March 10-13, 2010
Mar 10 09:28 Finally, The Trance Is Broken Mar 10 07:01 Matt Dean, Erin Murphy & GAMC Reform Mar 11 01:13 President Obama: One Term Wonder? Mar 10 13:42 Democrats Plan: Welcome to the Banana Republic Mar 11 02:29 Meet Sanu Patel-Zellinger Mar 11 09:45 This Spin Is Nauseating Mar 13 15:36 President, Pelosi Get Sober Advice Mar 11 16:55 The Slaughter Solution Is Dead Mar 12 03:15 Melendez Accuses Tom Emmer of Being Principled?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Finally, The Trance Is Broken
In 2008, Big Business crawled in bed with the Obama campaign, figuring that if they played nice, they'd get preferential treatment when President Obama started implementing his radical agenda. They quickly found out that they weren't getting preferential treatment. they quickly realized that they weren't dinner guests but that they were THE MENU . Based on this AP article , they're making a clean break from the Obama administration:
Major business groups say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is a job killer, and they're launching a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to take that message to voters.This is a potentially major development. These organizations will likely run ads in districts inhabited by supposedly moderate Democrats. Anyone who's read this blog knows that I think these so-called Democratic moderates are spineless. Pressuring them will change their opinions because they are spineless. This time, though, the pushback will come from people who want health care defeated.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and groups ranging from contractors to retailers said Tuesday the Democratic health care bills would raise their expenses, while failing to control health care costs.
Advertisements will start airing nationwide Wednesday on cable television and shift in a few days to 17 states, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats whose votes are critical to passing the bill in the House. The campaign is estimated to cost between $4 million and $10 million, with the insurance industry paying part of the cost.
The Democrats' health care reform legislation isn't reform. It's just bigger government control. That's a major problem. Here's what Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen wrote about Obamacare's difficulties:
When the president responds that the plan is deficit neutral, he runs into a pair of basic problems. The first is that voters think reducing spending is more important than reducing the deficit . So a plan that is deficit neutral with a big spending hike is not going to be well received.When I spoke with Norm Coleman in November about health care , he made the point that Republicans were making a mistake talking only about CBO scores. Here's what he said:
But the bigger problem is that people simply don't trust the official projections. People in Washington may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office, but 81% of voters say it's likely the plan will end up costing more than projected. Only 10% say the official numbers are likely to be on target.
As a result, 66% of voters believe passage of the president's plan will lead to higher deficits and 78% say it's at least somewhat likely to mean higher middle-class taxes. Even within the president's own political party there are concerns on these fronts.
Norm: we sound like detached accountants. And debt is a new phenomena-when the word trillion got into the lexicon, things changed. We need to let folks know that it's going to cost them more, it's going to raise their taxes, and it's going to crush their kids future,and for what???? to solve part of a problem?Instead of talking about CBO scoring, Norm said we'd be better off arguing about the cost of the Democrats' health care legislation, both in terms of cost to the federal budget and to families. Mssrs. Schoen and Rasmussen's polling proves that that's the right approach.
Deficit neutrality doesn't move voters. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. The American people know that it isn't difficult to make something look fiscally responsible. All that's needed is a ton of major tax increases to offset the outrageous spending contained in the Democrats' health care bill.
Another argument I'd be making is that states like Minnesota and Indiana have already figured out how to bring health care and health insurance costs down without increasing taxes or growing bureaucracy or bankrupting the country.
It's worth noting that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid have stopped talking about deficit neutrality. They've stopped arguing about how many uninsured will be covered. They've certainly stayed away from talking about the Republicans' superior reforms.
Now that businesses see the risk ObamaCare imposes on them, they've switched sides in this debate. I'm certain that President Obama will criticize the special interests for attempting to stop health care reform. There's just a couple problems with that theory.
First, the Democrats' legislation isn't reform. Second, the American people are attempting to shut this debate down. If not for the Democrats' insistence, the bill would've died and businesses would've started hiring again.
Posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:34 AM
No comments.
