July 14-16, 2009
Jul 14 10:06 "We Don't Want to Be Suckers" Jul 14 13:16 Hey Michigan, How's Obamanomics Working? Jul 14 23:37 Would Mayo Clinic Have Been Built? Jul 15 19:54 Rep. Buesgens: Angry For all The Right Reasons Jul 16 00:15 Haven't We Heard This Before? Jul 16 01:22 Dueling Health Care LTEs Jul 16 07:24 How Strongly Do Blue Dogs Oppose House Health Care Bill? Jul 16 11:04 If At First You Don't Succeed, Rewrite Recent History Jul 16 13:24 It Isn't Reform If...
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
"We Don't Want to Be Suckers"
Last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO), expressed concern with the Democrats' National Energy Tax:
'We've got to be very careful with what we do with this legislation,' Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a near-constant cable surrogate during Obama's presidential campaign, told Missouri talk radio show host Mike Ferguson last week. 'We need to be a leader in the world, but we don't want to be a sucker.'"TRANSLATION: We don't want to do this unless we get bought off. If we're gonna get defeated in 2010, there'd better be something in it for us.
Sen. McCaskill's worries aren't about anything more than re-election. She doesn't object to raising taxes. She's certainly on board with Obama's green agenda. It isn't that Sen. McCaskill thinks that President Obama's green agenda will improve the environment. It's that she likes the government controlling as much of our lives as possible.
SIDENOTE: The sooner John Q. Public understands that there are alot of Democrats whose primary goal in life is to control as many people as possible, the sooner things will turn against Democrats. It's conservatives' responsibility to highlight these attempts and explain why liberty is better than cradle-to-grave security.
Sen. McCaskill understands that this bill will cost some Democrat politicians their careers. She likely also understands that it'll take some buying people off for them to make those tough votes.
In the end, I still think the National Energy Tax won't become law, partially because they won't be able to buy off enough votes but most importantly because people are calling their senators and representatives telling them, in massive numbers, that they're opposed to the higher gas prices and higher heating bills.
The reason why Democrats fought so hard on the global warming front is because they knew that the minute this debate shifted from 'the environment' to the subject of a tax on fossil fuels would be the minute that they'd lose this debate. They knew that because then the debate shifts from the theoretical to the personal.
When debates are theoretical, people generally support things. For instance, people are comfortable with the proposition of reforming our health care system. The minute details start getting filled in is the minute the debate changes. The minute that people find out the price tag or the minute they find out about some of the restrictive regulations, the debate changes.
When people learned that this legislation wouldn't improve the environment, the debate changed. When people read how much this tax would cost them in increased gas prices and higher home heating bills, the debate changed dramatically. That's because things got personal. It started affecting what families could afford and what they couldn't afford anymore.
Conservatives must continue pounding home two key principles. Conservatives must continue pounding home the fact that this bill will cost them additional thousands of dollars a year and that this bill won't affect climate change one iota. If people understand that and act on that, the better the chances are of defeating this bill.
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:06 AM
No comments.
Hey Michigan, How's Obamanomics Working?
After reading this post on the Hill's blog, my first inclination is to rail at the ineffectiveness of President Obama's stimulus plan. The fair side of me, however, has to admit that Jennifer Granholm's policies were responsible for putting Michigan's economy on its back. It's fair to say, though, that President Obama's policies are what will keep Michigan's economy on its back.
Michigan's unemployment rate could hit as high as 20 percent with the Obama administration to blame, one Michigan congressman warned Friday. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said that Michigan's unemployment, already the highest in the country at 14.1 percent, could go even higher as General Motors and Chrysler continue to shed jobs after their government-financed bankruptcies.Liberal policies have destroyed Michigan's economy. During Gov. John Engler's time in office, Michigan's economy ran strong. Now it's the laughingstock of economies other than California's economy. Granholm's administration raised taxes and spent irresponsibly. Businesses fled the state like Gov. Granholm was setting fire to every business's offices. Capital left Michigan at an alarming rate.
