March 19-22, 2010
Mar 19 00:34 The DFL Favors Obamacare Mar 19 02:43 Reconciliation Insanity Mar 19 14:05 President Obama's Long Slide From Grace Mar 21 18:53 CD-6 Convention Notes Mar 21 21:19 Great MNGOP Ad Alert!!! Mar 22 02:10 Stupak Picks Politics Over Principle, Loses Both Mar 22 07:28 Judas Stupak: Liar Mar 22 11:38 AUFC Announces Anti-Bachmann Ad Buy
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The DFL Favors Obamacare
This afternoon, I got an press release from Tony Sutton, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota. Here's what his statement said:
"Today's vote by the Democrat controlled Senate refusing to consider a resolution sponsored by attorney and state Sen. Julianne Ortman opposing ObamaCare is shameful. Minnesotans deserve to know if their elected officials support the most sweeping expansion of government in a generation. While Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller and the Democrats don't want to go on the record regarding ObamaCare and hope to bury things in committee, Minnesotans will have the final say in November and it won't be pretty for Democrats."First off, that the DFL won't let this resolution won't get a floor vote isn't surprising. Given the unpopularity of the Democrats' health care legislation and the DFL's support for the Democrats' health care legislation, this shouldn't be a surprise.
By defeating the GOP's resolution, the DFL just announced that they support the Democrats' health care bill. By defeating the GOP's resolution, the DFL essentially announced that they support all the tax increases in the Democrats' health care bill. By defeating the GOP's resolution, the DFL essentially announced that they support the federal government telling people what they must buy if they don't want a visit from the IRS :
Ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said many Americans have already rejected the call for health care reform for other reasons and an expansion of the IRS should only add to call to "kill the bill."I knew that the DFL loved oversized government but this is unprecedented. How many people thought that we'd need to grow the size and scope of the IRS if we passed the Democrat's health care legislation?
Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama's reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.
Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.
It isn't surprising that the DFL supports the Democrats' health care legislation. In fact, based on this list of co-authors to John Marty's Minnesota Health Plan , people might argue that the DFL leans more towards Dennis Kucinich's health care plan than towards the Democrats' health care legislation that's scheduled to be voted on this Sunday. Here's the list of Senate co-sponsors to Sen. Marty's legislation:
Ellen Anderson, Tom Bakk, Linda Berglin , Jim Carlson, Satveer Chaudhary, Dick Cohen, Kevin Dahle , Scott Dibble, John Doll, Sharon Erickson-Ropes, Leo Foley, Linda Higgins, Gary Kubly, Tony Lourey, Mee Moua, Steve Murphy, Rick Olseen, Mary Olson, Sandy Pappas, Yvonne Prettner-Solon, Sandy Rummel, Kathy Saltzman, Linda Scheid, Rod Skoe, Dan Skogren, David Tomassoni, Patricia Torres Ray, Charles WigerHere's the list of House co-sponsors to Sen. Marty's bill:
Tom Anzelc John Benson, Lyndon Carlson, Karen Clark , Jim Davnie, Al Doty, Kent Eken, Andrew Falk, Tim Faust, Patti Fritz, Mindy Greiling , Rick Hansen, Alice Hausman, Jeff Hayden, Debra Hilstrom, Bill Hilty, Frank Hornstein, Sheldon Johnson, Phyllis Kahn, Margaret Anderson-Kelliher , Carolyn Laine, Tina Liebling, John Lesch, Carlos Mariani, Sandra Masin , Joe Mullery, Erin MurphyWith this many DFL legislators supporting Sen. Marty's single-payer health care legislation, it isn't surprising that they'd support Speaker Pelosi's health care legislation. It's also less than surprising that they aren't interested in keeping the federal government to the limits imposed on it by the Tenth Amendment.
The DFL should be punished at the polls this November for letting the federal government trample on Minnesota's health care system, which doesn't need the federal government to dismantle it. We need reform, yes, but we don't need the Democrats' health care legislation ruining our system.
