March 1-3, 2010
Mar 01 07:55 Health Care Explained Mar 01 09:07 About GAMC Mar 01 14:14 The Tenth Amendment Mar 01 19:17 God Bless Sen. Bunning Mar 01 23:39 Lynn Rothschild Warned Us Mar 02 01:20 Back To the Negotiating Table Mar 02 09:23 This Time, Let's Use The Most Powerful Arguments Mar 02 10:56 Fact-Free Writing Mar 03 09:26 Kalin Retiring; Is This Why?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Health Care Explained
This paragraph from Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' WSJ op-ed explains why the Democrats' health care legislation won't control health care expenditures:
The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right.In his CPAC speech, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty used a different illustration that said the same thing. He posed this question: If I told everyone in this room that they could purchase any TV they wanted and the only requirement was that they drop off the receipt at the Minnesota governor's mansion so the state of Minnesota could reimburse you for the total cost of the TV, how many of you would buy a 12" black and white?
When money isn't the object, it's human nature that we buy expensive things. Things change dramatically when consumers have skin in the game. In Minnesota, that's at the core of the public employee unions' helath insurance plan. In Minnesota, when people go to a high quality, low cost clinic or hospital for their medical procedures, employees have a low out-of-pocket expense. If they opt for a more expensive clinic or hospital, their out-of-pocket expenses go up.
The system is working so well that those unions' helath insurance premiums have stayed flat 3 of the past 5 years.
The biggest fatal flaw with Obamacare is that the governement would tell consumers that they all had to purchase the same PPO health insurance plan, with the only difference between high end plans and low end plans being the co-pay amount. The coverages mandated by the federal government would essentially require uniformity.
What's worse is that the Democrats' health care legislation includes subsidies for rapidly-increasing insurance premiums.
The choice is simple: Americans can opt for plans in Indiana and Minnesota that are proven to reduce health care costs and stabilize health insurance premiums or they can opt for the Democrats' health care legislation that raises taxes on everyone to pay for ever-increasing health insurance premiums.
To sane-thinking people, that isn't a difficult choice. In fact, based on the polling on health care, I'd say that they've already made their decision.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are showing that they're intent on ignoring the decision that the American people have made. The good news is that we'll remind them this November that our opinion is what matters.
Posted Monday, March 1, 2010 7:58 AM
No comments.
About GAMC
According to Tim Pugmire's reporting , DFL Speaker Kelliher intends to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the GAMC bill. As expected, Speaker Kelliher isn't talking about making GAMC sustainable. She's just talking about kicking the can down the road for the next legislature to deal with. That's irresponsible. It's also what this DFL legislature does best.
The DFL is passing spending bills at a time when we're already running a steep deficit. Funding GAMC for the next 16 months without paying for it or reforming MinnesotaCare is irresponsible. Thus far, the DFL has rejected reform proposals that, if enacted, would save Minnesota $300,000,000 annually. Understandably, the DFL isn't inclined to explain why they're unwilling to reform an outdated 20th century government program.
It's unacceptable when legislators of one political party, specifically the DFL leadership, refuses to reform MinnesotaCare. In fact, David Bly's legislation would give Minnesota a single-payer system, which does nothing to lower costs on a sustainable basis.
According to a loyal reader of this blog, Gov. Pawlenty "vetoed [the GAMC] bill that irresponsibly took county money from children and vulnerable adults to extend an unsustainable program until after the election" This loyal reader noted that the DFL doesn't have a "way to pay for it after that."
Considering the fact that Minnesota is facing $6,600,000,000 in deficits in this and the next biennium, it's irresponsible that the DFL is spending money without first fixing the deficit problem first. If the legislature doesn't fix this year's deficit, GAMC won't be sustainable without a massive tax increase. That's something that Minnesota's taxpayers have rejected.
GAMC is set to end April 1. Democrats argue that moving enrollees to another state program costs more and leave some people without coverage.My first question is why moving GAMC patients onto another program would cost Minnesota's taxpayers more or why people would be left without coverage. The only thing I can think of is that that's what will happen if nothing is done to change the program, which would make my point. Why doesn't the legislature reform the program? Minnesota is one of only 3 states that are set up this way. Shouldn't we see if we can't learn from other states?