"Sadly, we've seen estimates, because of the radical restructuring that the auto task force demanded, that this year, Michigan wind up over 20 percent unemployment," McCotter said during an appearance on a conservative news radio program.
For years during the Bush administration, economists and pundits chided Gov. Granholm's administration for having a "one-state recession." Now there's a risk that that could spread:
"That cascading effect throughout the entire economy, and throughout other states, that rely in many ways on the manufacturing base is going to have devastating effects not only to state government, it's going to have devastating effects for local government," McCotter explained.Michigan voters won't have the option of voting for Gov. Disaster again. Because of Jennifer Granholm's disastrous handling of the economy and because Rep. Peter Hoekstra will be the Michigan GOP nominee, Michiganders will be spared a third disastrous term of tax increases and irresponsible spending.
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 15-Jul-09 08:35 AM
Michigan's job losses, rust belt job losses go back to well before Michael Moore made "Roger and Me."
It is disingenuous to deny history.
Detroit suffered because they made crappy cars, and others made better ones. Isn't that the competitive paradigm you seem in general to favor? What's up this time? Obama bashing taking precedence?
Would Mayo Clinic Have Been Built?
Here in Minnesota, there's good reason to worry about the damage ObamaCare might cause. The Mayo Clinic's Health Care Policy Center has worked hard to voice its worries :
Dr. Douglas Wood, who chairs the clinic's division of Health Care Policy & Research, said a public plan modeled after the Medicare system has the potential to do serious harm to health care in states like Minnesota where quality is high and costs are low.Before we start examining the reform proposals, we must ask a provocative question: Would the Mayo Clinic have gotten built if we'd had a system whose key principles would've been cost controls and universal coverage? I can't see how that would've happened with a system centered on price controls. Frankly, any system that puts a higher priority on price controls and universal coverage than on quality couldn't attract the capital for building something like the Mayo Clinic.
"If it's a government-run plan with government price controls, that could be highly detrimental to states like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and all across the northern tier of the United States," Wood said.
About 200 people gathered at the Minnesota History Center for the forum, including lawmakers, business leaders and health care company officials. As Congress works on overhauling the nation's health care system, Mayo Clinic has been highlighted repeatedly by President Obama for its efficient and quality care.
As the health care debate ramps up, so have the efforts of the Mayo Clinic's Health Care Policy Center to get out its message that value must be part of the health care equation. Launched about four years ago, the center has consulted with 1,200 "thought leaders," as it calls them, and 1,400 patients to draft what it calls the four cornerstones for health care reform. They are: creating value to improve patient care, coordinating patient care, reforming the payment system to consider value and providing health insurance for all.
It's important that we remember this reform 'movement' isn't about fixing a broken system. Minnesota has a great system in terms of great results, lots of access to health insurance and affordable prices. If this were about reforming the system, Pelosi, Baucus, Kennedy and Dodd would be modeling their legislation after Minnesota's system.
This reform regime is about gaining control over a major part of people's lives. That's why Democrats don't talk about providing quality health care. They've focused their arguments on universal health care. They've also tried preventing a discussion on how price controls affects quality and innvation.
It's important that conservatives emphasize the importance of quality care and how that impacts families and businesses. For instance, how productive can a worker be if a person can't get treated for a problem? It's like the difference between taking your car into the mechanic to get worked on vs. taking your car into the expert to get it fixed.
It's important that conservatives ask whether the Mayo Clinic would've done the pioneering work if they would've had to deal with government-imposed price controls and other regulations. The simple answer is that they wouldn't have. It would've been impossible for that to happen.
People keep trying to sell the notion that the system we have is broken. That's almost impossible to do here in Minnesota. Minnesota has been the healthiest or second healthiest state in the United States seemingly forever. Minnesota also has one of the lowest rates of uninsured people in the United States. That says quality AND access. Where's the crisis?