Matt Dean, Erin Murphy & GAMC Reform
Matt Dean must've done something very right last week. For those not keeping score at home, Matt Dean spearheaded the House GOP team that brokered last Friday's GAMC reform agreement. That's my conclusion after reading Lori Sturdevant's column , a column in which she rightly praises Matt Dean and Erin Murphy:
A commendable thing happened last week after the Minnesota House failed to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the bill preserving General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) for the very poor: The two House members leading their respective parties' efforts on the matter, DFL Rep. Erin Murphy and GOP Rep. Matt Dean, just kept working.This reform is proof of the Republicans' commitment to reforming Minnesota's health care safety net while saving Minnesota's taxpayers millions of dollars. Most importantly, the agreed upon reform brings heightened accountability to the system to guarantee better outcomes for the people currently enrolled in GAMC. Here are some of the basics of the agreement:
Constructively, too. On Friday, a deal was struck that has the blessing of the Legislature's top leaders in both parties. It's expected to go to the full House and Senate this week.
For that turnaround to be accomplished so soon after a veto and failed override scoured the veneer of bipartisan good feeling off of this session is remarkable.
Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs), Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Medical Homes are terms for a care model we are moving toward for this patient population. Despite technical differences, people use these terms interchangeably. Basically it is a way to connect unconnected providers to make sure people are getting care that gets them back on their feet instead of racking up revenue.Giving hospitals and clinics the affirmative responsibility and the global budget to care for the poorest of the poor means greater accountability. It also gives each hospital an incentive to experiment on what works best. If a CCO, ACO or medical home does a great job, we'll know. Ditto if they don't do such a great job.
The agreement reached stops auto enrollment for two additional months. In that time period, 17 hospitals set up coordinated care systems. In agreeing to this, hospitals assume the cost of caring for GAMC patients for an intensive coordinated care delivery model for six months. They will have the incentive to find the most appropriate program (VA, MA, MNCare etc) the patient qualifies for and get them there quickly. Hospitals will have a disincentive to admit patients, and an incentive to keep them on their medications and get them healthy and stable.
The fact that this legislation establishes an accountability framework proof that Matt Dean, Erin Murphy and the GOP team of Dean, Steve Gottwalt, Laura Brod and Jim Abeler had the right priorities. They set as their top priorities improving life for the people currently on GAMC while improving accountability to Minnesota's taxpayers.
I can't stress that enough because only a week ago, DFL legislators were making dire predictions about GAMC :
Less than two weeks ago, the Legislature approved a veto-override majority GAMC solution that created a reformed GAMC program at a lower cost to taxpayers. Minnesotans, taxpayers, and hospitals expected better than they got today from elected leaders who chose to uphold the Governor's veto rather than give immediate attention to those in need.Larry Haws wasn't the only DFL politician who painted a doomsday picture of what would happen after the House GOP upheld Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the original bill.
This is another important point to consider:
Hospitals in particular pushed the need for a fix. 70% of GAMC patients are seen in the Metro, and the majority of those at Regions and Hennepin. The vast majority are seen at 12 hospitals around the state. Put another way, 99.5% of Minnesota is not on GAMC.The turnover rate of people using GAMC is high, with turnover of 90 percent being the 'norm'. That the legislators worked with hospitals is additional testimony to their commitment to improving outcomes for the patients. That should be applauded all across Minnesota.
Prior to this, Matt Dean wasn't a high profile GOP politician, though he was always a highly competent legislator. The fact that Lori Sturdevant has written glowingly of his efforts means that Matt Dean will no longer work in anonymity. Talking with various GOP team members, each point to Matt as the leader of the team in the GAMC negotiations.
Well done, Matt. On behalf of Minnesota's taxpayers, I'll say thank you.
Posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:01 AM
No comments.
President Obama: One Term Wonder?