That loyal reader of this blog also highlights something else that's worth noting:
GAMC costs Minnesotans a billion dollars per two year budget, and those costs are rising 36 percent per year! Unfortunately, that money isn't delivering the primary and preventive care these people need most.Why wouldn't you reform something that's costing Minnesota's taxpayers that much money and is that out of control? That the DFL refuses to consider reforming GAMC speaks to their status quo mindset. I've said before what I'll repeat now: That's how the DFL has turned into the obstructionist majority party.
That must change because Minnesota's taxpayers can't afford the DFL's high-spending ways or their twentieth century mindset. Either the DFL changes its ways or we'll change their employment status. Minnesota's taxpayers can't afford their more-of-the-same policies. It's that simple.
Posted Monday, March 1, 2010 9:07 AM
Comment 1 by Tom at 02-Mar-10 09:13 AM
By vetoing the GAMC bill, Governor Pawlenty has set in motion a process that will result in more people being uninsured (after the shift to MinnesotaCare) and the existing enrollees costing the State more.
Paying more to cover fewer people.
And he wants to be President? His policies sound as stupid as the Bush/Cheney arguments that Saddam had WMD.
The Tenth Amendment
I can't believe I forgot to mention the Tenth Amendment implications in my post from earlier this morning. Simply put, the Democrats' health care legislation essentially renders obsolete HSAs, which directly conflicts with Indiana's robust HSA provisions.
It seems to me that that's a perfect point of contention between a state law and the Democrats' federal usurpation of Indiana's rights as a sovereign state. Let's remember that the "various states" came together to create the federal government, not vice versa. Let's remind ourselves that We The People temporarily give power to the various levels of government in limited amounts.
If you start with that premise, then the Democrats' legislation faces alot of constitutional challenges. The individual mandates was the first thing that people questioned from a constitutional stand point. Once people started questioning things from a Tenth Amendment perspective, people started questioning all of the provisions in the Democrats' health care legislation.
The result is that there's widespread support for challenging Obamacare on constitutional grounds. People don't know the Constitution that well but they know that they hate the provisions put into the Democrats' bill. They're for anything that'll negate the individual mandates and other provisions that tell them what type of health insurance they have to buy.
The bottom line is this: We should be asking Democrats if they're willing to fall on their swords for a bill whose main provisions might be ruled unconstitutional and whose other provisions can be rendered moot in future budgets. Reconciliation provisions don't last forever. They sunset just like the Bush tax cuts will.
Posted Monday, March 1, 2010 2:18 PM
No comments.
God Bless Sen. Bunning
If anyone needed proof that Democrats aren't serious about deficit reduction, the Democrats' crying over having to find $10,000,000,000 in federal budget offsets to pay for an extension of unemployment benefits is proof positive. God bless Sen. Jim Bunning for exposing the Democrats' hypocrisy :
Top Democrats tore into one of their Republican counterparts Monday for blocking an extension of unemployment benefits that would provide assistance to millions of jobless Americans.President Obama just signed into law the PayGo law that mandates that spending increases be paid for. What the Democrats' antics prove is that Democrats are essentially saying that they can't find $10,000,000,000 of spending cuts after increasing discretionary spending by almost $750,000,000,000 the past 2 years. What they're saying is that they don't think that 1 out of $75 of their new spending is pork.
The Senate adjourned last week without approving extensions of cash and health insurance benefits for the unemployed after Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, blocked the measure by insisting that Congress first pay for the $10 billion package.
If that's their belief, then the newly-minted deficit commission is a waste of the taxpayers' money.
What's really interesting is that Sen. Bunning isn't saying we shouldn't pass the unemployment extension. He's simply insisting that Congress follow the law that they passed less than a month ago and that President Obama signed into law a couple weeks ago.
If I believed the Democrats' howls, I'd believe that Sen. Bunning was the most evil man to ever inhabit the Senate. In some respects, I imagine in their thinking, he is. In their thinking, it's disgusting when a politician insists that a Democrat obey the rules the Democrats insisted on, wrote and passed. In the Democrats' minds, that's as evil as using a Democrat's words against them during a campaign.
Thanks to Sen. Bunning, the American people have proof positive that Democrats aren't serious about deficit reduction or fiscal responsibility. Thanks to Sen. Bunning, it's apparent that Democrats want to talk about fiscal responsibility without being fiscally responsible.
That's a message I'll repeatedly hammer the Democrats on. If the Democrats aren't willing to walk the walk, then I'll exponse them as only caring that they talk the talk. That won't play well in a TEA Party world.