This Pi-Press article talks about some of the things that Mayo Clinic is currently thinking about:
The speakers feared the end result would fall short of meaningful payment reform. If the priority among lawmakers is to lower the national uninsured rate, they might simply cut Medicare payment rates across the board and use the savings to make insurance affordable. That would mean less money to Minnesota's health care providers, and more money leaving the state to cover the high uninsured rate in other states.It isn't difficult to think how we can lower health care costs. An eighth grader could figure that out. Installing price controls and limiting budgets will fix that problem. Things get dicier if you want to keep health care costs lower and maintain quality.
To accomplish that, you'll need innovation, competition and fewer government mandates than we currently have. Every mandate raises the cost of insurance. Sometimes it's worth it. Frequently, it isn't.
Implementing smart changes that won't prevent high quality care takes time. It requires people thinking things through. It also requires discarding a cookie-cutter plan, which is what the Kennedy-Dodd legislation and the Baucus legislation is. Most importantly, we must keep quality a high priority.
We can't afford a system that would've made the building of the Mayo Clinic difficult or impossible.
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:37 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 15-Jul-09 08:23 AM
Hello again Gary.
Don't forget the current Mayo business model. Lots of Middle East and other moneyed foreign travel for treatment - even with special lodging arrangements in Rochester to foster this.
Remember the last king of Jordan before the current one died there, despite the best treatment in the world. They cannot do miracles, but they can attract a worldwide clientele and charge accordingly since UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is for all in this nation, not, yet at least, for all.
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 15-Jul-09 08:30 AM
Also, Wikipedia on Jonas Salk is interesting. He got his first job because of GRANT MONEY and progressed in his career because of GRANT MONEY, including private funding from the Mellon interests. So, in answer to your hypothetical, it seems that the cream rises; and without FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING - TAXPAYER MONEY, a lot of progress would have been delayed. Think about it.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-09 08:43 AM
Eric, the point is that this type of facility wouldn't be possible if we'd had the type of price control regime that's contained in the public option.
For that matter, we wouldn't have kept the St. Cloud Hospital running.
In 2008, the DFL talked constantly about the need to invest in transportation infrastructure. This year, DC Democrats are willing to essentially ignore the cost of maintaining the health care infrastructure. WHY???
It's shameful that Pelosi's & Obama's Democrats are willing to support a system that taxpayers will have to pay megataxes to maintain the health care infrastructure.
With the current system, which admittedly is flawed, profits maintain the health care infrastructure.
Comment 4 by Lady logician at 15-Jul-09 01:30 PM
Gary,
I would not state that the current system is broken but parts of it ARE BADLY broken and in need of repair. However, this type of government run healthcare will radically change the bad AND THE GOOD in the system and when you radically change something that works, you break it!
Eric - taxpayer money can and should be used for research grants but throwing trillions of dollars into getting in between a patient and the doctor is not the same as grant money. Nice attempt to muddy the waters though.
LL
Comment 5 by Paul at 15-Jul-09 02:00 PM
I'd argue somewhat against your conclusion. I imagine you'd say that the UK has a system based around price controls and universal coverage, and yet it has:
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery - international center for training and research
The Royal Marsden - internationally renowned cancer treatment and research center
Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital - another hospital with an international reputation
Stoke Mandeville Hospital - largest spinal injuries department in the world
King's College hospital NHS Trust - largest liver unit in the world
Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust - largest childhood illness research center outside of the US
All this in an area less than the size of Minnesota! The NHS is flawed, massively so in my opinion, but to say that it can't produce centers of excellence stretches the argument too far.