There are several thousand political lifetimes left between today and Election Day, 2010. That means there are tens of thousands of political lifetimes left between today and the next presidential election. Still, Scott Rasmussen's polling must be causing Mr. Axelrod to drink Maalox by the bottle:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.as bad as those numbers are, these numbers should scare Chris van Hollen and Robert Menendez:
Forty-two percent (42%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 72% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 17% Strongly Approve and 45% Strongly Disapprove.I've been around politics long enough to know that the president's party does exceptionally poorly when that president is that unpopular with independents. That president is like an anchor around their necks. It's the type of weight that can't be escaped from.
What's worse for Rep. van Hollen is that Speaker Pelosi is tying another anchor around their necks. Technically, that anchor is called deeming, which I wrote about here . In the real world, news like that make people worry whether it's the first step on a slippery slope to becoming a banana republic.
The most important thing to take from these numbers is that Democrats are hugely unpopular with independents. The next most important thing to take from these numbers is that, if Republicans outwork the Democrats, they've got a legitimate chance at winning an historic victory this November.
Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:17 AM
Comment 1 by Mr R. M. Griffin at 20-Apr-10 07:39 PM
As the son of an Americam serviceman and an Australian mother, I deplore the current state of the USA. Your article gives some hope that there are still enough sane Americans to throw out those Democrat monsters and without too much hyperbole "Save civilisation."
Democrats Plan: Welcome to the Banana Republic
If I hadn't read it, I'd never have believed that Pelosi's Democrats are actually considering a way to pass the Senate's health care bill without voting on it . Here's what they're planning:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.This is exceptionally warped. This is what's done in banana republics, not in the People's House. Then again, it's Louise Slaughter's idea. She's the representative from the Blair House Summit who talked about someone who was without health insurance so she used her dead sister's dentures.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Here's more information on what they're considering:
The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.If you're represented by a Democrat, I'd strongly suggest that you walk into th at Democrat's local office and tell them that this representative had better vote against this bill. I can't urge this strongly enough.
The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter's scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply "deeming" the Senate bill passed in the House, without an actual vote by members of the House.
Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan and Paul Wellstone would be hopping mad if their Democratic Party even considered such a tactic. They wouldn't hesitate in speaking out against Rep. Slaughter. In fact, I'd bet that they'd march into her office and read her the riot act, then demand that Democrats stand for voting and democracy, not for 'deeming'.
Democrats voting for the changes under this rule would be voting for ramming health care legislation down our throats. We won't let them say that they were just voting for the changes. Based on the Democrats' information, they'd be voting for the Senate bill AND for the House changes.
That's the type of thing that thugs would attempt. If the Democrats try pulling off this stunt, then Republicans should run day and night on this issue alone. Republicans should use this as EXHIBIT A as proof of the Democrats' corruption. It's just that simple.
This morning, Dick Morris said something in his latest column that caught my attention:
Before this last, demented attempt to pass health care, the Democrats would have lost control of the House anyway. But with it, they face the loss of a historically high number of seats, perhaps more than 80.When I read that, I thought 80 was unreachable. If the Democrats pull off this stunt, I'd think that Morris was a pessimist. This naked power grab will infuriate the people. They'll turn out in droves to vote out the thugs that either actively participated in or sat silently by while this happened. The American people will tolerate alot but they won't tolerate Speaker Pelosi and President Obama turning the People's House into a banana republic.
In the end, the Democrats' stunt will lead to an historic electoral slaughter of Democrats nationwide this November.
Posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:54 PM
Comment 1 by Paula Tyler at 10-Mar-10 07:59 PM
Who would ever have thought in the United States of America that we would see outright buying and selling of votes in our Congress, openly obvious backroom deals,and an agenda being pushed instead of working on getting our economy out of the hole it is in and getting people back to work - Not creating job bills, that never create jobs! Great Post!
Meet Sanu Patel-Zellinger
Last night, Sanu Patel-Zellinger sat down for an interview with me. For those who don't recognize Sanu's name, she's the GOP endorsed candidate for HD-40B. Sanu's story is an inspiring one. Her task is seemingly daunting, with her opponent being Ann Lenczewski.
I was impressed with Sanu's answers, especially when she spoke about how Minnesota is losing job: "Right now, we are losing some companies to other states. TCF moved out of Minnesota. The other thing is to make it easy for those owners to run their business.