Posted Monday, March 1, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 01-Mar-10 07:55 PM
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/thanks-jim.html
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 02-Mar-10 12:10 AM
Gary:
Just think about this. With a 4 trillion dollar budget $10 billion dollars is just .25% of spending.
How can you not be able to cut .25% of spending. That's why they need to do all these massive tax increases.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Lynn Rothschild Warned Us
Back in September and October, 2008, Lynn Rothschild tried warning America that an Obama administration would be a disaster. Now she's written an op-ed in the NY Post reminding America of her warnings and why she reached the decision to support John McCain:
Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, "I love my country more than my party." Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.President Obama frequently talked like a moderate. Frequently, President Obama outlined his radical agenda in soothing tones. It isn't surprising that he's turned out to be the radical I feared he'd be. Unfortunately, the United States Constitution doesn't have a recall provision in it. If it did, President Obama might be the first president to be recalled.
The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama's fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, "We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America." But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.President Obama shied away from living up to his rhetoric. Just like Democrats are shying away from living with the PayGo law, President Obama is utterly bashful in terms of being a post-partisan president. In fact, he's possibly the most bitterly partisan president since LBJ, which is saying something considering President Clinton's frequent displays of bitter partisanship.
Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised "the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business," a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, "We need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." They were specific, sensible promises-ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.Everything in his past told us that President Obama would be a leftist Alinsky-trusting radical. Personally, I always thought he'd be incompetent and unethical, too. You can't be ethical when you grow up politically in the Chicago political machine. It isn't likely that you'll be competent when your public policy instincts lean towards Alinsky-style radicalism and you're only 200 days in session removed from the Illinois state Senate.
Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted "present" on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.
His performance in the debates, first against Hillary, then against McCain was pathetic if you took away the style points. Bill Clinton was a polished policy wonk by the time he stepped onto the national stage. President Obama? Not at all.
It's vitally important that we elect a GOP majority to provide the proper counterbalance to President Obama's radicalism. Fortunately, that looks more than possible.
Posted Monday, March 1, 2010 11:43 PM
Comment 1 by Chad at 02-Mar-10 07:46 AM
I love reading your stuff because it's exactly what I am usually thinking myself, only a little more in depth.
It amazes me how many people couldn't see through the fluff during the election and are now wondering what happened because this isn't the guy they voted for.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 04-Mar-10 08:10 AM
Obama is flawed, but he is what we have. Surely a progressive would have been better than this middle of the road administrator, who has to be prodded in an election year to finally lead. Then he leads to a sorry insurance-industry give away bill instead of reform. He has been a disappointment. GOP lite.
But seeing the Siefert-Emmer-Pawlenty situation, what real choice is there but to hold one's nose and vote DFL?
Back To the Negotiating Table
Thanks to the House GOP's sustaining Gov. Pawlenty's veto, the DFL will now be forced to start negotiating in good faith with Gov. Pawlenty. Monday, the House GOP told Speaker Kelliher, Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller and the DFL that they'll need to reform GAMC to put it on a more sustainable, efficient path and that they'll need to fix the budget deficit first.
Here's what the Strib's Mike Kaszuba reported :
The DFL-controlled House lurched toward the vote even after Republicans vowed to uphold Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a plan that would have resurrected General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) before it expires April 1.House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers emphasized that this simply means reaching a bipartisan solution rather than the DFL's my-way-or-the-highway solution:
The state now will forge ahead with plans to transfer 32,000 people from the program to MinnesotaCare, a subsidized insurance program that requires participants to jump through more hoops and offers less coverage. Pawlenty and legislators are scheduled to return to the bargaining table Tuesday morning to see if there's a better option for GAMC, whose enrollees include many who are homeless, veterans or who suffer from addiction and mental illness.
"This wasn't a vote for an override; it was a vote to continue the negotiations," said House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove.If the DFL wants a solution rather than just a political victory, they'll return to the negotiating table with a different attitude. That's far from certain considering Speaker Kelliher's gubernatorial aspirations ride largely on the outcome and Leader Pogemiller being, well, Larry Pogemiller. I'm not holding my breath on that happening, especially after learning that the DFL will now pursue a legal path:
The fight could enter the courtroom as House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and other DFL leaders hinted that a legal challenge from groups representing the poor was imminent.Speaker Kelliher is obviously intent on upping the ante, most likely because it'll help her in her run for the DFL's gubernatorial endorsement. Saying that she's got a conflict of interest is understatement. That the DFL is pursuing a legal path indicates that they aren't interested in reforming Minnesota's health care system. It says that they're interested in their status quo policies.
