June 16-18, 2009
Jun 16 02:41 President Obama vs. Sen. Obama Jun 16 13:12 Blogger Conference Call Notes: Health Care Jun 16 19:56 *****BREAKING NEWS***** Jun 17 01:58 We Will NOT Forget Jun 17 04:06 Tarryl's Travails Jun 17 07:48 It Doesn't Take a Brain Surgeon Jun 18 03:47 Who You Gonna Believe? Jun 18 08:22 DFL Whine & Misery Campaign Continues & Continues & Continues...
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
President Obama vs. Sen. Obama
Gerald Walpin is about to become President Obama's worst nightmare. Walpin was the inspector general for the Americorps program. Walpin was illegally fired by President Obama for doing his job. Let me repeat that. Walpin was illegally fired for doing his job.
This is a classic case of President Obama vs. Sen. Obama .
Here's something important that you need to know:
In 2008, SENATOR Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill known as the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. Here's the synopsis of one of the chief provisions of the bill :
(Sec. 3) Requires the President, the heads of designated federal entities, the Librarian of Congress, the Capitol Police Board, and the Public Printer to communicate to Congress in writing the reasons for removing or transferring an IG no later than 30 days before such removal or transfer.Next, here's a partial transcript from Mr. Walpin's interview with Glen Beck:
Provides that the IG of the U.S. Capitol Police may be transferred from office only by the unanimous vote of the Capitol Police Board.
GB: So, gosh, he hasn't given you a reason on why you have been terminated. I've read the letter. It just doesn't...he just basically says that he doesn't have faith in you.That led to this exchange:
WALPIN: Well, that's a conclusion, not a reason.
GB: So your job, as I understand it, is to track down money that's being wasted or is being misused.IRONY OF IRONIES: President Obama fired an IG while ignoring a law that SENATOR Obama co-sponsored a year earlier. It's predictable that President Obama's liberal apologists will say that this is just like President Bush's firing of the attorneys. That's BS. The only thing that Walpin's case has in common with the US attorneys if that there were terminations involved.
WALPIN: That's right.
GB: My tax dollars, Erin's tax dollars, everyone's tax dollars?
WALPIN: That's exactly right. The AmeriCorp program, the other agencies programs, I believe, are great as long as they're properly managed and the money isn't being misused.
GB: Why do you think this is happening?
WALPIN: I can only say that I became a thorn in the side of someone because I was doing my job and I was fired for doing my job. And by the way, the investigation of Johnson was started by the agency itself. AmeriCorp management called us and asked us to investigate some reports they'd heard of wrongdoing.
GB: Were you ever pressured to stop it?
WALPIN: No.
GB: Did anybody...
WALPIN: The only thing that came up was, after Johnson was elected mayor, after the stimulus money came in, there was great media and political pressure to get him off the hook and get his suspension lifted.
GB: This happened to you on Thursday...
WALPIN: Wednesday.
GB: Wednesday night. Do you remember the case when George Bush fired those attorneys, which he had the right to do?
WALPIN: They were serving at the discretion of the President.
GB: You were not serving at the discretion of the President, were you?
WALPIN: Only he can...under the statute, which was designed to protect the independence of the inspectors general, I can only be terminated if he gives 30 days advance notice and gives the reason why I've been terminated.
GB: So it's all open and everyone knows?
WALPIN: That's correct.
GB: So that you can truly be independent?
WALPIN: Yes.
GB: Because if someone can put pressure on you, you aren't really independent?
WALPIN: That is correct.
What's more important is that President Obama ignored the law that he co-sponsored to illegally fire someone in an effort to protect a political supporter of his. That's the worst type of cronyism we've seen since the firing of the White House Travel Office staff.
Sen. Obama tried establishing reformer credentials. President Obama has literally rejected the laws that he helped create to protect a high profile political ally. Men of integrity don't change their minds on something so important in that short of a period of time.
Simply put, President Obama's action in this matter suggests that he's willing to ignore the rules when it suits him. That isn't inconsistent with his threatening political retribution on Chrysler's bondholders. Let's remember that President Obama characterized the bondholders as greedy vultures when, in fact, one of the bondholders was an Indiana pension fund.
