March 8-9, 2010
Mar 08 01:40 Larry Haws's Dire Predictions Meets Reality Mar 08 10:38 Team Obama vs. The Clintonistas? Mar 08 12:57 Rep. McCotter Dissects Obamacare Mar 08 17:59 Today's Political Firestorm Mar 09 03:41 Seifert Gets It Badly Wrong Mar 09 04:27 GAMC Details, etc. Mar 09 14:42 Obama: "I Hate Insurance Companies; Let's Give Them $336 Billion" Mar 09 15:52 Romney's Sinking Ship?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Larry Haws's Dire Predictions Meets Reality
In his weekly e-letter update last week, Larry Haws made some dire predictions following the House GOP's upholding Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the DFL's GAMC legislation. Friday afternoon, negotiations between the legislature and Gov. Pawlenty proved Larry wrong. First, here's what Larry wrote:
As we all know by now, the Minnesota House didn't have the votes to override the Governor's veto of the legislature's Modified General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) bill.Friday afternoon, I received this e-letter update from Steve Gottwalt:
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.
The Legislature's Modified GAMC bill would have provided health services to 38,000 Minnesotans per month at a cost of $457 per person. The Governor's auto-enroll proposal which is twice as expensive on a per enrollee basis and even costs more than the original GAMC program at a cost of $937 per person.
We are seeking a sustainable solution to the state's health insurance program for low-income adults who are struggling with mental illness, disabilities, and chronic illness. The Legislative GAMC solution is more cost-effective and efficient than the Governor's auto-enrollment plan that will drain the Health Care Access Fund to the point of bankruptcy and exacerbate the state's budget deficit. Minnesotans can't afford the Governor's plan or his veto pen. The clock is ticking and the poorest of
the poor and sickest of the sick need us to breathe parliamentary live back into the GAMC solution. I will encourage House leadership to bring people back to the table.
Last Monday, the majority inisted the only thing to do was to override the governor's veto of a bill to extend GAMC another year or so by taking money from hospitals and county programs for children and vulnerable adults, and still leaving $170 million unaccounted for!Once again, we see proof that the DFL was initially content to just throw more of the taxpayers' money at a problem. Once again, we see proof that Larry Haws was willing to vote for the DFL's status quo policies rather than thinking that there might be a better, more sustainable way to providing these services.
Those on our side of the aisle insisted it was time to stop enacting unfunded, temporary bandaids, and establish a permanent solution with good ideas from all sides, making a promise we can keep to the sickest and poorest.
We upheld the governor's veto, and within an hour, both sides were back at the negotiating table in the Governor's Office, working on a long-term solution that would also provide better care for the poorest and sickest.
Within four days (by Friday) all sides had negotiated a long-term solution that not only delivers much better care to these people, but also saves enough (more than $700 million per biennium) to put these services on sustainable footing without raising taxes. We will now enact that reformed and responsible solution, a "win, win, win" for Minnesotans.
IMPORTANT: This responsible solution would NOT have happened if we had NOT upheld the governor's veto!!!
This shows clearly how the false choices offered us by the partisan and hard-line Democrats are indeed false. It also shows clearly how we can work together bi-partsanly to find responsible solutions to big issues.
It's time to get rid of the partisan, do-nothing Democrat majority so we can actually solve the huge problems facing our state and economy without growing government and increasing taxes!
Simply put, this is proof that the DFL is the party that wants to fund a Twentieth Century government.
Minnesota's taxpayers simply can't afford more status quo 'leadership' from the DFL. The DFL's spending on GAMC would've caused three problems as I see it. One problem that simply funding the GAMC without reforming it was that it would've added to the existing $1,000,000,000 deficit. That would've caused the second problem. Had the House GOP just accepted the status quo, the problem would've likely forced them into voting for a tax increase. That would've led to a third problem, namely, it wouldn't have solved the underlying problem.
In short, Larry's 'solution', accepting the status quo, would've created more problems than it solved. With Minnesota's taxpayers already being squeezed, Larry Haws's solution just isn't acceptable. Minnesota's taxpayers are already paying too many taxes.
The only true solution is in electing a solutions-oriented GOP majority. Without that, we'll just keep treading water in the same stormy seas. That isn't a solution. That's an abdication of responsibility.
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010 1:40 AM
No comments.
Team Obama vs. The Clintonistas?