Kelliher did not identify who would mount the fight but said, "I would not be surprised if someone in the next 24 hours files something to create an injunction to stop the 'auto enrollment' from going forward." MinnesotaCare was designed as a program for lower-income working families, sustained by paid premiums and a tax paid on provider visits.
This isn't surprising. I noticed that mindset last winter. Here's what I said then:
The DFL is lining up their special interest allies to flood these meetings and paint a picture of abject horror. They want their allies to savage Gov. Pawlenty's budget proposal while painting a picture of unending misery.The DFL is the face of corrupt obstructionism. They worry more about funding their special interest allies' programs than they worry about their constituents back in their districts. I've said before that reform is a 4-letter word with the DFL. Their decision to take legal action rather than negotiate a common sense reform that would bring stability to Minnesota's budget.
What's missing is most telling. What's missing from Rep. Pelowski's email is his imploring his constituents to talk about reforming the way things are done. That's because there isn't proof that reforms are part of the DFL's agenda. Quite the opposite, actually. There's ample proof that their motto is 'Keep doing what we've been doing'.
Rep. Matt Dean has a proposal that would reform GAMC. Rep. Dean's plan would:
- extend GAMC to the end of the biennium, then institute a new plan to take the place of GAMC;
-
end a government program that does not work and
direct the commissioner to conduct a census of enrollees to determine eligibility, and eliminate folks who do not belong there to reduce cost. - Institute coordinated care to better serve chronically ill and has counties share in the cost risk/savings.
Saving $350,000,000 annually on MinnesotaCare and saving money through Rep. Dean's reform package would do alot to stabilize Minnesota's skyrocketing health care programs. That, by the way, is the fatal flaw with the DFL's plan. The bill that the House GOP sustained would've spent an additional $170,000,000 dollars at a time when we have a $1,200,000,000 deficit.
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars that we don't have on programs that aren't efficient says everything about the DFL's lack of fiscal discipline. Speaker Kelliher was telling tall tales in January, 2007, when she told a Strib reporter that the DFL was "a fiscally moderate caucus." They're nothing of the sort. They're a fiscally reckless caucus.
This is something that I find highly objectionable:
GAMC advocates, at a news conference, put forward victims who have counted on the program. The Rev. Grant Stevensen of St. Matthew's Lutheran Church in St. Paul took aim at the governor. "Governor, please stop talking to us about God," he said, referring to Pawlenty's recent political speeches, in which he says that "God's in charge."Rev. Stevensen, what's so moral about continuing a program that wastes hundreds of millions of the taxpayers' dollars? Didn't Christ demand that we be good stewards with the money He gives us? Rev. Stevensen, if you want to be a real leader, shouldn't you favor plans that cover the weakest amongst us while saving Minnesota's taxpayers money?
As a person of faith, I find Rev. Stevensen's statements reprehensible. This shouldn't be a situation where the DFL's plan is automatically considered the best way to cover the neediest amongst us. Covering the people who need it at the best prices seems like a no-brainer to me, both from a compassion standpoint and from a stewarship standpoint.
Posted Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:28 AM
Comment 1 by King at 02-Mar-10 07:23 AM
The DFL actually could negotiate in good faith or negotiate as a ploy to get political advantage. It doesn't necessarily follow that they will bend to what Pawlenty is trying to get them to do -- forge a new program to replace GAMC. Costs are always costs to someone, and health care costs are not costs to DFL legislators.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-10 07:58 AM
King, That's true but if they don't work towards improving these programs, I'll be there to make them pay a political price for not being the taxpayers' friend.
Comment 3 by Senyordave at 02-Mar-10 09:11 AM
I completely agree with Reverend Stevenson asking Pawlenty to stop lecturing people about God. Pawlenty was elected governor of the state, not surrogate for God.
Pawlenty, do your job!
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 02-Mar-10 09:34 AM
Oh how glorious is the mind of a liberal. The "efficiencies" of GAMC do not matter. The dollars do not matter. Unsustainability does not matter. That the people getting GAMC can still get health care, or that there are those who shouldn't be getting it at all don't matter.
What matters is that they had good intentions, and they "did something" for the poor (and TO the taxpayers, but that doesn't matter). It could have been any other thing-- suicide parlors, free booze, it doesn't matter-- so long as it was their good intention to "help the poor." When Republicans try to raise common sense issues, they threaten the DFLer's high moral opinion of himself. Horror!