Posted Friday, March 19, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Mar-10 07:22 PM
Bless them all on the list. They know what's needed and have the courage to put their names behind the effort. They are brave and true patriots. Each and every one of them, in this act of conscience. I might differ with some over other things. But this is good. Indeed, excellent. May the item pass. May a DFL governor be elected if the Unalloter veto happens on passage. May the Unalloter just stay in Florida.
Reconciliation Insanity
Earlier this evening, a quesiton popped into my head that perfectly illustrates the insanity of the Democrats' health care legislation.
For months, Democrats have excluded the Medicare/Doc Fix from their health care legislation to get the CBO to say that their health care legislation reduces the deficit. People living outside the Beltway would think it's only natural to include that reform in the Democrats' health care legislation. I'm betting that 90+ percent of the people would say that the Medicare/Doc Fix should be included in the Democrats' health care legislation.
Similarly, people living outside the Beltway would scratch their heads wondering what the federal government's takeover of the student loan program has to do with the Democrats' health care reform. I'm betting that 90+ percent of the people would say that the federal student loan program has nothing to do with lowering health care costs.
I'd further argue that this only makes sense if viewed through the perspective of reconciliation and the Byrd Rule. Then it makes perfect sense. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Byrd Rule:
The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:Clearly, the Medicare/Doc Fix would increase the deficit since it would add in more than $300,000,000,000 of spending on Medicare. Conversely, the federal takeover of the student loan program would produce a surplus for that program.
1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.
If the Democrats didn't include the student loan program, they couldn't use reconciliation. If the Democrats included the Medicare/Doc Fix in their health care legislation, they couldn't use reconciliation.
Let's put it another way. Spending money on the Medicare/Doc Fix would expose the Democrats' legislation as increasing health care costs while adding to the deficits.
Why It's Important
It's important that the Democrats construct their bill this way because the House Democrats wouldn't vote for the Senate bill if they thought they couldn't pass their changes to the Senate bill. It can't be overstated how much House Democrats hate the Senate health care legislation.
There's still tension between House and Senate Democrats. That got worse thanks to Sen. Coburn, who decided to play hardball with House Democrats :
SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.House Democrats weren't convinced that Senate Democrats would pass the corrections that they're putting into their reconciliation bill. Couple that with Sen. Kent Conrad's statement that the Senate wouldn't pass the House reconciliation bill without altering it a bit and House Democrats must be wondering if they aren't being asked to walk the plank.
If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held.
Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill , at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.
This shouldn't be unexpected. That's what happens when a president and speaker try passing legislation that's far more radical than the American people are willing to support.
They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows. With this legislation, reconciliation appears to have made for some odd rationalizations. Only desperate Democrats can explain why Medicare spending isn't part of health care legislation but student loans are part of that legislation.
Posted Friday, March 19, 2010 2:53 AM
No comments.
President Obama's Long Slide From Grace
President Obama has taken a beating over the last year. His job approval ratings have dropped because people increasingly don't trust his promises. Nothing illustrates that better than when President Obama told the nation that Caterpillar would start rehiring laid off workers during his visit to Caterpillar headquarters in Peoria, IL:
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar has informed him it will rehire some of the thousands of workers it has laid off in recent weeks if Congress passes an economic stimulus bill.The problem for President Obama is that Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens didn't say that:
"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off," Obama said today in Peoria.
But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, "I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we're probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."That's why this article is so interesting:
Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.Getting this information published will cause America to rethink its opinion about the Democrats' health care legislation. It might even get some DC-bound Democrats to rethink their vote, especially wobblies in Illinois.
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.
"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."
It isn't a stretch to think that passing this bill might cause a new round of layoffs at companies like Caterpillar. Rather than just accepting the additional expense of health care, why wouldn't companies like Caterpillar just lay people off? As this letter says, the Democrats' health care legislation would put Caterpillar at a competitive disadvantage internationally.
This is why health care will do long-term damage on President Obama and the Democratic Party. President Obama and Pelosi's Democrats have promised that their legislation will lower health care costs. The minute the people see health care and health insurance costs rising, the American people will be more disgusted with President Obama and Pelosi's Democrats than they are already.