President Obama's actions tell us that he thinks he can do whatever he wants. He hasn't proven that he's the least bit interested in the rule of law if it will prevent him from helping his political allies.
That's what third world despots get away with. It isn't something that the American president should get away with.
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:47 AM
Comment 1 by Shoebox at 16-Jun-09 09:29 AM
"laws for thee but not for me" seems to be the recurring theme of this administration
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 17-Jun-09 08:15 AM
One minor correction my friend. S. 2324 never passed out of the House so the IG Reform Act of 2008 is NOT law.....
The Law that applies here is the Inspector General Act of 1978 and he may have indeed violated that law.
LL
Blogger Conference Call Notes: Health Care
I just finished participating in Kevin McCarthy's bi-weekly blogger conference call. This week's call focused mostly on health care, with some focus going towards the war supplemental that's morphed into another porkfest opportunity.
I had the first question. I asked whether these gentlemen would agree with my characterization that single-payer is a "race to the bottom". Jack Kingston cited two startling comparisons on cancer survival rates.
The survival rate for breast cancer in the United States is 84%; in Britain, it's 69%.
The survival rate for prostate cancer in the United States is 92%; it's only 51% in Great Britain.
That last statistic was a jaw-dropper for me. Think of the difference between 9 men in 10 surviving in the United States vs. 1 in 2 men dying of prostate cancer in the UK.
Does anyone think that the American people would settle for the Democrats' plan if they knew these statistics? Not a chance.
Rep. Kingston said that that disparity didn't just pertain to cancer survival rates, either. He said that that disparity applied to almost ever life-threatening disease.
Later, in the next round of questioning, I highlighted the AMSA study that I cite so often. I cited the part that says that, while single-payer is good at providing perscription medication to more people, it's also true that AMSA's own study said that "the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement."
Rep. Kingston said that he'd be interested in the study. I've already forwarded it to Nick Bouknight, who will in turn forward it to Rep. Kingston.
The reality is that President Obama's health care plan is dying. The more people understand it, the more people that vehemently oppose it. Let's remember that President Obama was booed yesterday at the AMA convention:
Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.Let's also remember that statistics matter. The statistics I'm focusing on right now is the CBO statistics that say ObamaCare would cost an additional $1T and would only drop the uninsured from 46,000,000 to 30,000,000.
For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.
The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority - limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:14 PM
Comment 1 by Jay.Mac at 16-Jun-09 05:49 PM
Here's some more information on healthcare.
First, an article by a British oncologist on the alarming condition of what passes for NHS treatment. Note the terrible choice of drug treatments available to the UK.
http://crypticsubterranean.blogspot.com/2009/05/government-medicine.html
Second, Obama's own advisor on healthcare on what his reforms will really result in- for example, he cites research as a key area to make cuts and argues that preventative scans and prompt care are not cost effective.
http://crypticsubterranean.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-health-care.html
We Will NOT Forget
Byron York's latest article in the DC Examiner asks an important question for conservatives, though it isn't framed that way. Here's what's bothering Byron:
Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden, and suspicious, decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no, unless some Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.Byron York is now reporting that Claire McCaskill is criticizing President Obama for his terminating Mr. Walpin. That essentially means that President Obama is perched on a thin limb with no support in sight.
In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law, a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator, that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution. In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods, evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars, and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has become the first Democrat to question the White House over the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. McCaskill, who, like Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, is a champion of inspectors general, co-wrote the 2008 legislation requiring the president to give 30 days' notice, and cause, before firing an inspector general. In a statement released this afternoon, McCaskill says that the reason the president gave for firing Walpin, that the president no longer has "the fullest confidence" in Walpin, is, in McCaskill's words, "not sufficient." And McCaskill is calling on the White House to offer a fuller explanation as soon as possible. Here is McCaskill's statement:I'm not a fan of Claire McCaskill's but she's right about this. There's no arguing with her this time.The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. "Loss of confidence" is not a sufficient reason. I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.