Rep. Buesgens: Angry For all The Right Reasons
This morning, the Lady Logician forwarded an op-ed Rep. Mark Buesgens wrote in the Bemidji Pioneer. Rep. Buesgens starts the op-ed by relating a story about a conversation he had with a House DFL colleague:
During this past legislative session, one of my DFL colleagues asked me, "Representative Buesgens, why are you such an angry, white male?" At the time, I just assumed he was tired of hearing me talk about how raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. After all, there were so many tax increases up for debate this year that I did have to give a lot of speeches in defense of economic freedom.I thought that that sounded like an odd characterization of conservatives, especially since they proposed a steady stream of reforms this session. Still, this characterization is predictable. It's the only thing they've got in defending their agenda.
Fortunately, Rep. Buesgens took the time to tell people about what happened in St. Paul this session:
Am I angry because the Legislature spent five months in session and produced no tangible progress toward improving the economy? The message from Democrats to taxpayers this session was demoralizing, telling us that even though times are tough we need to squeeze our wallets a little harder to sustain the government's spending appetite. Every dollar of spending is sacrosanct to the enablers of government. Every artistic water fountain, every road to nowhere serves a vital public purpose in their view.Minnesotans should be upset that the DFL-dominated legislature voted to waste money on things that won't produce meaningful results. To be blunt about it, the DFL's gameplan this past session seemed to be a payoff for a political ally here, a few token jobs there. There wasn't a coherent plan to restore Minnesota's prosperity. That's something that Rep. Buesgens focused on next:
Speaking of jobs, I am certainly not happy to see more and more jobs disappearing from Minnesota. Just last week we learned of a company that intends to expand in Omaha because the city is willing to dole out so-called "stimulus" money as a reward. Losing a company to another state is one thing. Having it lured away with our tax dollars is outrageous. We should all be upset about that.We won't return to a path towards prosperity with this legislature. It'll require a dramatic change of direction in St. Paul.
Upon this reflection, I am not angry due to my ethnicity or my gender, but because the principles our state and nation stand for are being stomped on and swept aside. Our foundation of personal liberty and economic freedom saw us through tough times in the past and can do so again. Maybe if a few more people are upset enough to make their voices heard, no matter their gender or ethnicity, we can get back on the right track toward prosperity.
The DFL didn't put a priority on creating a friendly climate for businesses in ages. Their entire 'business friendly agenda' is quality education. They haven't talked about regulations, tax cuts or fiscal restraint. They've promised oversight hearings but didn't take that responsibility seriously, either.
As a white conservative male, I'll freely admit that I'm upset. I'm upset for much the same reasons as Rep. Buesgens is upset. A political party that's more interested in people 'paying their fair share' than they're interested in fueling the next run of prosperity needs to re-examine their priorities. ASAP.
Originally posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009, revised 15-Sep 5:34 PM
No comments.
Haven't We Heard This Before?
Kathleen Sebelius' op-ed sounds eerily similar to President Obama's warnings that his stimulus bill had to be passed ASAP to avoid turning an economic crisis into a catastrophe. After seeing how ineffective ARRA has been, there's every reason to slow health care legislation down. ALOT. Before getting into the heart of Sebelius's op-ed, this opening paragraph must be shot down ASAP:
Today in Washington, some politicians like to suggest that the many challenges we face as a nation mean we shouldn't tackle health care reform.I've paid attention to the health care debate since before President Obama officially announced his candidacy for the presidency. In all that time, I haven't heard a single politician suggest that we do nothing about health care. In saying this, Ms. Sebelius is using one of President Obama's favorite tactics: the strawman argument.
The strawman argument is a euphemism. Said in plain English, it'd be known as a bald-faced lie. If I were meeting with Ms. Sebelius, I'd politely tell her that she's full of it. Now let's start dissecting Ms. Sebelius' op-ed:
It's important to look at the size of the problem we face and where we stand. Today, we have by far the most expensive health system in the world. We spend 50 percent more per person on health care than the average developed country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We spend more on health care than housing or food, the McKinsey Global Institute reported.There's several important things that must be said about why we spend so much on health care. Most importantly, we spend alot on health care because the quality of our health care product is so high. When the average citizen has a stroke or a heart attack or is diagnosed with cancer, more often than not, our health care providers have a solution for the problem.