Last week, I highlighted Doug Schoen's op-ed in this post . I didn't think much about it but upon further review, I think we might be seeing Clinton supporters becoming more critical of the Obama administration. It's more plausible now that Mark Penn has written an op-ed critical of using reconciliation to pass health care reform:
Reconciliation has been used before to pass major legislation. Proponents of this approach are fond of pointing to the passage of welfare reform, COBRA, and Bush's '01 and '03 tax cuts as evidence that the Democrats are fully inside the lines. For the administration, the most crucial difference between those bills and this is not their urgency, partisan nature, or even particularly their impact on the deficit; for Obama and his team, the most critical variant is that those bills were popular with the public. In 1996, 68% of Americans favored welfare reform. In 2000, before Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut was introduced (by the notably bipartisan duo of Senators Phil Gramm and Zell Miller,) 63% of Americans thought they were paying too much income tax; by the spring of 2001, after a month of legislative wrangling, 56% favored Bush's proposed cuts. In 2003, with the Iraq war railing in the background and a post-9/11 economy flailing at home, 52% supported the second round of cuts. Not a huge margin, perhaps, but still a majority.I've said numerous times that universal health care is the Democrats' holy grail achievement. Sensible people like Mark Penn and Doug Schoen are considered heretics by the Deaniacs and Kossacks. By now, though, America has figured it out that, comparatively speaking, Penn and Schoen are sane people and that the Deaniac/Kossack bunch aren't.
A February CNN poll puts voter support for the current bill (or a similar variant thereof) at just 25%. An equal percentage thinks Congress should forget health care reform altogether, while 48% think they should start work on an entirely new bill. Of more concern to any Democrat with an eye on reelection, Independents remain unmoved by the arguments in reform's favor, with only 18% supporting it and 52% calling for an entirely new bill.
Democrats would be wise to heed this advice:
And there is a step-by-step approach that would make sense. Going one round at a time in health care reform, hand in hand with economic recovery, would be a strategic win for the administration. After Massachusetts, it would have made sense to pick out and pass those measures that help control costs and strengthen coverage while building up to the major expansion of coverage as the fiscal situation improved. There are lots of changes that have garnered support through this process. The polls show Americans would embrace a bill banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, overwhelmingly support a move to standardized electronic medical records and 66% favor some kind of caps on malpractice awards. Reduce costs, improve the system, and then expand coverage; that is the way to run this out strategically and bring along full public support.I've said since Day One that the right way to do health care reform is to lower costs. By lowering costs, you're increasing accessability. The Democrats' approach is to cover everyone first, then work on the other facets later. That isn't the right approach because it doesn't do anything to control costs. Until that's fixed, everything else is wasted effort.
I'm curious about the timing of these articles. Anything Clinton-related is intentional, not coincidental. I'm betting that President Clinton understands that the economy is struggling badly and that passing health care through reconciliation won't fix the economy.
I also think that egos play a role in this. If President Obama passes comprehensive health care reform, he will, in his mind, hold something over President Clinton in the legacy department.
The main point to me is that the Democrats should listen to the saner voices of Mark Penn and Doug Schoen. Thus far, taking the Chicago road doesn't appear to be working.
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010 10:44 AM
No comments.
Rep. McCotter Dissects Obamacare
My first reaction to this video is that Rep. Thaddeus McCotter dissects ObamaCare just as effectively as Paul Ryan did at the Blair House Health Care Summit. Here's the video exchange between Reps. McCotter and Yarmuth:
The highlight for me comes at the end of the interview when Greg Jarrett asks Rep. McCotter if the American people are exercising sound judgment in saying that they don't want a broken government mismanaging a new entitlement program. Here's Rep. McCotter's response:
First, I agree with Congressman Yarmuth that the problem isn't on the other side of the aisle. It's on the other side of the rotunda. Secondly, what the American people, in their wisdom and their practicality are saying is that an imperfect health care system cannot be fixed by having a big broken government run it.Another revealing part of the interview comes when Gregg Jarrett cites poll after poll showing overwhelming disapproval of the Democrats' health care legislation. First, here's Rep. Yarmuth's response:
I'm prepared to say that what those polls show is that reaction to the Republican characterization of the health care legislation, not what's actually in the bill. When I have the opportunity to speak with my constituents and what this bill means in terms of what it means to them, I don't have any problem generating support for this bill, enthusiastic support as a matter of fact.My first reaction is that I wouldn't trust a Democrat's rosy scenario depiction of what's in the bill. While I'm certain that Rep. Yarmuth would highlight the benefits, I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't talk about the huge tax increases or the indvidual mandates included in the bill. I'm confident that he wouldn't tell his constituents that Republicans have a plan that lowers health care costs and health insurance premiums without the Democrats' individual mandates or the Democrats' tax increases.