Megyn Kelly interviewed Juan Williams and Scott Rasmussen about health care and how it would impact the midterm elections. Juan Williams tried minimizing the effect health care would have on the elections, saying that the economy would have a bigger impact on the elections.
After reading this article, I'm thinking that people will start mixing the two things together. I think that because having the Democrats' health care legislation cause a massive increase in insurance premiums will dramatically affect people's pocketbooks.
At a time when they're already struggling, people won't forget what caused the additional financial hardship. Rest assured that they'll be reminded morning, noon and nighttime where that additional pain came from in TV and radio ads.
Posted Friday, March 19, 2010 2:12 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 21-Mar-10 01:56 PM
Gary:
I got another thing you're going to have to highlight. I have been all day today (not to mention a couple of days now) have been going to the websites of a lot of congressmen to write emails asking them to vote no.
It never fails that if they have a statement on their website saying they are voting yes they mention one reason why they're doing it is because CBO has scored it will reduce the deficit.
Well that score works if as CBO scores just the senate bill. When CBO scores the health care bill and the doctor fee fix bill which is part of the health care
the deficit will go up not down.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
CD-6 Convention Notes
Not surprisingly, Rep. Michele Bachmann was endorsed to return to Congress for a third term at yesterday's CD-6 convention.
All of the major State Auditor candidates spoke at the Convention. Former State Auditor Pat Anderson, the candidate I'm supporting, was the last of the candidates to speak. She said that she'd be a strong advocate for Minnesota's taxpayers, which she was when she was Minnesota's Auditor before.
Tom Emmer defeated Marty Seifert in the CD-6 Straw Poll by a margin of 205-82. What struck me the most, though, was Tom's vision for Minnesota. Increasingly, Tom is laying out a vision for Minnesotans that will appeal to a majority of Minnesotans.
Friday night, I attended a Tom Emmer event at St. Cloud's Radisson Hotel. During the Q & A session, Tom said that people are fed up with both parties but that doesn't mean tha they're moderates. In his opinion, they're people who are looking for the right vision and the right leader who will implement that vision.
I think Tom's right about that. In fact, I think that's the exact right message for this year.
The other note I'd make is that Marty's speech at the CD-6 convention was cliche-filled. What it lacked in substance, it more than made up for in cliches. I'm not accusing Marty of not being a substantive candidate. I'm just talking about his stump speech.
Let me be clear about something else, too. Marty did a magnificent job as House GOP Leader the past 3 years. In fact, Republicans couldn't expect more from him in his capacity as House GOP Leader.
I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about Dan Severson's speech to the convention. Dan's built a reputation of being a man of integrity, especially when the subject is election integrity. Dan's speech comes close to being the most logic-filled stump speeches I've ever heard. Included in his stump speech is Dan's explantion of why photo ID is essential to true election reform and what needs to be done to guarantee the proper counting of absentee ballots cast by the military.
Finally, it's important that I mention Janet Beihoffer's presentation. Janet has been put in charge of recruiting election judges. Follow this link to find out more about becoming an election judge. Hugh Hewitt once wrote a book titled " If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat ." King rightly points out that the inverse is true, too, that if it is close, the DFL will cheat. If you don't believe that, visit Al Franken's Senate website.
DISCLAIMER: I am part of Tom Emmer's Steering Committee.
Originally posted Sunday, March 21, 2010, revised 22-Mar 1:50 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 21-Mar-10 07:01 PM
Gary:
Not to give you a hard time, but you did put in your disclaimer about being an Emmer supporter.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Ryan at 23-Mar-10 08:08 PM
Marty's campaign distributed a budget plan at the CD6 convention. I would consider that a vision for the future of MN.
RM
Great MNGOP Ad Alert!!!