Put differently, how many people would willingly pay extra money in health insurance premiums so life-saving heart surgery is available? How many people think it's worth it to have the latest prescription medication available? Another factor in us spending more is because Americans could afford to spend more on health care.
In short, we're paying for quality, something that people everywhere are willing to do if they have the money.
Here's another myth that needs ridiculing:
As President Obama has often said, you can't fix the economy without fixing health care.This is either hyperbole or President Obama is totally clueless about the economy. And I don't think he's that clueless. The notion that it's impossible to grow the economy without fixing health care is insulting.
Is it important that we fix health care? Yes, though it doesn't need the total overhaul that the Democrats are trying to pass. Will health care reform done right help the economy longterm? Definitely. Is there proof that the Democrats' government-run health care is the right type of reform? Nope.
Wednesday night, Hannity's Great American Panel consisted of Erick Erickson of Redstate.com, Juan Williams of NPR and former supermodel Kim Alexis. Towards the end of the first segment, Sean asked Juan why people from all around the world came to the United States for treatment. Juan said that "If you want to pay for it...If you're looking for innovative care", then the United States is the place to get treated.
I'll just play a hunch here and predict that 95-99.9 percent of Americans want innovation kept in the United States' health care product.
What's interesting is that Juan said this in a totally unscripted moment. He said it so matter-of-factly that I don't think he made Hannity's point until after the show.
Even though we spend more than any other nation on health care, we aren't healthier. Only three developed countries have higher infant mortality rates. Our nation ranks 24th in life expectancy among developed countries. More than one-third of Americans are obese.This is one of the great non sequitur arguments of all time. Is Secretary Sebelius suggesting that life expectancy will increase if we shift to a government-run health care system? Is Secretary Sebelius suggesting that our obesity problem will disappear the minute the Democrats' health care reform gets passed?
As insulting as Secretary Sebelius' argument that we had to fix health care to get the economy going was, this argument is more insulting. As insulting as those claims are, this is the most insulting:
We will continue to work with Congress as it explores other financing options, and the president is open to ideas about how we finance health care reform. But we are not open to deficit spending. Health care reform will be paid for, and it will be deficit-neutral over 10 years.First, the notion that the Democrats' government-run health care reform will be "deficit-neutral" is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, there aren't enough savings to make this deficit-neutral. The only way to keep it from substantially adding to our deficit is through a massive tax increase.
If we want this done right, we'll have to take the time to get it right. If it's just pushed through, we'll do far more harm than good. If there's anything that separates conservatives from progressives, it's that conservatism done right is thoroughly thought through whereas liberal remedies are too often brought about from the mindset of "surely we must do something."
If there's any issue where we must resist the 'surely we must do something' impulse and think things through, it's health care reform. If we get this one wrong, the next two generations will pay for our haste.
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:15 AM
No comments.
Dueling Health Care LTEs
The St. Cloud Times published opposing health care LTEs. Follow this link to Ron Baert's. Follow this link to Nancy Thiessen's LTE. (In the interest of full disclosure, I serve with Ron Baert on the Benton County Republican Executive Board.) The contrasts between their LTEs perfectly illustrates the divide separating conservatives and liberals. First, here's part of Ron Baert's LTE:
Just to make it very clear, there is no such thing as free government services, only very expensive government services. Socialism is very inefficient and costly. So where does the government get the money to provide for this "free" health service? First, there is the direct tax taken out of our paycheck and/or could result in a value-added tax "national sales tax" as other countries employ. Another way is to add it to the debt, which results in higher inflation and I would expect it would be all three.The notion that there's such a thing as a deficit-neutral health care reform is foolish. It's impossible to accomplish.
Here's more of Ron's analysis:
Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in California, is the author of "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide." She said in an interview with National Review Online: Of the almost 46 million Americans counted as uninsured by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14 million of them are eligible for existing government programs but have not signed up.This demographic breakdown gives us a clearer understanding of the problems that need fixing.