Furthermore, I'm betting that Rep. Yarmuth couldn't find substantial support, enthusiastic or otherwise, for additional tax increases at this point. Simply put, I think Rep. Yarmuth wasn't being truthful with that answer, that his answer was devoid of reality.
How many of this blog's readers would think that getting fined for not buying health insurance is a good thing? How many of this blog's readers think it's a good thing to have government tell us what is the right coverage and which coverage, like HSAs, aren't adequate coverage? How many of this blog's readers think it's a good idea to tell people that they have to buy health insurance?
Let's remember that President Obama said in last Wednesday's speech that his legislation would include HSAs as a legitimate form or health insurance. Let's also remember that that legislation hasn't been written. We know that because CBO said it couldn't score Obama's proposed bill because it isn't in legislative language.
This isn't close. It hasn't been for months. The more people read about the bill, including sections of actual legislative language, the less they like it. This isn't about which side is doing a better job of spinning. It's about the American people doing their homework on this legislation. That's been proven by the number of people who schooled their legislators on what was in the bill. (Personally, my favorite was Sen. McCaskill telling a St. Louis audience that President Obama has never supported single-payer, only to have half a dozen audience members hollar "It's on YouTube.")
But I digress.
The reality is that Republicans can point to specific portions of the bill that the American people don't support. Dave Camp did a great job at the Blair House Health Care Summit of highlighting objectionable parts of the bill.
The Democrats' health care legislation has been exposed. The truth is that Rep. McCotter is only the most recent one to expose its flaws.
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010 12:59 PM
Comment 1 by bob donaldson at 08-Mar-10 03:30 PM
The only time the conservatives complain about big bloated broken government is when they are out of power. Clinton vetoed Republican budgets and balanced the budget and created a surplus, then Bush gets in with a majority of replublicans in the house and senate and demolish life as we know it. Then the cycle starts again
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Mar-10 04:45 PM
Bob, You obviously haven't paid attention to conservative blogs because we've been complaining about oversized, dysfunctional government off & on since 1990. John Kasich complained about George H.W. Bush's overspending back then so he started putting together balanced budget plans. Eventually, Minnesota Congressman Tim Penny, a Democrat, signed onto his plan & co-sponsored Rep. Kasich's budgets.
It was their budgets that pushed President Clinton towards balancing the budget.
Since then, Mike Pence & Paul Ryan have complained about oversized, dysfunctional government whether the administration was Republican or Democrat.
The truth is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You should be embarrassed.
Today's Political Firestorm
This morning, Eric Massa lit the fuse to today's biggest political firestorm. Here's what Politico is reporting :
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve, and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.Since I wasn't there, I don't know whether Leader Hoyer's office is telling the truth or if Rep. Massa is telling the truth. The thing that I'm certain of, though, is that this won't end well for Democrats. What's worse for Democrats is Rep. Massa's accusations about WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel :
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) rejected Massa's charge out of hand. "That's completely false," said Katie Grant. "There is zero merit to that accusation."
He had special scorn for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who helped get Massa elected. "Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn," he said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."I don't know whether the shower episode is real. What i'm certain of, though, is that it's easy to picture Rahm Emanuel as a brass knuckles Chicago street-fighting machine politician. This wouldn't be the first time a Chicago politician played hardball to get rid of a political opponent. It won't be the last time, either.
Massa alleges that Emanuel ripped into him a number of times over votes, including in the House shower. "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me," said Massa.
Personally, it's apparent that Rep. Massa has serious credibility issues. That said, that doesn't mean that the things he's accused WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of doing aren't 100 percent accurate. Just because a person has credibility issues doesn't mean that everything he's said should be ignored.
The bottom line is that Rep. Massa's radio interview just re-inforces the image of the Obama administration's willingness to use Chicago street thug tactics. That wasn't playing well before today. After Sunday's interview, I'll bet that fewer people will like Chicago street thug tactics.
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010 6:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 09-Mar-10 01:17 AM
What is interesting, perhaps important, is how Massa explains his basis for opposing the healthcare situation as he saw it.
He voted no before and did not feel like changing because he sees single payer as the answer and what's coming from the Dems as too compromised.
Kucinich voted no on the same basis. The sentiment seems widespread in the public.
Massa gets bounced, Kuchnich marginalized, the progressives are dissatisfied with both parties, the Tea Bag thing shows general dissatisfaction and many there not wanting a GOP co-opted thing because they too are dissatisfied with both parties.