While some regulation is necessary, we need to make sure that the consequence of the regulation does not hamper the growth of business."
As the senior manager of international merchandising at Best Buy, Sanu certainly is aware of Minnesota's business climate. In fact, I'd argue that she has a better understanding of business-related issues than Rep. Lenczewski has. One thing I'm positive of is that she'd hit the ground running if elected.
Sanu's answer to my question on business regulation impressed me, too. Here's her answer:
Regulation must first and foremost pass the 'consequence test' of making sure we will not hurt jobs and growth of business. Good intent is a start, good consequences is a must.Too often, Democrats pass the 'good intentions' test but fail miserably with the 'good results' test. I wanted to know if there was something that guided Sanu's decisionmaking in this regard. I was impressed with her answer:
All regulations tied to jobs, taxes and education would be my first focus. Also, in general, while we need regulations, we need to make sure they provide the desired consequences and also are constitutional .The fact that Sanu considers it important that regulations are constitutional is impressive. All too often, Democrats put in place regulations that hamper lower levels of government, often in the form of unfunded mandates. These unfunded mandates often turn mayors into city administrators, automatons rather than decisionmakers.
I want someone who will fight against unfunded mandates and overreaching government. I'm betting that most conservatives and independents do, too.
When I said that "government has a way of overstepping", Sanu replied by saying "As legislators, we are promising to serve the public. So it would be the responsibility of those in office creating and approving laws to make sure they uphold the rights the Constitution provides every American."
I find it impressive that Sanu starts from the perspective that she's a public servant. It's also impressive that, if she was elected, would take seriously her affirmative responsibility to guarantee that the laws that get passed " uphold the rights the Constitution provides every American ."
After interviewing her, I strongly recommend that people in HD-40B help elect Sanu Patel-Zellinger. Find out how you can help by visiting Sanu's website and finding out what volunteer opportunities you can help with.
I know from my previous post that Sanu's support is strong. That's what I found most impressive initially. After interviewing her, the most impressive attribute for me is her attitude that she's a public servant first. Visit Sanu's website and find out what you find most impressive about her. You'll be glad you did.
Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:29 AM
Comment 1 by Nancy Zellinger at 12-Mar-10 10:46 AM
Sanu has a good head on her shoulders. She will definitely be a great asset to the Republican party with her business knowledge. Thank you, Gary, for this interview. It helps to shine a light on Sanu and the election.
Comment 2 by Suresh Patel at 15-Mar-10 11:09 AM
I am comfident that Sanu will do what
she says.
Comment 3 by Shaun M. McHale at 15-Mar-10 11:51 AM
Sanu is a true breath of fresh air. She has actually worked outside the home. She not only knows, but also understands, the difficulties businesses face in Minnesota. Sanu clearly sees that the state continues to force companies to relocate to other states in order to survive the restrictions and regulations our state government imposes.
Sanu is absolutely correct when she speaks of "good intentions" verses "good results." Everyone has "good intentions", but you must have the awareness to look beyond the "good intentions" to see what the true ramifications of your "good intentions" could be. Sanu knows that this lack of understanding has driven many of our businesses out of state or eliminated them altogether.
I'm very concerned about our giant state deficit and high rate of unemployment. Both of these could be reduced or even eliminated by the state government working to cooperate with businesses instead of being actively hostile towards them. Sanu will provide a logical and constitutional voice to enable businesses to come back to the state and bring jobs with them. Helping people get back to work has to be the state government's top priority. If we do this, it will broaden the tax base which will help the state reduce the state deficit.
Sanu has articulated her passion to be a true public servant, and also champion to uphold the rights the Constitution provides every American. I know she warrants not only our monetary support but also our help by volunteering on her campaign in the upcoming election.
Comment 4 by Carole and Laddie Zellinger at 19-Mar-10 11:16 PM
It is expected we'd support Sanu in her campaign because she is our daughter-in-law. But we support her because of her beliefs, work ethic, determination and other reasons. We can't directly vote for her because we live in Wisconsin. Have participated in all levels of government and in projects for the benefit of our community, state, nation and world. Sanu's beliefs match our strong beliefs in right and wrong, in working to support ourselves and to help those who are in need.