President Obama has shown too much willingness to ignore the rule of law thus far. This time, he ignored a law that he co-sponsored. Previously, he ignored bankruptcy laws to get a favorable 'settlement' for the UAW. Prior to that, he nominated one tax cheat after another to his cabinet.
This time, he ignored the law to send a message to IGs everywhere. That unmistakable message was "Don't go after my allies or I'll terminate you.'
President Obama's firing of Mr. Walpin isn't an impeachable offense but it isn't nothing, either. It's the type of troubling behavior that John Q. Public shouldn't tolerate. It's the type of behavior that turns off good government liberals and chases away conscientious independents.
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:00 AM
No comments.
*****BREAKING NEWS*****
In a stunning move, House Democrats have shut Republicans out of offering floor amendments to all spending legislation. Here's the latest on this from Eric Cantor's blog :
In a completely unprecedented fashion, House Democrats have used their power as the majority party to shut out floor amendments from the minority party on spending legislation.It isn't a stretch to say that this is the day Speaker Pelosi changed the House in to a dictatorship. This is about her exercising total dictatorial control over the House's proceedings.
Right at the beginning of the debate, House Democrats decided to go to the Rules Committee, to report out a Structured Rule and shut the House GOP out of the process.
This is an unprecedented abuse of power by the House Democrats. Every American, every American of either political party or of no party at all, ought to be deeply concerned over this action.
It's also accurate to say that the term the People's House isn't applicable anymore. That terminology should be immediately changed to Pelosi's Kingdom starting ASAP. It's obvious that the Little Tyrant By the Bay feels more comfortable with Putin's dictatorial rule than with Jeffersonian democracy.
It's time that we started contributing to the NRCC so that we can terminate the run of the worst speakership in our nation's history. The Little Tyrant By The Bay has done more harm to this republic in a short amount of time than any speaker in history.
Her fingerprints are all over ARRA, the omnibus bill and President Obama's budget, blueprint, which, when combined, have burdened more generations with more debt than any speakership in history.
She's an utter failure. She's a menace to our future. She's got to go. ASAP.
UPDATE: Here's video of Eric Cantor's speech on the House floor:
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:17 PM
No comments.
Tarryl's Travails
From what I can tell, Tarryl's job as assistant majority leader is to attack everything that Gov. Pawlenty does. Now that Gov. Pawlenty's announced which budget items he plans on unalloting, Tarryl's whining again . As near as I can tell, it hasn't hit her that the DFL leadership should've done their job of putting a balanced budget together before there were eight minutes left in the session. Here's what she's whining about now:
Assistant Senate Majority Tarryl Clark (DFL-St. Cloud) this afternoon said Pawlenty should have negotiated a budget solution with legislators rather than resort to unallotment. "(Unallotment) appears to be used in a way to not negotiate when he should be," Clark said.As Cindy pointed out here , there was negotiation, negotiations that were rejected by Tony Sertich, who characterized it as a "false compromise." Tarryl wasn't done whining there yet. Here's what the Pi-Press is quoting her as saying:
"This is a real somber day for Minnesota," said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. "Any other governor would have come back and said, 'Let's negotiate.'" She predicted job losses, holes in public safety coverage and difficulties for the most vulnerable due to Pawlenty's decision to end a state-paid health care program for poor adults. That decision, to end the General Assistance Medical Care program, was made during the legislative session, but the end date was moved up on Tuesday.Tarryl, cut the crap. It's foolish to negotiate against a theory or a platitude. I've said repeatedly, that the DFL didn't put a balanced budget together until the last minutes of the session. Gov. Pawlenty moved from some of his original proposals. What's put a bee in Tarryl's bonnet is the fact that Gov. Pawlenty refused to raise taxes on small businesses and hurting families. He made it clear from the outset that he wouldn't accept tax increases as part of the solution.
During his interview with KSTP's Tom Hauser, Gov. Pawlenty was asked why he didn't accept the DFL's tax increase proposals. Gov' Pawlenty's response was that he compromised with the DFL on the health impact fee. Gov. Pawlenty said that the DFL said at the time that it was just a one-time fix. He said he learned from that that the DFL is constantly trying to raise taxes. (I've argued that it's part of their genetic makeup but that's another issue for another day.)
