June 19-22, 2009
Jun 19 01:00 National Energy Tax In Trouble? Jun 19 02:03 Real Property Tax Increases Jun 19 13:22 Rep. Charles Boustany Interview Notes Jun 20 05:33 President Obama's Persuasion Erosion Jun 21 04:23 The Height Of Arrogance Jun 21 06:28 Technology, Thirst For Liberty, Powerful Forces Against Mulllahs Jun 22 01:06 Strickland In Trouble? Jun 22 04:30 Some Get It, Some Don't, Some NEVER Will Jun 22 15:44 President Obama Going Negative
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
President Obama's Persuasion Erosion
Thursday night, Fred Barnes coined a fitting new phrase to describe President Obama's problem when he talked about President Obama's persuasion gap problem. Fred said that President Obama is great at selling himself but he isn't good at selling his policies. I agree. More importantly, others are noticing. Check out this article :
WASHINGTON -- After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds. These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.Ed's citing of Michael Barone's article tells the same story:
"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."
- 69% say they have a great deal or quite a bit of concern about government ownership of General Motors and a 56%-35% majority opposes government aid to General Motors in return for a share of its stock.
- 58% say the president and Congress should concentrate on keeping the budget deficit down, even if it takes longer for the economy to recover.
- By a 52%-41% margin they prefer reducing the budget deficit to stimulating the economy.
- Only 30% think Obama has developed a clear plan for dealing with the budget deficit, while 60% believe he hasn't.
Polls show concern about the size of government and the mushrooming deficits under Obama's policies. For some time, the polls also have shown public skepticism about the president's efforts to use federal money to save General Motors. Obama's effort to include a public health insurance plan as part of the overall health care reform package has become a flash point in that debate.President Obama can talk until he's blue in the face about restoring fiscal discipline but people won't buy his happy talk until he does something to actually restore fiscal sanity. Nothing that President Obama has done indicates that he's even willing to consider anything that doesn't consist of dramatically bigger government.
Those findings represent flashing yellow lights for the administration, which is why the president has moved, symbolically and rhetorically at least, to counter any suggestions that he is a big-government Democrat. His rhetoric has consistently emphasized his commitment to restoring fiscal discipline as quickly as possible. But his efforts have been minimal in comparison to what he's done to grow government, and there is little he can do in the short run.
In fact, there's a good possibility that President Obama is hurting himself by constantly talking about PAYGo, fiscal responsibility, etc., then doing nothing. People will eventually conclude that he isn't serious about fixing the overspending problem that he's responsible for. In short, he's being seen more and more as a hypocrite whose policies are putting future generations at risk.
Prior to his inauguration, I said that President Obama's biggest problem would be that he'd now be measured by the success of his solutions, not his speechmaking ability. That truth is slowly catching up with him. People like him on a personal level but they aren't reluctant to tell pollsters that they disagree with his policies.
The Obama administration's economic team has been a laughingstock thus far, starting with Tim Geithner's disastrous briefing of Wall Street executives on the specifics of TARP. (As I recall, the market dropped almost 450 points that day, almost solely on Wall Street's disgust with Geithner's unprofessionalism. Instead of giving them a detailed briefing on TARP II, Geithner gave them a brief outline sketch of TARP going forward.)
The stimulus bill is another thing that's giving the Obama administration headaches. President Obama invested alot of political capital on the bill, telling the nation that we were headed for a catastrophe if it didn't pass. It's passed and the Obama administration's worst case unemployment scenarios have come true and then some.
This administration's job creation projections are ignored or laughed at because they've been so badly wrong.
That's before talking about foreign policy and national security. This week, President Obama said that the United States shouldn't meddle in Iran's affairs even though there's a revolutionary uprising against the reigning mullahs' oppressive tactics.
At the same time, President Obama hasn't hesitated in jawboning Israel for defending itself against Hamas's rocket attacks into Israel.
Polling shows President Obama losing ground on the foundations of his policies:
First, the people have little confidence in government as an effective instrument of public purpose . Trust in government remains near an historic low and has not improved significantly since the beginning of Obama's presidency. Only 34 percent think that government should do more to solve national problems , down seven points in the past three months. Sixty-nine percent express "a great deal" or "quite a bit" of concern about the expanding role of the federal government in areas such as automobile companies, corporate compensation, and health care.While President Obama's speeches are often pitch perfect, his policies frequently are greeted with skepticism and outright disdain. That's because there's little proof that President Obama has thought his policies through.
Second, people are unsure about Obama's overall economic strategy. Only 46 percent say that they are "extremely" or "quite" confident that the president has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy; 53 percent are not. According to Pew, approval of the president's handling of the economy has declined by eight points (from 60 to 52 percent) since mid-April.
Third, evidence is accumulating that the administration misjudged the public's reaction to increased spending and rising budget deficits , which now rank second in the list of top concerns in the NYT/CBS poll, behind only job creation and economic growth, and ahead of health care costs as an economic issue. Indeed, Pew finds that concern over spending and deficits is now the most frequently cited reservation about the administration's economic policies. Only 30 percent think the administration has developed a clear plan for dealing with the deficit; 60 percent do not.