Mother-in-law jokes would not fit my wife's belief in Sanu. When I
casually suggested a donation to Sanu's campaign, my wife immediately and enthusiastically stated a donation 10 times more!
That is how strongly she believes in Sanu!
Comment 5 by Nancy Losier at 06-Apr-10 01:42 PM
Sanu was endorsed by our House District and we are excited to have her running for Legislature against the current representative. Her opponent has slid to a new low on the Taxpayer's League rankings. When she started in office, her percentage of friendliness to the taxpayer was 85%, and it has gradually deteriorated to it's present low of 0%. Yes, that is zero percent! Because she is Chairwoman of the Tax Committee, this makes this an even more pathetic fact! This ought not to be!!
Sanu has an inside look at how this tax attitude affects businesses! That a company as large as Best Buy would still be in Minnesota is a miracle! The only reason must be that they are pretty savvy in avoiding the worst that Minnesota tax laws are requiring of them. Ann Lenczewski actually told a town hall meeting this winter that the companies that leave Minnesota were "traitors", and should just stay and pay. This represents a hard line that shows up in other areas of Ann's intentions regarding taxation. For instance she wants to remove the tax deduction for home loan interest payments! Many home owners would be devastated if this deduction was removed, because it gives them just enough cash flow to be able to afford to keep their homes.
Sanu has the business sense and the heart for this job, and will be an excellent "servant of the people" in the Minnesota Legislature. Find out how you can support her candidacy with your dollars as well as your time. See her website or contact her personally, and remember her name on November 2, 2010!
Thank you,
Nancy Losier
SD40 Co-Chair
Republican Party of Minnesota
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-10 02:27 PM
Nancy, Thanks for endorsing Sanu. I've interviewed Sanu & I'm impressed. Rep. Lenczewski has either gotten pushed around by House DFL leadership, aka Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, or she's really that much of an ideologue. Either way, she's got to go.
Comment 6 by David Fromfortyb at 10-Sep-10 08:49 PM
I guess this explains a little bit about Sanu, however I am annoyed with the idea that Ann Lenczewsky will not uphold the rights of every American. Also, any regulation will by nature will affect the growth of business in some way. All of this just seems to be the same old regurgitated talking points we hear day in and day out. How will Sanu help to solve the problems the state is in? Specifics would be nice. I'm sick of "Republicans are good, Democrats are bad". You need to stand for more than that. How are you going to appeal to the constituents that aren't the normal Republican base?
This Spin Is Nauseating
I've had it up to here with the White House's spinning about Chief Justice John Roberts. The tipping point was reached when Propaganda Minister Robert Gibbs said this :
In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads the court.That's downright insulting. President Obama repeatedly and consistently ignored what We The People said about Obamacare during last August's townhall meetings. President Obama totally ignored the hundreds of thousands of calls to Congress last January and February about his failed stimulus plan. He ignored what We The People said in the elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the special election in Massachusetts.
" What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections, drowning out the voices of average Americans ," Gibbs said. " The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."
While he was ignoring the American people, there's no arguing that he made time for Andy Stern visits. Not only did he meet with Andy Stern but he gave the unions a huge $60,000,000,000 tax break on their Cadillac health insurance policies.
Now he has the audacity to say that he's committed to "reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government"? When did that commitment start? Did that commitment start after hiring lobbyist after lobbyist to work in his administration ?
Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names, a rather long list of names of people, who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.Mr. Gibbs hasn't answered those questions satisfactorily. In fact, he's ignored those questions just like President Obama has ignored what the American people have said.
The Times reports that some of those people were lobbying as recently as this year.
When President Obama or his spinning surrogates complained that special interest groups would soon drown out the voice of the American people, what he's really doing is complaining that his favorite special interest groups won't have the stage all to themselves this election season.