If Tarryl wanted to prevent the supposedly disastrous cuts in GAMC, then there's a simple path that the DFL could've followed. It's called setting, and following through on, priorities. That concept, unfortunately, is totally foreign to Tarryl and the rest of the DFL leadership.
Let's remember that another reason why we reached this point is because the DFL refused to propose serious reforms that would've positively impacted Minnesota's budget for years to come. Let's remember that the DFL embarked on a Cherrypicked Listening Tour . During the tour, we learned that the DFL tried manipulating the testimony to make it sound like there was a groundswell of support from John Q. Public to raise taxes. The DFL knew it was sunk when that artificial groundswell didn't materialize.
Let's also remember that prominent DFL legislators either voted against the tax increases that Tarryl says we needed. Another prominent DFL legislator said that the DFL's specific tax increases would hurt Minnesota.
Why didn't the DFL use last summer's hearings to put a serious budget proposal together? Why didn't the DFL use last summer's hearings to identify their budget priorities? The DFL spent the first four months of the session whining about the inadequacies of Gov. Pawlenty's budget. Now they're whining that he's the only one who produced a solution.
The DFL should stop its whining if it isn't going to put something concrete together. I'm not holding my breath waiting. That's like expecting the DFL to exhibit leadership skills.
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:06 AM
No comments.
It Doesn't Take a Brain Surgeon
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that Ted Kennedy's/Christopher Dodd's/President Obama's health care plan is on life support. It's on life support and getting more unstable by the minute because of the details of the legislation :
It's only money, we like to say, when we know we shouldn't be pulling out our wallets, but.President Obama's press secretary is already backpedalling from Kenndy's legislation at speeds not seen in Washington since Chuck Schumer developed a love affair with microphones:
The 'but' is a big one when it comes to health care reform: huge, immense, Himalayan. So big we're not going to do it, I'll bet you money. Not this year we're not, because we've barely started to think this thing through. We're not ready as a country, as a people, to have President Obama and his congressional minions shove down our throats a new, costly, coercive plan for reordering the way we care of ourselves, or for that matter don't care.
The Democratic-controlled Congressional Budget Office, no aerie of Reaganite stool pigeons, says health care reform a la Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd (the Affordable Health Choices Act) would leave more than twice as many Americans uninsured as it would protect, sort of, 36 million to 16 million, respectively. The CBO says, further, the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $1 trillion between 2010 and 2019.
"This is not the Administration's bill," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement following the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of Sen. Ted Kennedy's health care reform legislation, "and it's not even the final Senate Committee bill."Frankly, this is too big a transformation to be run through Congress with this little time fully discussing the details. This legislation didn't have a surge in popularity because of the details. Its surge was in spite of the ugly details.
I suspect that this will go the route of HillaryCare now that it's taking on water. There are numerous reasons for it getting rejected, not the least of which is the fact that a majority of people simply don't trust the federal government to get something this complex right. Regardless of election outcomes, that fact still matters more than all others...Combined.
People's collective memories include images of Katrina and President Obama's stimulus bill. Both are seen as collossal failures. Those two things contribute alot to why people don't trust government. Mr. Murchison is right about this, too:
The CBO calculates that 15 million Americans would exit their private plans if Kennedy-Dodd were imposed. Coverage from other sources would fall by 8 million, the CBO says. This is progress? Large numbers of Americans may be forgiven, perhaps, if they differ on that trivial point.We're supposed to spend well over a trillion dollars to insure an additional 16,000,000 people who aren't currently insured? At a time when we're running gigantic annual deficits? When people are feeling overtaxed already? Good luck selling that mostrosity of legislation.
They'll need more than luck passing Sen. Kennedy's legislation if Bernie Sanders keeps writing op-eds like this one . Here's part of what Bernie said:
Despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, our healthcare outcomes lag behind many other nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy, and preventable deaths.As I said yesterday, the value we get from our current system is better than the rationing that exists wherever the single-payer system is used. Thus, the question becomes whether we want higher taxes to pay for a rationing system with inferior results or whether we want the current system modified to maximize the product. That isn't a difficult question to me.