Fourth, while there is majority support for the broad architecture of health reform that the administration espouses, doubts about specifics are multiplying . The people are evenly divided on whether the president's plan should focus more on costs (41 percent) or on coverage (43 percent). But only 18 percent think that his plan in fact gives priority to controlling costs, versus 64 percent who believe it is mostly about expanding coverage. And while majorities favor imposing "play or pay" requirements on businesses and raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 to pay for health reform, only 33 percent favor taxing people with "expensive health plans," and 70 percent say that a broader tax on employer-provided health plan is "not acceptable." The Pew survey also suggests that, relative to 1993, there is less support for radical change in the system, more support for cost containment as the top priority, and a decline in support for universal health insurance among both Republicans and independents. In light of these doubts, it is not surprising to discover that while 44 percent approve of the president's handling of health care, 34 disapprove, while 22 percent remain unsure.
It won't be long before Republican advertisements start asking the question whether people are better off now than when the Obama administration started. Once that question starts getting discussed, the Obama administration, and congressional Democrats, will have a new set of headaches.
That's what happens when people vote the wrong way based solely on ideology rather than on what's best for the American people.
Posted Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:36 AM
Comment 1 by Jim at 20-Jun-09 07:33 AM
Obama's overall approval rating now stands at 63 percent, unchanged from last month. 48% say Obama has had no impact on the economy so far, 32% say he has made it better, while ONLY 15% say he has made it worse. Spin it as much as you like, the spinning can be done from many angles.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 20-Jun-09 07:48 AM
Jim you're missing the point. People want to say they like Obama. I hate his policies, but I like him.
The point of Gary's post is that it's catching up to him that his policies are going to drag down the Democrats in Congress and him.
A prime example of this is the budget. Obama during the camapaign said he will go through the budget line by line which as far as the voters are concerned met he was going to start reducing federal spending. Instead he is blue lighting trillions of dollars in new spending.
That conflict is showing, people will rather have slower economic growth if the deficit is put under control. When people see that Obama's policies aren't doing that they will turn.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-09 08:54 AM
The NBC/WSJ poll has him at 58%. Gallup has him below 60% for the first time since he became president. Rasmussen has his approval rating in the low to mid 50's.
He's misread the mood of the people. So did congressional Democrats. They thought they could pass everything on their agenda. We The People are saying no to that, that we're still a sensible nation.
The Democrats thought that the elections proved that the nation had undergone a massive shift to the left in their thinking. That isn't what happened.
The nation picked more Democrats in 2008 because they were disgusted with Republicans acting like Democrats.
It's nothing more complicated than that.
Comment 4 by Jim at 20-Jun-09 11:19 AM
'As far as the voters are concerned..he was going to start reducing federal spending'
I do not know where that is coming from. He is handed an economy in crisis and the voters expected him to reduce the federal spending? It would be interesting to see what you base that on.
And the Democrats 'thought they could pass everything on their agenda'. How so?
I think you are misreading the people. They were disgusted with Republicans because of their incompetence and their ideology-above-all-else strategy.
They elected Democrats because the Republicans were acting like Democrats? That is illogical.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-09 12:20 PM
And the Democrats 'thought they could pass everything on their agenda'. How so?Haven't you been paying attention? They're going after every big thing on their wish list. Super-sized stimulus package. Universal health care. Kyoto on steroids, aka Cap & Trade, aka National Energy Tax. Card Check. Amnesty.
They elected Democrats because the Republicans were acting like Democrats? That is illogical.It's logical. Republicans & right of center independents got disgusted with Republican politicians spending like Democrats so they stayed home, which helped get extra Democrats elected.
Comment 6 by Jim at 20-Jun-09 01:09 PM
I have been paying attention, and none of those issues (other than the stimulus issue) have actually had any bills passed yet. Give Democrats a chance to work this out to its final result.
It is a common thought by the right wing that they lost because Republicans were not right-wing enough. I believe that is incorrect. People rejected a strategy of ideology without pragmatism. They saw leadership that followed that strategy as being largely responsible for the economic crisis. Just my thoughts.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 20-Jun-09 04:16 PM
I will NOT give Democrats a chance to "work things out" because they are far more ideology-driven and less pragmatic than Republicans ever thought of being. Republicans erred by not being fiscal conservatives, and the public erred by believing that Democrats couldn't do worse. Many are now realizing the magnitude of that error. As the troubles compound, many more will do likewise.
The thing I noticed just a few days ago is that Obama himself doesn't seem to have any desire or role to play in policy, leaving that completely to the Democrats in Congress, while he jets around giving high-sounding speeches signifying nothing. It as if his sole talent is making such speeches, and they seem to be more and more detached from the reality of what the Congress is actually doing. For example, preaching about Paygo and "fiscal sanity" makes you look like a fool if the Congress is making the budget for this year over 50% deficit spending.
Comment 8 by Jim at 20-Jun-09 06:59 PM
It is interesting that only now do some say Republicans erred by not being fiscal conservatives, but while the Republicans held power -- giving tax breaks to the wealthy and saying the rest would all work out DUE to those tax breaks -- not a smidgeon of political capital was spent on that prudential goal. Only now, when it is easy to do so, are your realizing the magnitude of that error -- the error of your ideology, because that was the ideology -- tax breaks for the wealthy will create a better economy and less regulation will free capital to create jobs. None of that came true. As a matter of fact, it was a huge error.