The Supreme Court defered to the Founding Fathers' wisdom, saying that everyone should be able to express their political views. They said that presidents don't get to pick which interest groups can express their political views and which ones can't. What they said was that the First Amendment says that Congress can't make laws that prohibit or limit the free expression of political thoughts or opinions. PERIOD.
That isn't what the Obama administration believes in, though. Here's what Mark Lloyd said on the subject of the First Amendment:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.He then said this:
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.It isn't difficult to make a compelling case that the Obama administration wants to shut up the people that disagrees with them but wants to guarantee that the special interest groups that agree with him can speak freely.
"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled, worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
"And we've had complaints about this ever since."
They're upset that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution. They're upset that they don't set the rules for who is censored and who can speak freely.
After Propaganda Minister Gibbs' statement, Washington's other mental midget stepped into the fray. Here's what Harry Reid said :
"Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?" Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.Sen. Reid didn't complain about when President Clinton was accepting tens of millions of dollars in soft money in 1996, then using the special interest groups' money to drown out Bob Dole's voice.
A spokesman for Reid said the senator backs Obama's push for legislation to more closely regulate corporate campaign spending.
FOOTNOTE: Sen. Reid, it isn't the U.S. Supreme Court's role to know or care how people get elected. Their role is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and the treaties it's signed. Their's isn't a policymaking position.
Now that the Democrats' favorite special interest groups have to fight on a level playing field, Sen. Reid is complaining. Much like Mr. Gibbs's whining, Sen. Reid's complaints are falling on deaf ears.
The notion that this administration is committed to weakening the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups is insulting. It doesn't bear any resemblence to the truth or to reality.
Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by David Fromfortyb at 12-Sep-10 01:43 AM
What about we the people that support the health care reform. That's right, it's called health care reform. People will pay everything they have to get healthy, and health insurance companies are there to make sure they do. We needed health care.
Also, we need to impeach those activist judges who decided that corporations have all the rights of people, but none of the obligations. The constitution never mentioned corporations. They are immortal beings with no conscience.
Finally, you talk like a punk. It is just sooo easy to call people names when they are not there. You need to show people respect. They have been elected by American voters in their district. Maybe theu know more about these people than Glenn Beck or some other sexually conflicted goofball.
President, Pelosi Get Sober Advice
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi got some sober advice from two old pro Democratic pollsters in Friday morning's Washington Post . Here's the advice the White House and House Democrats should pay most of their attention to:
First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.President Obama has been trying to convince congressional Democrats that everything is fine and that not passing health care is worse than passing a bad health care bill. Mssrs. Schoen and Caddell are right in highlighting the fact that this issue is a loser for President Obama and Democrats.
Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.
The thing that I've found amazing is that the American people consistently say no to the Democrats' health care legislation. It isn't like the polls have been close. All of the polls I've seen have shown a double-digit margin between supporting the Democrats' legislation vs. supporting scrapping the bill, with scrapping the bill consistently outpolling passing the Democrats' health care legislation.
How people can read those polls and conclude that the Democrats' health care legislation is getting more popular is beyond me. People roll their eyes when they hear Speaker Pelosi say that people will like it once they see the benefits.
They won't.
While it's true that the American people like certain parts of the bill, the truth is that the American people hate other parts of the bill:
Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.The popular spin these days is that the only reason for the Democrats' health care legislation's unpopularity is being caused by the Republicans' misinformation campaign. People understand that there's a difference between deficit neutrality and lower costs.
I've said repeatedly that all it takes for the CBO to score a bill as being deficit neutral is tons of tax increases. Raising taxes on something certainly won't make the product cheaper.
Another thing working against the Democrats' legislation is that people believe, rightly, that government can't be trusted:
Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more . This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.The Democrats' pitch to the American people, at this point, appears to be 'Support our legislation. Government sucks less than insurance companies.' Once the argument devolves into which thing sucks worse, the battle is lost. That's the position Democrats find themselves fighting from:
Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.When people heard about the different deals that were made, one of the first things they thought was that Harry Reid was bribing these senators. That told them that this wasn't about reducing health care costs or lowering health insurance premiums. Those bribes told the American people that this legislation was about a Democratic power grab. Once that was known, the hearts and minds battle was over.