The main reason we get such bad results is that the function of private health insurance companies is not to provide quality healthcare for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30 percent of each healthcare dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the department of Veterans Affairs are administered for far less.
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:54 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 18-Jun-09 12:24 PM
I have read many of your postings regarding health care reform.
Do you plan to comment on "Crossing Our Lines: Working Together to Reform the U.S. Health System" - a proposal developed by Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole as part of their Project on the State of American Health Care ?
To achieve the commitment of coverage for all Americans, the report embraces the need for strong insurance reforms that require guaranteed issue; the elimination of medical underwriting for pre-existing conditions and rating limitations; new state and regional coverage options through exchanges; reforms that constrain cost growth; and financial assistance through Medicaid and tax credits. The report calls for refocusing the nation's health care system on a commitment to quality and value -- rather than quantity and volume -- to improve medical outcomes and constrain unsustainable cost growth. In so doing, the Leaders underscore the need to rededicate the country to prevention and wellness as a better prescription to address the flaws of our health care system.
In developing their recommendations, their budget-neutral plan calls for: a personal responsibility requirement for all Americans to purchase affordable health insurance; refundable tax credits that limit premium contributions to a percentage of income; tax credits for small businesses that offer coverage; limited fees for employers not offering or paying for health benefits; a tax exclusion linked to the value of benefits received by Members of Congress; and the establishment of an Independent Health Care Council to promote coordination among federal health care programs.
Consistent with the federal/state health reform model, the Leaders' plan provides for initial financial and technical support to states that choose to establish competing state plan options. These plans would have to compete on a level playing field. The Leaders also provide for a process that allows the President to submit a plan to Congress for a vote under expedited procedures if, after five years, the HHS Secretary has certified that the existing options do not provide for affordable coverage.
The complete report is available at http://www.bpcleadersproject.org/
Who You Gonna Believe?
Yesterday, ABCNews responded to the RNC's request for equal airtime for President Obama's 'townhall' meeting with this letter . Here's a part that I thought needed monitoring:
Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers, of all political persuasions, even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.Saying that they'll run an hourlong infomercial for the president, then deny the RNC time to have their say, is bad enough. To say that they'll ask hard-hitting questions of President Obama was worse. This report suggests that ABCNews isn't being honest:
ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!This is nonsense. Saying that you'll discuss all sides of the issue, then saying that you're denying people the ability to buy time to air an opposing point of view, stinks to the high heavens.
The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.
Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.
Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:
"It is unfortunate, and unusual, that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision, as of now, to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."
What's important to remember, though, is that the Democrats' attempted takeover of the health care industry will fail. No amount of adoring press will change that. While it isn't likely that Ted Kennedy and other single-payer advocates won't give up without a fight, it's equally true that the public option is a 'dead man walking' item. At this point, that option is essentially dead. It just hasn't collapsed yet.
Conservatives shouldn't whine about this not being fair, though it's fine to highlight the fact that ABCNews isn't being honest. Instead, conservatives should remind people that the Obama/Kennedy/Dodd monstrosity carries with it a hefty pricetag, perhaps as much as $4,000,000,000,000 over the next decade :
Health Systems Innovations Network , a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, "this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality."Let's also understand that the White House's ABC infomercial is likely a last, desperate attempt to get something done :
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee postponed the markup of its healthcare reform bill by one day, to Wednesday. On the eve of that markup, the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce publicly ripped the bill.The split isn't about ideology as much as it's about survival. Generally speaking, congresscritters that occupy safe seats will vote their beliefs; congresscritters that were elected to swing districts will vote the way they think helps them get re-elected. There are exceptions but what I've written is the generally accepted rule.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) initially planned to release his bill Wednesday, but he has pushed back his timetable because of cost estimate concerns. "Will we have something out tomorrow? Not sure," Baucus said Tuesday. "Thursday or probably Friday," he added.