National Energy Tax In Trouble?
After briefly scanning this pdf document , I'm wondering if the Democrats are finding the sale of their national energy tax more challenging than they anticipated. Here's some information that caught my attention:
Use global warming only as a supporting story, not as the primary frame.For Democrats, their argument that we need a national energy tax lost its power because people aren't buying into their 'save the planet' theme. This is significant because that was the reason for the Democrats' legislation. Selling this legislation as a job creation package is an uphill climb at best.
Awareness about global warming is broad, and some in the public are seriously concerned about it. But almost no one in our groups expressed such concern; for most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform. So while it can be a part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it.
I suspect that because this Democratic administation job creation projections aren't trustworthy. The Democrats said that they had to rush the stimulus package through before anyone read it so that we averted an economic catastrophe. President Obama said that passing ARRA would keep unemployent below 8 percent. It's currently at 9.4 percent.
That's before talking about the jobs saved or created nonsense. That notion has been discredited, first in the blogosphere, then on FNC, and now to the point that it's being talked about in the Washington Post and on network TV.
Against that backdrop, the public will, at minimum, be wary of job creation numbers. I suspect that John Q. Public is suspicious of the Democrats' employment projections.
Here's another talking point:
Own and define "all of the above."It's laughable to think of the Democrats owning or defining the notion of an all of the above energy policy. I'll slice that notion to ribbons in a nanosecond. Last summer, all of the above meant increasing drilling on the OCS. It meant conservation. It meant nuclear power. It meant increasing refining capacity.
Voters support the idea of doing everything possible to reform our energy, and they have shifted in their impressions of the two parties. Where Republicans once were the party of "all of the above" during the oil crisis, now voters are more likely to
associate that approach with Democrats, who they see as the party leading the efforts for reform and new, clean sources. Since Democrats own this valuable brand, they should use it to define their clean energy policies.
It meant providing solutions to our energy needs. Eliminating fossil fuels isn't possible because wind- and solar power are nice supplements to major power plants. They aren't, and never will be, a baseline power supply.
The national energy tax is what it is. It's a tax increase masquerading as energy policy.
This talking point is almost as silly:
Describe opposition to reform as "more of the same."That's another argument they can't win, especially when we're telling people about the America Energy Act, which actually addresses clean energy issues without raising taxes.
We want to get America running on clean energy, while they want to keep doing what we're doing and stand still.
Bit by bit, the Democrats' agenda is dying. Public option health care reform is essentially dead. The Democrats' National Energy Tax was unpalatable from the start. Now it's just a matter of polishing these bills off and sending them to their respective graveyards.
Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 1:08 AM
No comments.
Real Property Tax Increases
The DFL's Whine and Misery Campaign's biggest talking point has been that Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments will drive property taxes higher. Undoubtedly, some cities will choose to raise property taxes, sometimes out of necessity, most of the time because they refuse to set priorities and say no.
One thing that isn't debatable, though, is that the DFL's refusal to undo the damage done by changes to Green Acres in the last minutes of the 2008 session have changed the landscape, both economically and physically, of rural property taxes.
During a meeting with farmers after the 2008 session, Rep. Larry Hosch told the gathering that undoing the damage of the 2008 changes would be his highest priority. The House GOP tried passing legislation that would've repealed the 2008 changes. The DFL defeated that attempt. When the session ended, a Green Acres bill was passed that improved this slightly but left alot of the damage intact.
Let's start with a simplified overview of Green Acres. Green Acres was meant to reduce property taxes on family farms. The farmer's house and yard would be assessed at city prices but the rest of the land would be assessed at the per acre price that farmland was going for. In Central Minnesota, that's approximately $800 per acre. I suspect it's much higher in southern Minnesota where the big cash crop farms sell for $2,000-$3,000 per acre.
The 2008 Green Acres bill changed that dramatically. Lands that were tilled or were used for pasture would be assessed as at per acre prices. Any land that wasn't tilled or wasn't pasture land would be assessed at the same rate as the house and yard. What's onerous about that is the fact that lands enrolled in the RIM set aside program, which are clearly farmland, would be taxed the same way that the house and yard would be taxed.
In monetary terms, that might mean a farmer's property value might jump $250,000 or more here in Central Minnesota, leaving these farmers with dramatic increases in their property tax liabilities.
As a result of those changes, many farmers decided to take big chunks of land out of CRP or RIM set asides. Instead, they chose to till those lands to avoid paying dramatic proper tax increases.
The architect of this legislation is Rep. Lenczewski, (DFL-Bloomington). Rep. Lenczewski's insistence on protecting her changes is putting family farms in a precarious position while essentially gutting successful conservation programs like RIM.
The next time you hear a suburban DFL legislator whining about higher property taxes, I'd encourage you to think that the DFL was the party that passed a law that raised property taxes and gutted a successful conservation program, then refused to undo the damage done to the family farm.
It's shameful to hear DFL leaders like Speaker Kelliher, House DFL Leader Sertich, Senate DFL Leader Pogemiller and Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark whining about higher property taxes when they've refused to undo the damage done to family farms through the Green Acres program.