This Time, Let's Use The Most Powerful Arguments
Ever since the Democrats have said that they're prepared to use reconciliation to pass health care, conservatives have tried various arguments to persuade Democrats from voting for final passage. It's time that they got serious.
Most of the arguments center on the Democrats' getting defeated the first Tuesday in November. That hasn't worked particularly well as near as anyone can tell. That's probably because many Democrats are willing to sacrifice their political careers to be part of achieving the Democrats' holy grail.
This time, let's ask them to consider a different scenario. Bear with me a bit while I explain where I'm coming from.
When the United States and the Soviet Union both developed nuclear weapons, MAD prevented them from using them. Their desire to survive kept them from pushing the button. As long as both nations wanted to live long lives, things didn't appreciably change much.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, a new 'biggest threat' to the United States emerged in the form of jihadists. Since they aren't afraid to die, a different approach had to be adopted. Deterrence doesn't work because the jihadists are prepared to die.
The Democrats aren't jihadists but they are perfectly willing to lose their political careers for getting universal health care passed. But what if they lose their political careers and Republicans undo their holy grail?
The Democrats' bills have numerous constitutionally questionable provisions in them. First among them is the individual mandate. Another is the mandate that eliminates HSAs. What would happen if we told Democrats that those things will be challenged in court and that they're likely to be ruled unconstitutional?
At that point, the Democrats' bill would be essentially gutted. It's also important that Republicans run on the issue of repealing Obamacare down to the last regulation, every new tax and the each new bureacracy.
Shouldn't we tell them that they're losing their careers for nothing? They know that the Democrats' health care legislation isn't popular and getting more unpopular. That trend isn't likely to turn anytime soon, meaning it will be a potent political weapon, especially in election years.
The other argument I'd make is to the so-called DLC types. I'd ask them how they like being told what to do by the wild-eyed MoveOn.org types. It's a safe bet that they don't.
Now's the time to start using these arguments. America can't afford Obamacare.
Posted Tuesday, March 2, 2010 9:25 AM
No comments.
Fact-Free Writing
If someone was to award a prize for fact-free reporting, Dana Milbank's column would be the prohibitive favorite. Here's what Milbank wrote about Jim Bunning:
In his 17 years pitching in the big leagues, Jim Bunning was known for his graceful curveball, his rising slider and his sidearm fastball. Now 78 years old and about to retire from the Senate, the Republican of Kentucky is apparently down to only one pitch: the screwball.It's wonderful writing. The only problem is that it's a bald-faced lie. As I wrote here , Bunning isn't trying to stop unemployment. He's just been insisting on the Senate following the recently passed PayGo laws, which requires that Congress pay for new spending increases by cutting spending elsewhere or raising taxes.
For four days, he has been on a one-man campaign to cut off unemployment benefits, kick the unemployed off of health insurance, cut Medicare payments to doctors, deny satellite TV to rural Americans, shut down federal flood insurance and highway projects, and furlough thousands of federal workers.
Milbank is right in saying that the legislation has provisions in it for health care for the unemployed, etc. What he got wrong is that Sen. Bunning was attempting to defeat the bill. I know because I saw footage of Sen. Bunning on the Senate floor saying that he favors passing the bill the minute the Senate includes $10,000,000,000 of offsets to pay for the bill.
Then again, to these Democrats, cutting spending even by that tiny amount, in comparison to the federal budget, is probably analogous to defeating the bill. It's obvious that the Democrats aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They're only interested in appearing to be fiscally responsible.
Democrats can hardly believe the gift Bunning has given them by single-handedly shutting down these popular programs. Bunning's fellow Republicans are aghast.TEA Party activists, many of whom are independents, living in the Heartland are rejoicing at Sen. Bunning's standing up for the rule of law and fiscal sanity. Far from being a political gift for Democrats, this is a political gift for Republicans, a gift they'll cash in the first Tuesday this November.
While I don't doubt that some Senate Republicans are trembling after insisting on following the law, that speaks more to their spinelessness and their worry that the network news can hurt them politically more than the Right Blogosphere can help them with the folks. It's time they stopped being afraid of their shadows and started acting like profiles in courage.
They should know that the Dana Milbanks of the world don't have the influence that they once did. They aren't totally uninfluential but they aren't kingmakers anymore either.
