his way out of a political difficulty of his own making.
Here's another key portion of Mssrs. Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski's op-ed:
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.It's apparent that the Democrats' scramble for 60 votes, coupled with the TEA Party Movement, have created alot of unexpected constitutional difficulties for the Democrats. Until now, the health care debate hasn't focused on constitutional issues. It's mostly dealt with taxes, mandates and expanding government.
The minute that an appellate court rules something unconstitutional is the minute that the conversation shifts. That's because the appellate court ruling would gut the Democrats' reforms. The minute that happens is the minute that Republicans start highlighting their reforms, all of which are constitutional.
Nelson has been under tremendous political pressure since details of the deal emerged and on Tuesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of an automated poll that showed troubling numbers for Nelson, who is not up for re-election until 2012."The distortions" are found in Nelson's ad, which the NYTimes wrote about here :
One day later, Nelson aired a television ad explaining his vote.
"With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me," the Democratic senator said in the ad.
"With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me," Mr. Nelson says in the ad, which shows his face, up close, speaking straight into the camera as music plays. In the 30-second spot, Mr. Nelson goes on to describe the legislation as "a common sense approach" that will lower costs for families and small businesses, protect Medicare, guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions, reduce the deficit and, he adds with emphasis, "It's not run by the government."First, if it's true that all of the states will get the same deal as Nebraska got on Medicaid expansion, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation won't "reduce the deficit." Second, there's nothing in the legislation that cuts costs. There are only provisions that hide the still-existing costs. Third, the tax increases in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation won't cut costs "for families and small businesses." Instead, they'll increase costs.
Not included in the NY Times' reporting is Sen. Nelson saying that "some people want to do nothing while others want government" to take over health care. That's downright dishonest. It's true that Republicans, and the public, would prefer doing nothing to passing the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation. It's only in that context, though, that people want to do nothing. Republicans have a plan that's co-sponsored by Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Tom Coburn and Richard Burr that increases private sector competition, guarantees coverage for people with PECs, and genuinely reduces costs.
Mssrs. Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski's constitutional critique wouldn't be complete without this:
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.The federal government can't order the states what policies it must adopt any more than the Senate or House could instruct the Pentagon to draw up withdrawal plans from Iraq. The federal government can't force the states into passing that type of legislation because the Tenth Amendment prohibits it. The House and/or Senate can't force the Pentagon to draw up plans of any sort because of the constitutional provision for seperation of powers.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
If the courts agree with these thirteen state attorneys general and with Sen. Hatch, then the health care fight will have been a gigantic waste of time. Sen. Nelson will have lost his Senate seat for nothing. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid will have wasted a year on unconstitutional legislation instead of focusing on the economy.
One bit of good news is that we won't be spending trillions of dollars on health care legislation that doesn't lower health insurance premiums, lower health care costs or rations care for senior citizens.
Another bit of good news is that a Republican majority in the House could start reforming health care in 2011.
Posted Saturday, January 2, 2010 2:46 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Jan-10 03:28 PM
I hope that this doesn't prompt the Congress to, as they often do, insert a separability clause into the bill. That is, it would say that a finding of unconstitutionality in any one portion of the bill would not affect any other provisions of the bill. That would violate their proposition about how this is a "comprehensive" bill rather than a catch-all of dumb ideas, but it would make it harder to undo.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-10 04:59 PM
Jerry, That won't happen because they think that they own the courts.
Comment 3 by j.l. at 02-Jan-10 07:17 PM
Another reason why the car-health insurance comparison is invalid is because you really don`t have to buy car insurance, because you don`t HAVE to drive a car if you don`t want to.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 07:34 PM
That old RINO, Orrin Hatch, is giving one of the best constitutional arguments for single payer.
With all this BS in the chute, make it single payer, and just like VA, just like Medicare, and just like TVA the federal government can tax and spend for the welfare of the people.
So end the foolishness, go single payer, and retire old Hatch to Utah where he can take his alternative cures and herbal and patent medicines.
He'd already outlived any usefulness he had by the time he hit 21. It's been an impediment to progress ever since.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 07:40 PM
The time was wasted, yes. The GOP closed ranks. Otherwise, without that progress could have been made.
Yes it is a flawed bill, for many reasons. But the main reason, people of reason know, the GOP.