It's time to state without equivocation what the DFL's priorities are. One thing that they've demonstrated with their actions is that they don't put a high priority on saving the family farm because they refuse to correct the mess they made with Green Acres.
The DFL doesn't stand for what Hubert Humphrey once envisioned: a party dedicated to Democrats, farmers and laborers. The only way I'd agree that they should keep the DFL moniker is if DFL is the acronym for the Democrats' Failed Leadership.
Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 19-Jun-09 11:00 AM
Governor Pawlenty did sign HF 1298 which contained changes to the Green Acres property tax program.
If that was insufficient, why did Mr. Hosch vote for it and why didn't the Governor veto it ?
I take it that your point is about tax fairness (which is constantly under discussion) but it's the bigger picture that must be considered.
Those that state that Property Taxes are sure to increase may NOT be zeroing in on the Agricultural segment since that is only 6.6% of the property tax revenues but instead on the Home owners (53.3%) and Industrial/Commercial (30.3%) segments. It should be noted that Agricultural gets the biggest discount from the property Market Valuation which is most unfavorably impacts the Industrial/Commercial segment.
Ag property is eligible for Minnesota's Agricultural Market Value Credit program and many farms receive subsidies as part of the Federal Ag program.
Another factor that should be noted is that taxes paid on Ag property are fully deductible as a business expense before any income taxes are calculated. Alternatively, home owners property taxes may be a significant portion of total taxes paid. As a retired individual, my property taxes are considerably more than my income taxes.
Regarding your comment "that might mean a farmer's property value might jump $250,000 or more here in Central Minnesota, leaving these farmers with dramatic increases in their property tax liabilities", please remember that dramatic increases are spread out over a number of years such that the Green Acres problem could be corrected at some time in the future.
Also, is part of the reason for the discussion of property tax increases related to cuts in LGA ? If so, are rural areas going to be impacted as significantly as urban areas in these cuts ? The Governor exempted low population counties and some cities.
As Minnesota reacts to the Governor's unallotment, a key must be to "do no harm". Frankly, Ag and Industrial are two different business segments. Ag land is a fixed business ; it cannot be "shutdown" and started-up in a lower cost country which cannot be said for Industrial businesses. Second consider the employees involved. Ag is generally a family business with few direct employees but support various local small businesses. Alternatively, Industrial companies employ many , and may provide health insurance benefits. If industrial operations have a layoff or shutdown, there is an immediate impact to the State welfare system , and it's a domino effect as those employees become restrictive with their monies that previously supported local businesses.
Although "Green Acres" may be an issue regarding tax fairness, the Legislature and Governor should be more concerned with the impact of property tax increases that will be borne by home owners and business.
Rep. Charles Boustany Interview Notes
I just finished interviewing Rep. Charles Boustany, (R-LA), on the subject of health care in general and the 'private option' provisions. Let's start with a little bit of background on Rep. Boustany.
Before he became Rep. Boustany, he was Dr. Boustany. Rep. Boustany was a practicing physician for over 20 years, with the last 14 years specializing in heart surgery.
The first thing that I asked Rep. Boustany about was what he was hearing in terms of the pace at which health care hearings would be proceeding. He said that he'd heard that Sen. Baucus had delayed his initial hearing until next week, mostly because they were balking at the high price tag, which was estimated at $1,300,000,000,000.
The word is that they won't get far with this bill until it's trimmed below $1,000,000,000,000.
Rep. Boustany said that he's hearing that the House Ways and Means Committee is having difficulties getting their act together. He said that they're having trouble figuring out which taxes to increase to pay for the high pricetag for the public option.
Another question I asked was whether there was increased public pressure being put on Blue Dog and swing district Democrats by John Q. Public. Rep. Boustany said that that's definitely happening. He reported, too, that there's alot of grumbling behind the scenes because they aren't willing to openly criticize House leadership.
The next subject we talked about was whether government was capable of efficiently administering the changing world of health care. Rep. Boustany said that, based on his personal experiences dealing with government regulators, that the answer to that question was a definite no. Rep. Boustany said that the government is incapable of the type of flexibility that's needed.
Rep. Boustany also said that the doctor-patient relationship shouldn't be discounted in these considerations. He said that doctors, working in concert with their patients, make the type of quality decisions that bureaucrats can't possibly make.
Another topic that we discussed was regulations/mandate-oriented health care vs. cafeteria-style health care. Rep. Boustany said that giving patients the widest variety of choices is the centerpiece of the Patients' Choice Act. He said that minimizing the number of mandates will drive down both health costs and health insurance premiums while giving the patients a high quality insurance policy.
He pointed out, too, that that's the best way to spur competition. Rep. Boustany said that putting a high priority on innovation, both in terms of health care and with health insurance, is a great motivator to not get complacent.
Rep. Boustany said one thing that government can do is put together a user-friendly website that tells health care consumers what policies are available from which companies. This website, we agreed, would have to be the ultimate in user friendly features and that it would have to include which hospitals and clinics do the best work for the various specialties.
Rep. Boustany said that this is likely to work because "Americans love to shop". With more people getting dissatisfied with their current health care situation each day, the greater the likelihood that these people would find such a website helpful.
Another topic that I brought up in our conversation was that the public option is nothing more than government-imposed price controls. Rep. Boustany agreed, then said that, based on his experience with Medicare and Medicaid, that this option would cause some hospitals and clinics to shut down because they can't survive on the Medicare/Medicaid payments.