The American people want lower health care costs and reduced health insurance premiums. PERIOD. Arguing that the bill is deficit neutral is a waste of time. First, we know that government running anything, especially on such a large scale, isn't efficient. We got further proof of that this week through this American Spectator article , in which President Obama implicitly admits that:
The White House says the increased audits could save taxpayers $2 billion over the next three years. That's only a small fraction of the $98 billion worth of improper payments the White House says were made last year alone ($54 billion from Medicare and Medicaid). But it's an improvement over current practice. It's also a fascinating admission from the president.President Obama is insisting that the federal government play a larger role in health care even though they've admitted that they can't police themselves. Voters know that something that's sloppily run will cost them more.
The move acknowledges that the public sector has failed to properly police itself. Obama, who reflexively opposes "privatization" on principle, has expanded the privatization of an important government function, auditing the government's own books. Why would he do that? He answers the question himself. Providing financial incentives to private auditors will save the government more money than relying on in-house bureaucrats to self-police.
If President Obama wasn't such an ideologue, he'd accept the advice of Mssrs. Schoen and Caddell. Unfortunately, President Obama is an ideologue who's too narcissistic to admit that he's made a mistake.
President Obama's narcissism is why Democrats will feel the voters' wrath this November.
Posted Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:44 PM
No comments.
The Slaughter Solution Is Dead
Stick a fork in the Slaughter Solution . It's done. Based on this Roll Call article , that strategy died with the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress' original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.Wobbly House Democrats don't want to vote for the Senate bill without a guarantee of the Senate passing a bill that fixes what's broken in the Senate bill. House Democrats thought that they'd found a solution with the Slaughter Solution, in which the Senate bill would be deemed passed the minute the House passed a bill fixing the Senate bill. Under the Slaughter Solution rule, the House wouldn't even vote on the Senate bill.
The Senate Parliamentarian's Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate's original health care bill.
With the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling, that solution disappeared.
I just finished a blogger conference call with Dr. Phil Gingrey and Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers. This Roll Call article was the basis for my question and followup. I read them the opening paragraphs of the article, then posed my initial question. I asked specifically if the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling just made Rep. Clyburn's whip duties significantly more difficult. Their opinion was that it did make Rep. Clyburn's job much more difficult.
This ruling won't kill the bill but it's going to make life alot more difficult for House Democrats. Now they'll have to trust that their Senate colleagues will want to pass and be able to pass a bill fixing the problems with their bill. Earlier this week, Rep. Thad McCotter said in an interview that the House Democrats' biggest obstacle "isn't from across the aisle. It's from across the Rotunda."
In the best of times, there's a tension between the House and Senate. Add the historic nature of this bill and the profound differences between the House's bill and the Senate's bill, plus the fact that the public is emphatically opposed to this bill and it's understandable that tensions are running high between House and Senate Democrats.
Add into this mix Harry Reid's latest statement:
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Thursday to put Senate Republicans on the defensive over health care, sending a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in which he dared the GOP to vote against reform.If anyone has a worse sense of where the public is at than Harry Reid, I don't know who it'd be. Dr. Gingrey and Rep. McMorris-Rodgers said that they'd be surprised if a single Republican, House or Senate, would vote for the bill. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the NRSC, and Minority Leader McConnell both said that Republicans will run on the health care issue.
With the latest CNN poll showing 73 percent of the American people either outright opposed to the Democrats' bill or wanting Congress to start from scratch, it isn't a matter of whether Republicans will run on this issue. The question I've got is how many Democrats will run away from this bill this fall. I'm betting Democrats won't want to talk health care during their campaign.
I'm betting that they'd rather align themselves with Eric Massa than with the Democrats' health care legislation.
Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:06 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck Sepers Sr at 11-Mar-10 08:29 PM
Well said!