Vote more of them out so that deals with marginal folks like Nelson and Lieberman can be tossed on the compost heap.
But for the GOP, there would be a good bill in each house, and a good law signed by the president.
The GOP serves its masters, and the masters pay the freight. It is not the "grassroots" because those folks are tight with a buck. It is the special interests spending millions, to get sweetheart deals worth billions. It is a cost of doing business the way they want.
Comment 6 by j.l. at 02-Jan-10 08:28 PM
So, Eric Z, do you agree with the Constitutional issue or not? Hard to tell what your`re trying to say.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-10 09:49 PM
Eric, That's awfully wishful thinking. The Democrats stand a good shot at losing their majority in the House. They'll certainly lose an additional 4-6 seats in the Senate.
If President Obama keeps looking this incompetent, he'll be a one-term wonder.
Frankly, the Democrats have looked inept. Most importantly, they've ignored the will of the people.
People HATE single-payer because it's a system that leads to rationing & long waiting lines. That's what's happened every place it's been tried.
It's time for that crap to be thrown into the ash heap of history.
BTW, after we flush out a 4-6 senators this time, the next time we'll flush out Judases like Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman & Nelson in 2012.
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 03-Jan-10 12:26 AM
Gary:
Here's the problem I have with the Supreme Court. We can count on Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Can we count on Kennedy to provide that fifth vote? On a lot of issues he votes with the liberals.
Ginsburgh, Soul lady, Stevens, and Clinton's other nominee are sure to say it's legal.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 9 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-10 09:16 AM
If you like single payer, then why not simply implement Medicare for everybody? It is, after all, mandatory, and payments to doctors are fixed by the government so you have cost controls. As a result of this long experiment, we have poor quality care, rampant "fraud and abuse," waiting lines, needless deaths, and the program is essentially broke, or would bankrupt the taxpayers if continued. Yep, that's what we need.
What Congress should have done, if they could have found some thinking Republican leadership and a strong majority, was to UNDO Medicare and Medicaid by slowly converting them to private insurance plans. In other words, fixing that portion of "health care" that they already control and, when it is an example of efficiency, then PERMITTING the rest of us to buy into it. If it's a good idea, why force us to buy it?
The problem the Democrats have is that they think they can better care to more people, and for less money. That's impossible, and they just cannot realize it, let alone put together legislation to accomplish it. So instead they cobble together some monstrosity to defy all the laws of economics, Constitutionality and common sense, and then try to "sell" it as the crown jewel of democracy. Idiocracy would be more like it.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-10 11:40 AM
If you like single payer, then why not simply implement Medicare for everybody? It is, after all, mandatory, and payments to doctors are fixed by the government so you have cost controls.Actually, Jerry, there's price controls, not cost controls. It still costs X amount for rent, utilities, diagnostic machines, etc. It's important that we not confuse cost controls with price controls.
Comment 10 by slacker at 29-Apr-11 01:52 PM
Good article , I'm going to spend more time reading about this subject
Election 2010: The Minnesota View
We're now officially in an election year here in Minnesota, which means that it's a terrible time to deal with a budget deficit if you have the letters D-F-L behind your name.
One of the things I'll specifically be paying attention to is how much the health care debate negatively affects DFL candidates and incumbents. I'll be watching to see whether people have finally figured out that a moderate Democrat is someone who votes like Al Franken but sounds like Joe Lieberman or if they think that moderates still exist.
I'm betting that Ben Nelson and Amy Klobuchar finished that debate when they voted for the Senate's wildly unpopular health care bill. So-called moderates like Ben and Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh and Amy Klobuchar voted just like socialist Bernie Sanders.
The next logical question is how that'll play in Minnesota. There's no better race to gauge that factor than by the Michele Bachmann vs. Tarryl Clark race. Tarryl has worked hard to craft a centrist image. Unfortunately, Tarryl's votes don't fit that image. That race will tell us whether the public has figured out that the Democrats' votes doesn't match their rhetoric.
Another race that might tell us alot in that respect is the Tim Walz race. I noted here that Rep. Walz "voted for bills that...will spend north of $3,500,000,000,000, that will increase taxes by $2,400,000,000,000 on small businesses, middle class families, fossil fuel-powered power plants and medical device makers." If gas prices spike this summer, that will be additional firepower that the GOP candidate can use against Rep. Walz.