If that became the rule rather than the exception, it would hurt quality dramatically. I suggested that people whose children have been diagnosed with cancer or whose parents just got diagnosed with Alzheimers want robust innovation.
That observation drew a swift and passionate response from Rep. Boustany. He said those are the types of health care consumers who want robust research programs because in some instances, it's literally the difference between life and death. He said that's especially true of heart patients.
Rep. Boustany said that having a public option included in any legislation aimed at reforming health care is likely to be counterproductive to the goal of improving America's health. I wholeheartedly agree and, based on the reports coming out of DC, so do alot of other people across the United States.
The next sign that this thing is collapsing under its own weight will be when Democrats start speaking out against a public option.
This is just speculation but I'm betting that'll happen well before the August Recess.
Finally, I'd like to thank Rep. Boustany for taking the time out of his busy voting schedule for this interview and for his Rick Curtsinger, his press secretary for getting the interview scheduled.
Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 10:46 PM
No comments.
The Height Of Arrogance
Sometimes, House Democrats have the tinniest of tin ears. After reading this post by Philip Klein of the American Spectator, I'm certain we're looking at a prime example of the Democrats arrogance. Here's what I'm talking about:
The bill also calls for the creation of a national, government-run insurance exchange, in which individuals would receive government subsidies to purchase either the government plan or chose among government-designed private plans.The common theme in my interviews with Rep. Charles Boustany and Rep. Paul Ryan was their advocating giving people the option to design their own custom health care policies. That's why the House Republicans' plan is titled the Patients' Choice Act .
This is the biggest philosophical difference between conservatives and progressives. Generally speaking, conservatives want to give people the freedom to choose what works best for them. Generally speaking, progressives think that they have to design policies because people aren't capable of thinking things through and finding the best solutions.
TRANSLATION: Conservatives trust people and put a high priority on sustaining a high level of personal liberty. On the other hand, progressives trust only wonks, which naturally means that they try controlling everything as much as possible.
QUESTION: What makes progressives think that they know what's best for me in terms of health care policies?
One of the central themes to Rep. Boustany's thinking was that the doctor-patient relationship was important in the patient getting the highest quality health care possible. Rep. Boustany said that anytime a DC bureaucrat gets in between a doctor and his patient, there's cause for concern. He's absolutely right. That's precisely when the patient should start worrying.
Klein does a great job in highlighting this part of the House Democrats' legislation:
One key fact worth highlighting: "Over time, the Exchange will be opened to all employers as another choice for covering their employees."As Klein notes, "this directly contradicts President Obama's pledge that everybody who is happy with the health care they receive can keep it." This isn't surprising, especially in light of the video that Verum Serum put together . That video, combined with CBO's scoring of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, have put the Democrats on the defensive on this issue.
That's why it's vitally important that we keep increasing the pressure by exposing the parts of the Democrats' bills that people disagree with. That's why it's vitally important that we keep increasing the pressure by highlighting the popular provisions in the Patients' Choice Act. Here's how Rep. Ryan chose to sell PCA:
"Both parties need to step up to the plate with specific solutions to our nation's health care crisis," added Ryan. "The Patients' Choice Act represents a clear alternative to those who seek to empower Washington at the expense of the individual, and I am hopeful that our efforts can help push Congress to enact a more sensible health care reform bill this year. The Patients' Choice Act proves that America can have universal health care coverage without the government running our health care system."I'll just refer you to my interviews with Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep. Charles Boustany on why they think it's important to get government out of the way. First, here's an exchange I had with Rep. Ryan:
Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?Here's what Rep. Boustany said about giving people multiple (private sector) choices:
Yes, that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions, and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
The next subject we talked about was whether government was capable of efficiently administering the changing world of health care. Rep. Boustany said that, based on his personal experiences dealing with government regulators, that the answer to that question was a definite no. Rep. Boustany said that the government is incapable of the type of flexibility that's needed.Anything that government gets its hands on, it strangles with mandates.
Rep. Boustany also said that the doctor-patient relationship shouldn't be discounted in these considerations. He said that doctors, working in concert with their patients, make the type of quality decisions that bureaucrats can't possibly make.
Another topic that we discussed was regulations/mandate-oriented health care vs. cafeteria-style health care. Rep. Boustany said that giving patients the widest variety of choices is the centerpiece of the Patients' Choice Act. He said that minimizing the number of mandates will drive down both health costs and health insurance premiums while giving the patients a high quality insurance policy.
In the end, the Democrats' public option plans will be defeated because people prefer having lots of private sector choices more than they prefer having bureaucrats and politicians putting health insurance policies together.
Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 4:33 AM
No comments.
Technology, Thirst For Liberty, Powerful Forces Against Mulllahs
Iran's mullahs, like President Ahmadinejad, once seemed too powerful to topple. Since the mullahs tried stealing the election for President Ahmadinejad, though, young people equipped with cell phones and Twitter accounts have brought the Iranian power structure to the brink of collapse.