On deck was Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, who asked for the 10th time for the Senate to approve, by unanimous consent, a temporary measure that would avoid the furloughs and the cutoff of unemployment benefits and highway funds. "I object!" Bunning called out from the rear of the chamber, raising his right hand.God knows why Harry Reid thinks the things he thinks. The man is borderline insane. By making that over-the-top statement, Sen. Reid is admitting that Democrats don't want to cut spending or act responsibly. He's admitting that Democrats aren't capable of governing. Sen. Reid might gain a temporary victory but he's certain to get his backside kicked this November, when he'll become the second majority leader who will get defeated in 6 years.
Reid was almost gleeful. "The fact is my friends on the other side of the aisle are opposing extending unemployment benefits for people who are out of work," he said.
That's what's known as winning a skirmish and losing the war.
Dana Milbank is probably an educated man but he isn't a particularly bright man. He certainly isn't a man of reporting integrity. That's why he's fast becoming Washington's version of Nick Coleman, the fanatical Strib columnist.
Posted Tuesday, March 2, 2010 11:03 AM
No comments.
Kalin Retiring; Is This Why?
Yesterday, Jeremy Kalin announced that he was retiring from the Minnesota Legislature after getting the HD-17B endorsement. Could this post have played a role in that decision?
First the news about Kalin's announcement:
Rep. Jeremy Kalin (DFL-North Branch) announced March 2 that he will not seek re-election for a third term in District 17B this November. Kalin said in a press release that he wants to focus more on family, than state politics.While I don't doubt the sincerity of Rep. Kalin's statement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Kalin's environmental policies were wearing thin in the district. I'd heard that Wyoming Mayor Sheldon Anderson was likely to defeat him this election this cycle anyway, especially with this being a strong GOP cycle already.
"My wife and I were married during my first year in office. For two and a half years, we've managed the very hectic life of a State Representative from Chisago County and an ob-gyn physician delivering babies 45 miles away in Minneapolis," he said. "We've decided to take a break from campaigns and elected office and enjoy our lives together while we can still call ourselves 'newlyweds.'"
I suspect that Rep. Kalin's environmental policies were wearing thin, especially with the Climategate scandal breaking. The NY Times post likely didn't help, either:
To meet the Obama administration's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.Each drip of that type of information would've hurt Kalin. His policies simply wouldn't have been defensible. Coupling that with his voting for the DFL's tax increases, it would've been an uphill fight for Rep. Kalin.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget for fiscal 2010.
Considering President Obama's waning popularity, this information wouldn't have helped either:
During his run in office Kalin was active in environmental issues. In 2009, Kalin was selected by the White House to chair CLEAN, the national Coalition of Legislators for Energy Action Now. He attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark last December.While that information wouldn't have been enough to defeat Rep. Kalin, it's just the drip, drip, drip of negative press that Rep. Kalin wouldn't need in a difficult election cycle.
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2010 9:26 AM
Comment 1 by Bob Barrett at 04-Mar-10 10:17 AM
Jeremy Kalin has decided not to seek re-election to represent the citizens of Chisago County at the state capitol. As a Repulican candidate for this same office, I respect the decision Mr. Kalin has made.
There has been a definite shift in the attitude of Chisago County residents away from liberal tax and spend policies to policies that are more financially responsibile.
Over the past couple of years we have seen higher gas taxes, higher sales taxes and even higher property taxes at the same time that property values have fallen. Even with these higher taxes we still have a deficit of about $1 Billion dollars.
The decision by Mr. Kalin may be the result of an honest look at the anger that voters have shown already in 2010 to policies that don't put the interests of middle class families first.
I wish Mr. Kalin well in his future endeavors.
Bob Barrett
Republican candidate, MN state house 17B
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Mar-10 10:39 AM
Fair enough. If you know, will the Republican candidates abide by the endorsement process?
Comment 2 by Bob Barrett at 05-Mar-10 11:43 AM
Gary
I can't speak for any other candidate, but I plan on abiding by the endorsement process. This is why.
We have already had a county convention in which each candidate had a chance to communicate his thoughts on the issues. We have had one candidate forum already and have two more scheduled, plus we have the endorsement convention on April 17 in addition to the opportunity each of us has to talk with the delegates privately. Barring a tie at the convention, the opportunities we will have had to communicate who we are and what we stand for (for me, social and fiscal conservatism based on a private sector background in finance, budgeting and fiscal analysis) should be sufficient to not have to go to a primary.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-10 12:00 PM
Bob, Thanks for that follow-up information.