At the state legislative level, the DFL leadership has said that they'll pass tax increases to balance the budget. This will make them easy to paint them into a corner on being the party that's more worried about funding a 20th Century government than they're worried about building a 21st Century economy:
The DFL knows it's in trouble on that part because they've thrown together a Jobs Task Force . Here's some of their recommendations:
State Direct Spending ProgramsOf these suggestions, I'd count as worthy nos. 5 and 9. Most of the rest of the DFL's task force is a sop to their political allies, which is to be expected. Most of their suggestions would only get in the way of job creation and sustainable economic growth, meaning it's counterproductive or worthless.
1. Provide more aid to local governments to prevent layoffs of local government employees and to limit cuts made to state government to avoid adding to unemployment.
2. Establish and fund a job subsidy program similar to the MEED program that the state operated in the 1980s.
3. Provide funding directly or through loan guarantees for programs like the Minnesota Initiative Fund.
4. Create or increase funding for workforce centers for the unemployed or underemployed and provide more state resources to help workers and laid-off workers make better informed decisions that affect their status under the unemployment compensation system.
5. Promote or publicize Minnesota businesses and their products.
6. Provide state funding for Project Energize.
7. Establish a state forgivable loan program for small manufacturers to purchase capital equipment, if the purchase will expand Minnesota employment.
8. Establish a state loan guarantee program to help expand the availability and affordability of credit for "vertical construction."
9. Continue to invest in education so the state has a skilled workforce when the recession is over and demand to hire employees rebounds.
10. Provide state support for federal SBA loan programs (e.g., help with paying fees or fund higher maximums).
11. Increase state support to Small Business Development Centers.
12. Expand state deposits of its cash to include community banks, not just the highest bidders, which tend to be exclusively money center banks.
13. Increase the size of the state bonding bill and focus as much money as possible on planned retrofitting, rehabilitation, and remodeling projects that can be undertaken very quickly.
14. Robustly fund the transportation portion of the capital bonding requests to continue construction as federal stimulus money for these types of projects begins to wind down.
15. Increase funding for the Growth Acceleration Program (GAP) that provides small business grants.
16. Expand use of recycling programs in state operations, including bonding bill projects, such as Wisconsin has adopted.
17. Expand funding for affordable housing, such as more nonprofit housing bonds and general obligation bonding for public housing.
18. Provide expanded funding for the Greater Minnesota Business Development Public Infrastructure grant program and reject proposals to merge it with other programs or to make it a statewide program.
19. Provide programs targeted to small Asian businesses to help them cope with the recession through technical assistance and loans.
20. Expand funding for early childhood education.
21. Reform K-12 education system through meaningful testing (GRAD standard), alternative teacher certification, and more results-driven charter schools.
22. Provide R&D funding, grants, loans, and technical assistance for green businesses and green chemistry practices.
The fastest way to see the economy grow is by getting out of small businesses' way. That means reforming the tax code and Minnesota's regulatory regime. That means getting rid of the glut of health insurance mandates, too. It means finding new ways to providing essential services. Finally, get spending under control. Businesses know that irresponsible spending either leads to higher taxes or uncertainty in the economy.
Based on Obama's stimulus bill, we've seen that spending irresponsibly is the fastest path to high deficits and higher interest rates, both of which hurt, not help, the economy.
Posted Saturday, January 2, 2010 10:19 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-10 08:53 AM
I note that EVERY single item, including 5 and 9, involve the State "funding" something or other with money that they do not have. Theoretically #21, of all of them, could be done without spending any state money, or could actually save money, but I'm certain it wouldn't be done that way, and I rather doubt it can be done at all. I mean, we've doubled spending on education in the last 20 years, and achievement has gone DOWN. Don't you think if "we" knew how to improve education "we" would have done it by now?
It's typical DFL thinking. If we spend the dollars they will come. If they don't, we'll just raise taxes on the rich, and the rich will come. It is such a fabulous fantasy life they enjoy, isn't it?
Comment 2 by George Hayduke at 03-Jan-10 08:57 AM
Is there anything you neanderthals support government doing?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-10 11:36 AM
There's lots of things wise conservatives support LOCAL GOVERNMENTS doing. The closer to home the decisions are made, the more accountability that's part of the decisions.
It's called federalism & it's the wisest system of government found. Isn't it time that neanderthals like yourself figured that out?