While the outcome still hangs in the balance, there's no doubt but that the 'peasants' have the mullahs worrying. This article in the SF Chronicle raises a couple salient points:
This isn't the first uprising to tap the Internet, but it's the latest to test limits on controls and deploy new ideas to evade the government muzzle. Iran maybe the perfect place to beta-test attempts to fight a censorship lockdown. It has a lively blogger culture in a nation where two-thirds of the 70 million population are under 30 years of age. Some 45 million have cell phones and 23 million have Net access. Talk about ideal demographics.This information is the mullahs' worst nightmare and the biggest weapon in the revolutionaries' arsenal. Because secular Iran is mostly comprised with people raised entirely in the internet age, this generation is perfectly equipped to outflanked the mullahs.
Here's more important information:
Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube are the new soapboxes and organizing centers. One sign of the times: a message from the U.S. State Department to Twitter's San Francisco headquarters to delay a maintenance shutdown to a late-night hour in Tehran so anti-government tweeting wasn't halted.The use of this technology has brought the revolution to the world. I have to believe that it's also giving Iranian patriots the understanding that they aren't alone, that the world is standing with them.
"These sites didn't create a revolution," said Leslie Harris, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. "But they provide essential tools for civil rights and democracy."
Once Iran's leaders launched a crackdown on protests, a new game emerged. Twitter, with relatively few users inside Iran, became an international town square. Its avatars, the small, identifying pictures used on its pages, turned green to match the campaign color used by challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi.
That isn't insignificant. All the proof we need is Natan Scharansky's book telling the world that Ronald Reagan's words spoke to the dissidents languishing in Soviet gulags gave the dissidents the will to keep fighting for freedom. Scharansky said that there were times when the dissidents felt so encouraged that they felt like the liberated and the guards were the prisoners.
Likewise, Facebook became a rallying point. The Palo Alto-based operation was safely outside the reach of government gumshoes. YouTube and Flickr are stocked with photos and videos that the mullahs would just as soon you don't see. These new uses showed that censorship and Internet controls had the main effect of producing ingenious ways of evading the crackdown.This is a watershed moment in world history. From this moment forward, people with the will to stage revolutions will have the tools they need to rally the world to their cause.
It's also worth noting that there were reports that some of the forces sent in to break up the protests were turning a blind eye to the protests. This was the big question as recently as Friday. If more troops abandon the mullahs, chances that the revolution will be successful increase. While it's still a longshot, the revolutionaries' odds keep getting better.
Mousavi's declaration that he was willing to be a martyr for the cause has emboldened the Iranian revolutionaries, too. The young people are getting energized thanks in part to Twitter and Facebook but also by Mousavi's taking a stand.
People shouldn't underestimate what a lifechanger it is to have a shot at being liberated from oppression. For all his faults, President Bush got that part exactly right.
This article illustrates the important role that software technicians are playing in the revolution:
Rafal Rohozinski, CEO of Psiphon Inc., the man who recently led the team that busted an international cyber espionage network known as Ghostnet, and his team have been flooding Iran with secure network connections to servers located in other countries.During the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, I left a comment on a blog called the Postmodern Slog. I said then that that revolution "will be blogged." (SIDENOTE: That's how I learned about a blogger on the SCSU campus named King Banaian.) It's appropriate to say that this revolution will be tweeted.
The Iranian government strictly monitors and filters Internet connections within Iran, blocking websites such as YouTube and Twitter as well as foreign sources of news.
Psiphon's unfiltered connections are allowing Iranian citizens to get news from outside sources such as the BBC and to connect to online social media services, including Twitter and Facebook, which are being used to arrange demonstrations against the Iranian government.
"We have gone on the offensive," said Rohozinski. "Ensuring that Iranians have access to the information they need and deserve so that they can make informed decisions for themselves during this time of crisis."
Let's hope that this revolution succeeds in ways that that revolution didn't. Most importantly, let's lend our support for the Iranian patriots flooding the streets and confusing the mullahs.
Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 6:33 AM
No comments.
Strickland In Trouble?
This article suggests that Gov. Ted Strickland might be in trouble for next year's election:
How can Gov. Strickland feel good when Ohio has lost 300,000 jobs and unemployment rates are at near-record levels? What's worse is that he's signed a cap and trade bill that he admits will cause Ohio's energy costs to rise:In testimony to a committee of state lawmakers June 11, state Budget Director Pari Sabety said unemployment in Ohio could peak at 11.5 percent late next year or early 2011. In a worst-case recession, the jobless rate could hit a record 15.4 percent in 2011, Sabety said, basing her testimony on national forecasts by Moody's Investors Service.
But George Vredeveld, professor of economics at the University of Cincinnati, said there are thousands if not millions of variables that could push the monthly rate up or down, "I don't know how people can go out like this and make forecasts," he said Friday, noting that the impact of federal stimulus money coming to Ohio can't even be factored in yet. Ohio unemployment hit an all-time high of 13.8 percent in December 1982 and January 1983. Comparable monthly statistics are only available back to 1970.
When Strickland took office in January 2007, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. The Democrat is up for re-election next year. "Ohio has lost nearly 300,000 jobs on Ted Strickland's watch," said Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine of Fairborn. "He promised to turn around Ohio's economy if we elected him governor, and he failed."