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 11-Mar-10 11:02 PM
Nothing much has really changed. The House passed a bill, the Senate passed a different bill. Neither one wanted what the other house had passed, and they didn't want to go to conference committee and work out a compromise between the two because they know there simply cannot be one. So know they're trying to get the House to pass what the Senate wanted-- complete-- and then get the Senate to pass all the changes the House wants, to get it back to what the House wanted in the first place. In the meantime, Obama will just sign the Senate bill and we'll never hear a peep out of Democrats about the subject after that,because we'll have Obamacare.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 12-Mar-10 01:18 AM
Jerry, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, it's true that the House doesn't like the Senate bill & the Senate doesn't like the House bill. That's where the similarities end, though.
Now the House is forced to trust that the Senate will amend the bill that President Obama has SIGNED INTO LAW to reflect the House's preferences.
THAT AIN'T HAPPENING!!!
Let's put it another way. The House has to believe that the Senate will gut important provisions that the Senate loves & that are now the law of the land to appease the House?
That's before we start talking about how many House Democrats privately tell their Republican counterparts that they hate the Senate bill.
Melendez Accuses Tom Emmer of Being Principled?
The first reaction I had after reading DFL State Party Chairman Brian Melendez's statement was "That's the best you could do"? My next reaction was that Chairman Melendez had just publicly accused Tom Emmer of being principled. Here's the text of Chairman Melendez's statement:
"Tom Emmer's dismissal of 'compromise' as a valuable political tool is just a recipe for more of the same self-serving gridlock that we have seen under Governor Pawlenty. The failure to compromise has produced a government shutdown, frequent stalemate in policy debate, and historically staggering deficits, and it has put the state's credit rating at risk. We can't afford another governor who refuses to compromise when so many Minnesotans are out of work and the state's deficit is spiraling out of control.This type of gotcha communications doesn't persuade voters. I know the intent is to 'put the other guy' on the defensive but that isn't what it accomplishes. It merely informs John Q. Public that the DFL isn't addressing things important to voters.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and compromise is what makes real solutions possible in a heated political environment. Minnesota needs a governor who will be a governor for the entire state, not just the political right or the political left or the special interests. Tom Emmer's recent comments show that he lacks those skills, or, if he has them, he thinks that they are a waste of time."
Frankly, I'm left wondering what the real message behind this is. I'm certain that I know what its intended message is: Tom Emmer doesn't believe in compromise. This year, I don't think that's what voters will think, though. What I think they'll hear is that Tom Emmer is a principled man who doesn't compromise just for the sake of looking agreeable.
With spending restraint being one of this year's hot button issues, saying no to status quo spending is a positive thing. It's worth noting that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the GAMC bill, which led to Matt Dean's work in negotiating with the DFL and winding up with vastly superior legislation that brings accountability to the system and saves Minnesota's taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Chairman Melendez says that "Politics is the art of the possible." I can't argue with that. Thanks to the House GOP standing on principles, what became possible was significant GAMC reform. That's the type of possibility most Minnesotans hope our next leader exhibits.
Finally, what's evident is that Chairman Melendez doesn't like it when the DFL doesn't get its way. He'd rather see Republicans moving in his direction. Thankfully for conservatives, Tom Emmer thinks that the purpose behind reaching across to the other side of the aisle is to pull the DFL in our direction.
Tom's principled conservatism is appealing to a wide range of voters, from conservatives to common sense independents to conservative Democrats. That's the type of coalition we'll need to keep the governor's mansion in GOP hands.
Tom's common sense approach and his principled conservatism is why I'm proud to serve on Tom Emmer's Steering Committee.
Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 3:15 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Scott Hudson at 12-Mar-10 06:07 AM
This is a variation of the same "party of no" and "obstructionist" charges we're hearing on the national level. It's blatant nonsense. Why even have a minority? What's the point if, by the Democrat standard, their only proper rule is to let the majority do whatever they want?
Comment 2 by Neighbor at 12-Mar-10 10:05 AM
Why aren't the Dems and the media critical of Seifert? Maybe they want Seifert to get the endorsement, because they think they can beat him. Emmer, the candidate with proven principles, they can't.