Another 17 million of them are earning more than $50,000 a year, but do not buy insurance because they feel it is too expensive. Two-thirds are young people between 18 and 31 who consider themselves "invincible." They would buy insurance if it were cheaper and available to cover catastrophes, which is why one has insurance.
Next, let's look at Ms. Thiessen's LTE:
Anyone who doesn't want national health care just hasn't gone without it yet. Wait until it happens to them or someone they love, or wait until the small hospitals close their doors, then maybe people will wake up.Talk about an irrational, hyperventilating analysis of our current situation. The last I heard, 91 percent of Minnesotans are currently insured. Of those that are without insurance, 59 percent were eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health care. To be fair, those numbers likely have changed with Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments, though I don't think they've changed dramatically.
We can try to fix this system before it collapses or we will all be without it. Why do people think that the government will not be a good handler of the system and large companies would be? Isn't that what we have now?
Greed is rampant in the system. Could it get much worse? We should feel lucky that we have a government that cares about its people enough to take on such a burden. It is always amazing to me that people who claim to be "Christian" seem to be the most selfish. Aren't we always supposed to be watching out for the poor and the meek? I think that's what Jesus would say.
If you total that up, that means 97 percent of all Minnesotans either have health insurance or are eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Furthermore, Minnesota has ranked either as the healthiest or second healthiest state.
QUESTION: Does that information sound like a system on the verge of collapse?
Let's give Ms. Thiessen the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that she's referring to conditions elsehwere in the United States. If such conditions exist somewhere in the United States, perhaps Ms. Thiessen could tell us where in the United States these dramatic conditions exist.
Where are rural hospitals closing? Where is our health care system on the verge of collapse? I wish Ms. Thiessen would tell us so we could focus our attention on those places most in need of help.
In fact, that's a pretty good idea for reforming our health care system. Shouldn't we focus on the parts of the health insurance system that need reforming? Shouldn't we leave alone the parts of the health care/health insurance system that are working well?
Let's take it a step further. Shouldn't we think this through and first identify the things that aren't working well? Similarly, shouldn't wedo an inventory of the things that need the most attention? Finally, shouldn't we acknowledge the fact that only then can we find the best remedies for what's wrong?
It's impossible to fix things when one side makes irrational and unsubstantiated statements. Unfortunately, the side that's making the irrational and unsubstantiated statements is the majority party.
Unless and until the Democrats screw their heads on straight, meaningful health care reform is impossible. Hopefully, that'll change after the 2010 elections. Hopefully by then the American people will see that the U.S. House and Senate are run by irrational Democrats.
Until something changes, let's just be thankful that conservatives keep making thoughtful, persuasive arguments against the Democrats' special interest-driven plans.
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:22 AM
No comments.
How Strongly Do Blue Dogs Oppose House Health Care Bill?
Blue Dog Democrats supposedly oppose the House health care reform bill . After they caved on the National Energy Tax, why shouldn't we think that they'll cave like a house of cards the minute Speaker Pelosi cracks her whip?
A leader of the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats told CNN Wednesday he and other group members may vote to block House Democrats' health care bill from passing a key committee if they don't get some of the changes they want.You'll notice that Ross didn't object to the public option. FYI- From now on, I won't call it the public option. I'll either refer to it as the government option or as the price control option.
"We remain opposed to the current bill, and we continue to meet several times a day to decide how we're going to proceed and what amendments we will be offering as Blue Dogs on the committees," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas. Ross said the bill unveiled Tuesday by House Democratic leaders did not address concerns he and other conservative Democrats outlined in a letter late last week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The conservative Democrats don't believe the legislation contains sufficient reforms to control costs in the health care system and believe additional savings can be found. Their letter to leaders raised concerns about new mandates on small businesses. Blue Dogs also say the bill fails to fix the inequities in the current system for health care costs for rural doctors and hospitals.