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland Thursday signed into law the state's new energy bill, which while everyone says it will lead to higher energy prices in the near term will also pave the way for what a panel of economists, energy experts and advanced-energy employers said could lead to massive job growth if action to turn the tide on global warming is addressed now through a marketplace system for reducing carbon emissions known as cap and trade.None of this is good news for Gov. Strickland. According to Taegan Goddard's post , Strickland's JA Rating has dropped to 43 percent:
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Ohio finds Gov. Ted Strickland's (D) approval rating is down to 43% and he leads John Kasich (R) by just two points, 44% to 42%, in a likely 2010 contest.John Kasich has worked hard in putting a great organization together. Kasich is also a charismatic, appealing candidate on the stump. In the past, I've called him the Tim Russert of the Republican Party. I've even advocated for him to be McCain's running mate.
"Strickland has seen a decline in popularity among both Democrats and Republicans. Where previously 70% of voters within his party gave him good marks, now just 62% do. And the percentage of Republicans disapproving of him has increased from 59% to 72%. His numbers with independents are relatively steady."
Most importantly, Kasich's credentials as a common sense fiscal hawk are impeccable. Bizzyblog has it laid it out in this post :
This sentence in the played-straight AP report should be emblazoned on the forehead of every voting-age Ohioan:A bunch of new voters have grown up since John Kasich last ran for office in 1998. I suspect that his appeal with young voters will be considerable, especially once they hear about fiscally conservative credentials. Generally speaking, if there's one thing that's got young voters worried, it's Washington's out of control spending. If there's anything that Ohioans should be worried about, it's Gov. Strickland's record since getting elected in the 2006 landslide. With rising energy prices as a direct result of Gov. Strickland's cap and trade bill and with unemployment approaching Ohio's record levels, Ohio natives don't have alot to feel good about.Kasich , a 9-term Congressman from Ohio, was the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Budget Committee in 1997 that balanced the nation's budget for the first time in more than 30 years .No one else in America can make that statement.
Kasich and his committee (with his senatorial colleagues) balanced the budget. Bill Clinton did NOTHING on the spending side to balance the budget except sign the related bills. What Clinton deserves some credit for is getting on board with the supply-side capital gains tax cut in 1997 that created a gusher on the revenue side, a cut passed by the GOP Congress over strenuous objections from some Democrats.
These are exactly the types of conditions that turn politicians into one-term wonders. Combine the conditions with a charismatic, appealing opponent and it isn't difficult to envision a Kasich victory eighteen months from now.
Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 1:13 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 22-Jun-09 09:29 PM
Why doesn't anyone acknowledge the impact of Tim Penny ? As a Democrat, he worked with Kasich and challenged Clinton's tax plan ... it failed by six votes but set the tone for future years.
It's a long way until November 2010 elections, but right now Strickland appears safe. I don't know how much you know about Ohio politics, but the Republican strength is in the southern part. Strickland is from there ... he's a minister and has good NRA ratings ... Kasich was born in PA and in order to get an excellent education, he attended The Ohio State University (disclaimer, we were classmates) ... he worked hard to get elected to the State Legislature and US House (even though most people did not give him much of a chance.) His focus (as was Penny) was on fiscal issues and he challenged the GOP establishment ... like cutting spending on the B-2 Bomber ... that mentality is need in today's Congress when you have people like Rob Bishop (R-UT) who last week got the House Armed Services Committee (which includes John Kline) to add $369 million for an additional 12 F-22s which is more than DOD wants (they realize that we need equipment and personnel that will fight insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we are already staffed for a conventional conflict with Russia or China.) Bishop also got earmarks for a taxiway apron area at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and other projects tallying roughly $20 million. That's the PORK that Kline never talks about.
Kasich may have trouble with Catholics who do not like people who turn on their faith and with hunters since he supported Clinton's Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994 which outlawed some firearms.
All that said, John's a good guy and will be a good challenger for Strickland, but he may find out that "creating" jobs is very difficult in these times.
The key for Republicans will be Rob Portman and the challengers that they offer in the US House races ... Portman's coattails could carry Kasich.
NOTE : Regarding the environmental legislation that was cited, you realize that was signed in May of 2008 and was passed with the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate... and there was an election last November in which Republicans lost seats in the Ohio House delegation. As I recall, didn't Tim Pawlenty along with virtually every other Governor in the Midwest enact legislation along these lines ?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Jun-09 11:48 AM
MC, I don't often do this but I'll agree with Rep. Bishop over the DoD. Let's remember that the Obama administration is cutting spending on missile defense right when NoKo is threatening to fire a missile at Hawaii.
That's pretty stupid policy. It isn't a policy that the military experts' recommendations would be pursued.
As for Strickland, all those things are nice about him being from Southern Ohio but they don't mean diddly if unemployment is in the teens & it's costing families more to heat their homes.
Another thing that'll help John Kasick is the outstanding list of candidates the GOP will be putting forward, including Rob Portman & their AG candidate whose name escapes me right now.
It's rather odd that you're saying that Strickland's in good shape after seeing his 20 point lead disintegrate into a 2 point lead.