Perhaps more importantly, the unity that Democrats touted earlier this year has cracked. As conservatives lambaste Democrats, liberal healthcare groups are not rushing to their defense because so many questions about the legislation have not been answered.
What's important in this fight is that ideas and specifics matter far more than the 2008 elections. The reality is that alot of Democrats are abandoning ship because they're reading the writing on the wall. They're seeing polls telling everyone that this gigantic bureaucratic mess is sinking like the Edmund Fitzgerald.
It's important to note that politicians are always more worried about their next election than their last election. That's why keeping the pressure on the Democrats right now is vitally important. They need to feel the heat of our displeasure. They need to hear in clear terms that we won't tolerate another trillion dollar boondoggle that won't fix this problem.
Finally, let's remind ourselves that Democrats panic, too. That's what they're doing this instant. That's why Democrats are questioning each other and offering scaled-back alternatives.
Posted Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:49 AM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 18-Jun-09 06:26 AM
Bill McGuire of United Health made over $100,000,000 per year, each and every year for the first 6 years of this decade. In 2004, he actually made around $130,000,000.
In addition, he accumulated stock options that were, at one time, valued at $1.5 BILLION - yes, BILLION.
And you defend that system.
Actually, you don't; you switch the debate to crap you make up because you simply cannot defend the current system.
Which, of course, is but one more reason why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples....
But tell me, Gary - how does it feel to be defending a system that allows it's executives to reap so much?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 18-Jun-09 07:38 AM
The current system does not need to be defended by anybody. It is up to those who propose a new system to PROVE that such a new system is better, usually with a small "pilot" program. Unfortunately, that pilot program is already well underway, and now covers about 40% of all health care. It's called Medicare. It's a bureaucratic nightmare, it's flat broke, yet "retiree health benefits" are a huge and growing cost for corporations. How can that be? Add to that the huge "Medigap" insurance industry and the fact that many doctors either refuse to see Medicare patients (Medicare covers only 1/3 of costs) or give them substandard care, and we have all the evidence we need. Instead of looking for more ways to foul up this better-than-all-others system, the "reformers" should be looking to fix what they've already broken.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 18-Jun-09 07:41 AM
I wish I could be as calm and assured that "this will fail," but I cannot. I think we need to mount maximum opposition and at maximum volume on this. The assumption that our politicians, especially Democrats, make their decisions rationally even insofar as their own political futures are concerned is, in my experience, totally unwarranted. It as if collective intelligence correlates inversely with the size of a Congressional majority.
Comment 4 by kb at 18-Jun-09 08:11 AM
TPTommy: What UHC decides to pay McGuire is its business. If he doesn't get it, it goes to shareholders. Are you one? Then show up at a shareholders meeting and challenge the compensation. It's they who decide what his salary should be, what options he should get.
But thanks for playing the class warfare card; this has always been about deciding rich people are too healthy and trying to help them die sooner, yes?
(OK, that last is over the top, but no more than your comment.)
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-09 08:46 AM
Jerry, DC Democrats don't want to be associated with this bill BIGTIME. When President Obama's mouthpiece tells reporters that Ted Kennedy's bill isn't their bill, that's a sure sign that they want to distance themselves from indefensible legislation.
As I said in the post, this legislation won't immediately disappear. It'll linger awhile.
Whether it lingers or disappears, though, Ted Kennedy's 'private option' reform is a dead man walking.
By all means, let's keep pressuring the Democrats. Let's make them afraid of their own shadows.
These Democrat congresscritters are hearing from their constituents on this issue & what they're hearing isn't filled with compliments. It's filled with criticisms & derisions.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 18-Jun-09 02:52 PM
Gary:
Back to the original post idea. Is Ted Koppel the moderator (he moderator the one with Hillary, Rush, and others).
Is it a free swinging debate?
Our real opponents of this such as Rush Limbaugh invited to be there.
Since one and three hasn't happened already we know it's the Obama show.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-09 11:58 PM
Walter, We shouldn't accept that this is anything but an infomercial until there's proof that they've asked tough questions aimed at telling us specifics, both good & bad, about the things they want in the legislation.