Friday night, the MNGOP ran a great ad on Special Report. Here's the video:
Here's the transcript of the video:
It's your child's birthday. Here's your cake. Here's your presents, Son. Unfortunately, liberal representative Al Doty continues to give Washington-style debt that's being passed onto the next generation. In just 4 years, liberal representative Al Doty has voted for $2.5 billion in debt bills. Call Representative Doty. Tell him to stop voting for more debt bills.The first thing that should be said about this ad is that it will put the DFL on the defensive whether they notice it or not. (For the record, I'm betting that they won't notice it.) the DFL will undoubtedly defend spending that much money on bonding bills because that's what they think of as their 'jobs bill'.
Is this how you really want your legislator voting?
To those of us who prefer seeing an economy based on a prosperous private sector, the DFL's annual debt bills are a hindrance to the economy. The majority of the bonding bill's line items are construction projects, with studies and land purchases making up another sizeable portion of the bills.
Few serious ecnomists will argue that spending this money is anything more than a payoff to the DFL's union allies. At his news conference announcing his candidacy, King said that the right criteria to judge future bonding projects by isn't in the money spent but by what value is added to the state. I wholeheartedly agree with King.
This ad puts Rep. Doty on notice that he's being targeted for defeat. Let's remember that Rep. Doty defeated Mike LeMieur by a paltry 76 votes in a strong, pro-Democrat year. This just adds to the DFL's worries about keeping the House.
Kudos to the media team at State Headquarters. I'll give them an A for this ad.
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:19 PM
No comments.
Stupak Picks Politics Over Principle, Loses Both
When Rep. Bart Stupak announced that he'd be voting for Obamacare because President Obama was signing an executive order banning the spending of federal tax dollars on abortion, he essentially said that he was accepting political cover in exchange for his alleged principles.
Based on the fact that an executive order can't negate established U.S. law, Rep. Stupak sold his vote and his alleged principles for political cover. Because he abandoned his principles, Rep. Stupak now needs to learn that there's a political price to pay for abandoning those principles.
I can't argue that all Republicans are principled conservatives. What I'm confident of is that there aren't any principled Democrats left. We should remind Michigan Republicans that they need to pick a conservative so he/she can defeat Rep. Stupak and repeal Obamacare ASAP. If that isn't the goal, then that candidate shouldn't be picked. PERIOD.
This winter, Republicans found out that the difference between Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh and Bernie Sanders is that Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson won't show their true (liberal) colors unless their votes are needed. Rep. Stupak's caving on abortion, like Bayh's and Nelson's caving on Obamacare, won't be forgotten this November. It's more likely that Stupak's, Bayh's and Nelson's votes will become rallying cries for TEA Party activists nationwide this summer.
Rep. Stupak's decision essentially means that, economically speaking, he's an idiot. I won't pretend to be diplomatic about this. Contrary to their public talking points, the reality is that the Democrats' health care legislation will explode the deficit. That, in turn, will cause more borrowing for debt service, leaving less money for expanding private businesses.
Last week, during a blogger conference call I participated in , Rep. Parker Griffith said that it's easy to create a "U.S. health care card" but that doesn't guarantee patients getting treated. Griffith said that there's a doctor shortage looming if Obamacare passed.
Phyllis Schlafly has it right :
"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."You can't be pro-life if you vote for a bill that funds taxpayer funding of abortions, which this bill does. When the Senate first passed its bill, Stupak said that the "Nelson language" wasn't sufficient. He was right then. Unfortunately, he lost his way and settled for less than the Nelson language.
"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."
"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."
This vote clarifies things for voters. This vote exposes the Democrats' PR myths. They can't say anymore that they're moderate or pro-life. When push comes to shove, they cave because they're spineless.
That, BTW, is what voters are looking for most this year.
Posted Monday, March 22, 2010 2:15 AM
No comments.
Judas Stupak: Liar
After watching this video, I've lost what little respect I had left for Bart Stupak:
Jim @ Gateway Pundit has it right . The guy is unreal:
Pro-abortion Dem Rep Bart Stupak:This got me downright irate. For Judas Stupak to say that Democrats have pro-life principles is downright insulting. President Obama couldn't even muster up enough pro-life principles to vote for the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act :
"Thank you. The motion to recommit purports to be a right to life motion in the spirit of the Stupak Amendment. But as the author of the Stupak Amendment, this motion is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care. The motion,The motion is really a last ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care. It is the democrats who have stood up for the principle of no funding for abortion. It is the democrats through the president's executive order that ensures the sanctity of life is protected."