Some Get It, Some Don't, Some NEVER Will
Since Gov. Pawlenty announced that he'd do the job that the legislature refused to do, mayors and DFL legislators have been whining about property tax increases as though they were a fait accompli. St. Cloud's mayor, Dave Kleis, hasn't tried raising taxes even though St. Cloud's been hit with LGA cuts. Others are taking notice :
Willmar Mayor Les Heitke says the city had been anticipating possible cuts in this year's Local Government Aid from the state and planned the city's 2009 budget accordingly. Heitke says his reaction to Gov. Tim Pawlenty's unallotment of LGA to help balance the state's budget is to not panic.Mayor Heitke has learned what R.T. Rybak and Chris Coleman haven't: that setting the right priorities eliminates alot of anxiety in putting balanced budgets together. This isn't to suggest that cities and counties won't have to think outside the box to get through these difficult economic times. They certainly will.
"At least since last December when the state unalloted money to help solve its financial problem in December, we knew that that was just step one and that there'd be future steps for reduction in state aid to cities," Heitke said Wednesday.
Then again, We The People have every right to demand that mayors, city council members and county commissioners think outside the box in solving their budgetary problems. That's what they're paid to do. If they think that their job is too filled with hardships, then they should retire. I didn't promise that they'd always have na easy job. I'll bet that other voters refused to give them that assurance, either.
Here's the result of Mayor Heitke's leadership:
LGA makes up 22.1 percent of revenue in the city's 2009 budget of $20,842,162. Willmar's 2009 LGA payment of $4,596,086 will be reduced by $269,043. For 2010, Willmar's LGA payment of $4,674,125 will be reduced by $620,785.It sounds like they're prepared for the next 2 years. Meanwhile, Matt Entenza is whining that the LGA cuts will automatically cause unprecedented destruction:
Heitke said city staff, the City Council and the mayor's office prepared scenarios of how possible budget cuts starting with $500,000 up to $1 million would affect the city's 2009 budget.
Local Government Aid to cities has been cut by almost 50 percent in the six years that Pawlenty has been in office, said Entenza, most recently the head and founder of the Twin Cities progressive think tank Minnesota 2020. Cities have responded with higher property taxes.I'd love asking Mr. Entenza or these mayors whether they eliminated or reduced spending on wants to pay for the needs. I'd love asking whether the cities thought about doing things differently first instead of immediately raising taxes. I'm betting that the majority of them didn't.
"Yet he has insisted he's not raising taxes," said Entenza, the first DFL gubernatorial candidate out of the chute to travel the state to lambaste Pawlenty's unilateral budget decisions. "The reality is, in budget after budget, fees and property taxes are forced up by the direct action of Gov. Pawlenty," Entenza said.
If these cities' property taxes were raised without the mayors and city councils rethinking their spending or without reforming the delivery of essential services, then the mayors and city councils are to blame, not Gov. Pawlenty. That either makes Mr. Entenza a blowhard who'd rather blame others for his ineptitude or he's the type of candidate that refuses to think outside the box to protect Minnesota's taxpayers.
Either way, his behavior in this is unacceptable because there's no suggestion that he'll deviate from the DFL playbook of raising taxes first. We already have too many tax-first DFL 'leaders'. We certainly don't need another in St. Paul.
If Minnesota wants more busines-as-usual liberal spendaholics, that's their right. If, however, they want someone whose first priority is to fund the necessities of government without automatically raising taxes, then the choice is clear. They need to elect fiscal conservatives. They can't elect liberal majorities.
Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 9:52 AM
No comments.
President Obama Going Negative
For the second straight day, President Obama's Presidential Approval Index rating is in negative territory:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -1. Today is the second straight day the President's rating has been below zero.People are starting to express their worries about President Obama's policies, especially his spending, the Democrats' health care 'reform' proposals and his takeovers of GM and Chrysler. Young people are getting worried about the mountain of debt that President Obama is piling onto their backs.
Most voters still place the blame for our nation's economic woes on the Bush Administration, but a growing number say it's Obama's economy now. The number blaming Bush has fallen to 54% . That's down eight points from a month ago.
Normally, deficits aren't an animating issue. They are this time because they're so imposing this time. Last year's $450,000,000,000 deficit seems tiny in comparison to this year's $1,800,000,000,000 deficit. Think of Obama's deficit as deficit squared on steroids. They're beyond imagination. There's also no relief in sight.
There's more to Rasmussen's polling than just that, though. There's been a huge swing on who's to blame, too:
While most U.S. voters still blame the Bush Administration for the nation's economic problems, a growing number are inclined to blame President Barack Obama.Ed has some great analysis of the crosstabs data here :
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of voters now say the country's economic problems are caused more by the policies Obama has put in place. That's a 12-point jump from a month ago .
Nor does it look good for the future of Obama's economic policy. This question had less to do with the current crisis and more to do with Obama's policies for reversing it. A large majority believes they know better than Obama about economic issues, 60%-30%.People understand that the economy started going downhill under President Bush. That's becoming irrelevant because they hired Obama to fix what President Bush broke. People are becoming increasingly certain that President Obama's solutions have failed. The longer unemployment stays high, the more disenchantment will set in.
That's the biggest reason why President Obama is speeding up spending of the stimulus money. Still, people are frequently asking whether the price that's being paid is worth the outcomes. They're doing a cost/benefit analysis and they don't like what they're seeing.
That can still change before 2012 but it isn't helping Democrats for 2010.
Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 3:53 PM
No comments.