My point about this post is that we shouldn't let this infomercial distract us from raising questions about the legislation. The show is the show. The questions about what's in the legislation, though, is what's vital to defeating the legislation.
DFL Whine & Misery Campaign Continues & Continues & Continues...
The DFL's Sore Losers Tour, also known as the DFL's Whine and Misery Campaign, doesn't look like it's ending anytime soon. This editorial in the Winona Daily News points the finger of blame where it's supposed to be pointed, at the DFL. Here's a sample:
What's more shocking than the outrage Democratic lawmakers around Minnesota expressed when Gov. Tim Pawlenty made his "unallotments" to the state budget?To beaccurate, the DFL legislature passed a balanced budget with precious few minutes left in the session. It was an unserious budget plan. Tom Hauser wasn't the only journalist who didn't take it seriously when he insisted that the DFL's budget still had a $2,700,000,000 deficit. Here's how Darrell Ehrlick closes the editorial:
The answer: Their surprise that Pawlenty actually made cuts to things like social services, local government aid, K-12 education and higher education. But Pawlenty did everything but smoke signal and telegraph what he was going to do long before the session ended in infamy and shame when the DFL-controlled Legislature decided to abdicate its responsibility and not pass a balanced budget, leaving state government's future in one lame-duck governor's hands.
So if you're thinking about directing rage at someone, pause for a moment when you think about aiming criticism at Pawlenty. Pawlenty remained true to his word, whatever that is worth.The DFL conducted meetings all last summer and fall. The House and Senate, DFL and GOP alike, collected $325,000 in out-of session, tax-free per diem. That might've been justified if they'd put a coherent budget together. That might've been justifiable if the DFL-led committees established a more thoughtful plan than raise taxes and pray for billions in stimulus money :
And speaking of worth, the only thing worth less than talk was the inaction of the DFL-controlled Legislature that did everything but pass a budget.
Keep in mind their failure didn't stop most members from successfully collecting a paycheck or per diems, despite record state revenue shortfalls. There's a word for taking money and not doing a job, isn't there?
DFLers are pinning much of their hope for short-term relief on a national stimulus package coming out of Washington , suggesting the money can be used to fund infrastructure and construction projects that bring immediate job opportunities. Pawlenty said nothing about the stimulus package in his speech. Previously, while acknowledging that Minnesota sends more money to Washington than it gets back, Pawlenty has been lukewarm about the stimulus package. "That is a tool in the short-term recovery process for Minnesota's economy," Kelliher said.It's irresponsible to not prioritize spending like that. The DFL never said no in a unified voice. Their plans were all over the place. Sen. Bakk's Tax Bill called for a tax increase of $2,200,000,000. Rep. Lenczewski's Tax Bill called for a tax increase of $1,500,000,000. Gene Pelowski said tax increases were foolish considering the fact that they were going to get vetoed. Sen. Bakk even criticized Rep. Lenczewski's Tax Bill .
Simply put, the DFL was in total disarray throughout this year's budget debate . They couldn't even get their chairmen to agree on tax increases. I'd suggest that the definition of DFL be changed from Democratic-Farmer-Labor to Democrats' Failed Leadership because it's more fitting.
Let's finally close with this: the DFL's biggest failure other than not putting a balanced budget together was their rigidity in not putting serious reforms together. Why didn't they take that seriously? Why can't they point to a single reform that they passed? All reforms that would've saved Minnesota's taxpayers money while not cutting vital services would've kept the pain at a more tolerable level.
When Kelliher and Sertich, Pogemiller and Clark didn't provide the leadership to put thoughtful reforms together, it was their biggest failure in leadership. This session ended like it started: with the DFL whining about Gov. Pawlenty's plan while not putting a legitimate plan of their own together. Shame on them for their inaction.
Originally posted Thursday, June 18, 2009, revised 19-Jun 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Jun-09 02:33 PM
I think it very important to note that the Governor may not INCREASE any spending line item through his veto. Therefore, the big cuts to education (and some other things, at least $2B worth) were written in by the DFL! Don't make the mistake of letting Pawlenty take the blame (or credit) for those.