We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.Judas Stupak knows this. That information didn't keep him from making that insulting speech on the House floor. Let's remember that then-Gov. Clinton and the DNC kept truly pro-life Democrat Robert Casey from speaking at the 1992 convention.
My friend stood in Obama's path and said, "Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year."
Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, "I think you will," adding, "I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that's the position the Democrats should take."
There's just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.
That's before talking about President Clinton vetoing the Republicans' legislation that would've banned partial birth abortions. Let's remember that staunch pro-choice Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that partial birth abortions "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."
Despite that information, last night, Judas Stupak had the audacity to say that Democrats "have stood up for the principle of no funding for abortion." That's interesting since Rep. Henry Waxman told him Democrats want to publicly fund abortions :
"I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's...we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.'It's insulting that Judas Stupak would make tell us last night that Democrats "have stood up for the principle of no funding for abortion" when less than 2 weeks ago, he was accusing one of the Democrats' staunchest pro-abortion advocates of wanting to change policy to publicly fund abortions. Does Judas Stupak think we won't remember these things?
"'But we think we should,'" Stupak said Waxman told him.
"I said, 'Well, I'm sorry but the House has spoken. We had that debate. We won 240-190. You forced the vote, a vote we won fair and square and we're not gonna, this is what it is. If you want to move health care keep current law,'" Stupak continued.
It's time that voters in Judas Stupak's district to retire him. We can't afford someone who changes his beliefs from one week to the next. That isn't the change we've been looking for.
Posted Monday, March 22, 2010 7:30 AM
No comments.
AUFC Announces Anti-Bachmann Ad Buy
According to Paul Schmelzer's post , AUFC has announced that they've made an ad buy against Michele Bachmann:
Americans United for Change has been creating a series of ads in favor of health care reform , and this one dings the sophomore representative for not voting to give the rest of us insurance as good as her own government plan:Schmelzer doesn't do Tarryl or Dr. Reed any favors by saying this:
Finally, Congress passed the health reform bill to rein in the power of the big insurance companies and guarantee that all Minnesotans can get the same health insurance as members of Congress. But our Congresswoman Michele Bachmann voted against that? She may be an "important" politician in Washington, but when it comes to health insurance, if it's good enough for her shouldn't it be good enough for the rest of us?"
The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny says that while Bachmann isn't seen as particularly vulnerable, the commercial's intent seems to be to provoke Bachmann into responding, thereby sending the ad viral.Whether the ad "goes viral" or not, this is a certainty: people think that health care rationing will happen as a direct result of this bill. People have read the New England Journal of Medicine's poll showing that doctors would consider retiring early if Obamacare passed.
Rep. Parker Griffith responded to my question by saying that it's easy to create health insurance for everyone but that it's more difficult to actually treat patients when there's a doctor shortage. Griffith stopped short of predicting a doctor shortage but he said that it's a strong possibility.
AUFC's ad might "go viral" because Americans know that the Democrats' health care bill didn't do anything to change people's health shopping habits. Until that happens, health care legislation can't legitimately be called reform.
Another point must be made on this announcement, namely, that AUFC isn't in touch with the American people. They're doing their best to spin the Democrats' health care legislation to make it sound like this is a positive thing. AUFC is hoping that people ignore the tax increases contained in the Democrats' health care bill. AUFC better hope that nobody tells the American people that they could've gotten all of the popular reforms if the Democrats would've valued bipartisanship.
Instead, the Democrats had to resort to bribing Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu to get the bill through the Senate. Bart Stupak showed us that he's as spineless as the other Democrats. Speaker Pelosi thought about passing the Senate bill without voting on the Senate bill.
In that respect, AUFC's ad buys across the nation will remind people of the Democrats' corruption. Their ad buy will also remind people that there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat. This year, that isn't a good place to be. AUFC's ads will do more harm than good for Democrats.
Posted Monday, March 22, 2010 11:49 AM
No comments.