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-10 06:13 PM
Us neanderthals are those who believe that having government take from everybody to give to somebody else is theft, and not very smart economics. Government should not be taking money out of the economy to make the economy grow. It doesn't work; it can't work. It especially doesn't work when what the government spends the money on is something that private investment and private charity would NEVER, left with the means to do so, do. Except for those things that private investment and private charity, left with the means, WOULD do, like "advertise its products." There is a role for government. It's not to be the only actor on the stage.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 04-Jan-10 09:44 AM
"The fastest way to see the economy grow is by getting out of small businesses' way. That means reforming the tax code and Minnesota's regulatory regime. That means getting rid of the glut of health insurance mandates, too. It means finding new ways to providing essential services. Finally, get spending under control. Businesses know that irresponsible spending either leads to higher taxes or uncertainty in the economy."
I am glad to see you are not talking in terms of simple-minded generalities, Gary, but instead lay out great detail of what reforms of the Tax Code you want to see, all detail of the new ways you would have essential services provided, etc.
Keep up the fine level of detail, please. It lets us know specifics of what you think, beyond anyone accusing you of just blowing hot air.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Jan-10 12:19 PM
Eric, All I'll tell you is to think BTO. Think "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Vikings Roll Behind Favre, Rice, Defense
Vikings fans can breath easier tonight following the Vikings dominant performace this afternoon in the MOA Metrodome. Brett Favre had the offense hitting on all eight cylinders. Sidney Rice terrorized the Giants' depleted secondary. The Vikings' defense throttled the Giants' offense, limiting them to 181 yards of total offense.
Last week, the Vikings played poorly in the first half against Da Bears before scoring 30 points in the second half before losing in OT. With the offense clicking in the first half, OT just wasn't a worry this week.
Favre led a balanced attack, throwing for 271 yards in the first half. Sidney Rice caught a pair of second quarter TDs, the first from 4 yards out, the second on a spectacular catch on a fade route. I've had the privilege to watch Randy Moss, Cris Carter and Larry Fitzgerald play. I've watched them make some spectacular catches that only they could make. The adjustment that Rice made on the fade TD was as spectacular a catch as you'll ever see. If you don't believe me, watch for yourself:
Against most wideouts, the Giants' defender would've intercepted that pass. Against Sidney Rice, he's simply another victim. Randy Moss was the best I'd ever seen on adjusting to the ball when it's in the air but I'm thinking that Sidney might be better at it than Moss was. Tony Siragusa's "Unbelieveable" says everything that needs to be said, though Darryl Johnston's "Every once in a while, you're gonna run into a player who just makes a great play" is right on the money too.
The Vikings defense wasn't dominant. They just quietly shut the Giants' offense down, holding Eli Manning to 141 yards passing while picking up 3 sacks, one each from Jared Allen, Ray Edwards and Brian Robison. Allen's sack had dominant written all over it. First, be beat his man around the corner for the sack. Then he stripped the ball from Manning before recovering the ball and returning it a couple yards before getting tackled.
When the Cowboys shut out the Iggles, the Vikings won the second seed in the NFC and a first round bye. Next week's wild card round will feature 'repeat' wild card games, with the Packers returning to Arizona to play the Cardinals and Philadelphia returning to Jerry Jones's palace for their third meeting of the year.
Posted Sunday, January 3, 2010 9:18 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 04-Jan-10 09:48 AM
Isn't it like politics?
Winning the next one these days is more important than who won the last one.
With a two-week wait for that next one, yesterday's fish can get ripe even in the cold.
Wait for the next game. Be impressed with or disappointed over it. But the real season's just starting. Win or go home.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 04-Jan-10 10:03 AM
Best performance - Childress.
In retrospect, starting Farve in the second half was brilliant since it would have been so easy to go with Jackson and the preseason format, test the bubble players in game situation reps, in case they have to go into things later.
Instead, Childress worked the clock, and put Jackson and the third string running back in before the Giants went to Carr, but after it was virtually a nailed down certainty he would not need to reinsert any key starters in case the Giants put a few points on the scoreboard.
And forcing a percentage of running plays, being willing to hammer the run, is essential going into the playoffs.
Last thought Gary, is there any way to know who the next opponent will be, within the two games that get played next week. Not who wins, but do Vikings get winner of Cardinals - Green Bay, or of the other game? How's that decided?