It's also important to notice that the Blue Dogs didn't object to the Democrats' health care price controls.
Democrats outnumber Republicans 36-23 on the Energy and Commerce committee, which contains eight Blue Dogs, including Ross. If seven Democrats vote with Republicans against the bill, it would fail to advance to the House floor. Asked whether the Blue Dogs on Energy and Commerce are considering voting as a group against the bill if it remains unchanged, Ross replied, "absolutely."I'm still skeptical. I still think Pelosi will try to provide them with something that they can use as political cover during the August recess, at which point the Blue Dogs will turn into Blue Puppies. These people shouldn't be confused with principled legislators. They also shouldn't be thought of as profiles in courage. They're more accurately characterized as profiles in political cowardice.
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:24 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Jul-09 09:50 AM
When it comes time for the voters to vote, they have to choose between a Democrat and Republican, with no "middle ground" or "moderate" choice available. I hope they start to recognize that when these elected officials vote, THEY have a choice to be either Democrats or Republicans, with no "moderate" or middle ground available. All these "concessions" and "political cover" and "compromises" do is to make the poison work a bit more slowly-- hardly a bargain.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-09 10:01 AM
Jerry, You're right on the money. I'm betting that this isn't a 'middle ground' or triangulation election cycle. In fact, the indicators now point towards a good election for conservatives. That can change but that's where it's at right now.
If At First You Don't Succeed, Rewrite Recent History
Now that people are upset that the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill didn't "create or save" the 4,000,000 jobs that President Obama once predicted, the Obama administration is shifting gears. Their latest strategy might best be titled "If at first you don't succeed, rewrite recent history." Karl Rove's latest WSJ column highlights President Obama's tactics:
So what's a president to do when the promises he made about his economic stimulus program fail to materialize? If you're Barack Obama, you redefine your goals and act as if America won't remember what you said originally. That's a neat trick if you can get away with it, but Mr. Obama won't. His words are a matter of public record and he will be held to them.President Obama hadn't been challenged on his flip-flops prior to getting to the big stage. He certainly wasn't challenged by the Illinois media. He certainly wasn't challenged by the DC media. Now that he's graduated to the big leagues, though, center-right bloggers and especially Jake Tapper will keep him honest. Relatively speaking of course. Mr. Rove will certainly hold him accountable:
In February, Mr. Obama said this about the goals of his stimulus package: "I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs." He later explained the stimulus's $787 billion would "go directly to...generating three to four million new jobs." And his Council of Economic Advisors issued an official analysis showing that the unemployment rate would top out in the third quarter of this year at just over 8%.President Obama is pretending that ARRA " has worked as intended ." Unemployment has jumped from 7.6 percent to 9.5 percent, a 25 percent increase since the bill's enactment and since we aren't close to 4,000,000 jobs being saved or created or a combination thereof.
If the plan has worked as intended, then isn't it a pretty worthless plan? I mean, didn't the American people vote for President Obama with the hope that he'd solve our economic problems? I'm betting that the American people didn't hope he'd enact policies that caused massive job losses and that wouldn't jumpstart the economy. I'm betting that they wouldn't agree with President Obama that ARRA "has worked as [they] intended."
As is Mr. Obama's habit, he has answered his critics by creating straw-man arguments. In last weekend's radio address, he attacked detractors as those who "felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer." But many of Mr. Obama's critics didn't feel that way. They offered, and Mr. Obama almost completely ignored, constructive ideas to jump-start the economy.There's a reason why President Obama's JA ratings have dropped. People don't trust him like they did when he first got in office. Too often, President Obama has promised people things that he's later failed to deliver on. That's the shortest path to a credibility problem that I can think of.
For example, House Republicans offered an alternative recovery package of immediate tax cuts and safety-net measures that cost half as much as Mr. Obama's stimulus program. Republicans have also calculated that their plans would have created 50% more jobs than the stimulus. They reached that estimate by using the same job-growth econometric model that the president's Council of Economic Advisors used for the stimulus.
President Obama's first 6 months in office is marked with lots of stumbles and few successes for the American people. If that doesn't change soon, Democrats will have to defend President Obama's revisionist history during the 2010 campaign. Good luck with that.
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:04 AM
No comments.
It Isn't Reform If...
The Democrats just got some of the worst news imaginable in their quest for government-run health care. This morning, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified that health care costs would continue rising under each of the Democrats' reform plans:
The Democrats and President Obama have cited two goals in their overhaul proposals, expanding coverage to the estimated 47 million Americans who currently lack it and bringing down long-term costs because the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending threatens to swamp the federal budget in coming years.If health care reform can't pass that test, then I'd question whether it can properly be called a reform. Dictionary.com's definition suggests that it wouldn't be right to call it reform:
Under questioning from Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that the congressional proposals released so far do not meet that second test.
"In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs," he said.
the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.Something that costs more while not increasing quality isn't changing "to a better...form." It certainly isn't improving "what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory."
to change to a better state, form, etc.
House Republican Leader John Boehner issued this statement after CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf's testimony this morning:
Americans are concerned about the rising costs of health care, but instead of alleviating those fears, the Democrats government takeover will drive health care costs even higher. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrats' government-run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrats' chief talking points is pure fiction. Are Democrats in Congress listening? Is the President listening? Americans pay too much for health care already. Why should Washington consider a plan that will force them to pay even more?Let's try this for a truth-in-advertising based sales pitch for Democrats to use in selling their plans:
Health care reform is too important to get wrong, and Americans deserve better solutions from Washington, ones that help lower health care costs instead of driving them even higher, as the Democrats' government takeover does. Republicans have proposed an alternative plan that reins-in junk lawsuits, roots out waste, fraud, and abuse, and gives states, small businesses, and families new tools to make affordable health care more accessible. Democrats should scrap their plan that will drive costs even higher and work with Republicans on real solutions to make health care more affordable.
Hi, I'm Rep. Nobody and I'm here to tell you about our latest health care plan. (I can't call it reform for fear of making false statements.) Under this legislation, health care costs will go up, making your unaffordable health insurance less affordable.Good luck selling that to their constituents.
In exchange for these higher higher health care costs, we'll add trillions of dollars to the national debt, we'll raise taxes and we'll add layers of bureaucracy onto the existing layers of bureaucracy.
Finally, we'll throw in a bunch of mandates that don't improve health care but do drive up costs.
Seriously, the Democrats legislation couldn't pass if they had to tell the truth about their legislation to their constituents. In fact, in certain parts of the country, I'd bet that Democrat politicians would be tarred and feathered if they admitted that they were considering voting for legislation that would raise their constituents' health care costs.
This post wouldn't be complete without this information:
NOTE: The Associated Press reports, "Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the bills Congress is considering would 'bend the cost curve.' The budget director responded: 'The curve is being raised.'"I'm certain that that isn't the response Sen. Conrad was hoping for.
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Comment 1 by Jeanne Kiefner at 22-Jul-09 08:47 AM
Just 2 points---why is it so difficult to even find and read the bill What is the bill number?--never mentioned---I am in the health profession and recognize the problems with the government regulating your care..is the cut off age to get specific procedures noted as is the fact that if you get refused a procedure--you are eligible for counseling. Just don't know all the pieces to this puzzle. Jeanne
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jul-09 09:41 AM
Jeanne, Those are all excellent questions. I'm in the process of putting a post together that I'd intended on dealing with some of those questions. After thinking about it for a couple minutes, there's no reason why all those questions shouldn't be included.
Another thing that I'm including in that post is the demandment that the Baucus bill, the Kennedy-Dodd bill & the House bill be posted in their entirety for the entire August recess. That way, the American people can have an intelligent conversation with their senators & representatives when they hold health care townhall meetings throughout August.