The entire situation creates much uncertainty of how business will find a home for its traditional interests - will it move to the Dems even more than already and take over that party as the GOP divides or implodes?
If that happens it would be a one-party situation with the very conservative bloc being marginalized along with the very liberal. Both wings homeless, as usual, but with a single fractious party instead of two in opposition.
It could make primaries more significant then general elections, and could lead to a four party system.
History seems to say that alignments vary and realignments happen. The Whigs are the example every civics class seems to look at. Blocs are stable but never gain a majority hold on power long term, because any bloc is a minority.
But Massa and Rahm, in your gut you feel there is reality to the story. You seem to say that, I feel it.
It all suggests the economy may stay unbalanced for a long and hard time for those low on the US economic food chain, workers and small capital small size business.
How nations handle things is interesting. China seems to have kept growing. The Greek situation shows Europe having troubles too. India seems to have kept growing.
Europe is not bogged down in costly wars as the US is. I don't understand where they and the EU are headed.
I think Washington is one of those Toyotas right now with the accelerator stuck going a hundred miles an hour out of control.
Gary, do you see a very hard economy lasting more than another three years, or not? Do you think the Fed knows what it is doing or is better ended? Do you see Ron Paul getting a real shot or has he gotten traction only because of the general dissatisfaction people are feeling over how the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama progression seems to have given a series where it is hard to say any of them were any good?
I know some in the GOP worship Reagan, but the other three seem to me to be the rational expectation growing out of what Reagan did and got away with.
I would not use the word uphill about any of this, and the Court and both houses are not highly respected among the people.
I can see how the young would be very unhappy with the future being made for them as it is unfolding.
It seems hard to foresee any pleasantness in the nation's future.
Or do you see positive expectations beyond one party hoping its nose count improves while the other cannot show unity and sees its numbers shrinking; with each party taking turns being one and then the other?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Mar-10 03:14 AM
The entire situation creates much uncertainty of how business will find a home for its traditional interests - will it move to the Dems even more than already and take over that party as the GOP divides or implodes?Eric, You've got one helluva imagination. The GOP is getting stronger because it's appealing to a wide array of voting blocs & you're wondering if it's going to implode? SERIOUSLY???
Gary, do you see a very hard economy lasting more than another three years, or not? Do you think the Fed knows what it is doing or is better ended? Do you see Ron Paul getting a real shot or has he gotten traction only because of the general dissatisfaction people are feeling over how the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama progression seems to have given a series where it is hard to say any of them were any good?I see the economy doing terrible until Republicans retake the House & undo the damage that President Obama & Prime Minister Pelosi did to the economy. The damage that they've done in unforgiveable. They've piled up trillions of dollars in debt without creating permanent jobs & without even giving us a rationale for doing what they did.
Democrats will pay a steep price at the polls this November, possibly losing 60 seats in the House & 12 in the Senate.
As for Ron Paul, he has a strong following amongst fiscal conservatives & with libertarians but he's rejected by anyone serious about foreign policy/national security. Rep. Paul is downright scary when it comes to national security/war on terror issues.
Seifert Gets It Badly Wrong
GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert is touting himself as the principled constitutionalist after a debate with Tom Emmer. Mr. Seifert would be well-advised if he studied First Amendment precedent before making his accusations :
At a debate today sponsored by the Freedom Club State Political Action Committee (PAC), Representative Marty Seifert expressed his concerns with Representative Tom Emmer's campaign finance reform plan.Let's first highlight the fact that limiting contributions has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Seifert stated, "While I agree that transparency is a critical component in financial disclosure for political contributions, I strongly disagree that we need severe caps, further limiting free speech. Doing so will create a permanent Democratic majority in the Minnesota Legislature."
Second, I wouldn't bring up the subject of permanent DFL majorities if I were Rep. Seifert. Rep. Seifert and his surrogates have made a point of focusing attention to the fact that, if he's elected governor, he'd use his veto pen on the omnibus HHS bill until he got the result he wanted in terms of reforming how people could use their EBT cards. That sounds like a man who's thinking that the next governor will be working with a DFL majority in both the House and Senate.
Rep. Seifert can take that defeatist attitude if he likes but I'd prefer supporting a candidate with a majority mindset. Tom Emmer is that man. Tom Emmer has been committed to getting GOP majorities elected in the House and Senate. That's what visionary leaders do.
Tom Emmer issued this statement to MPR to give context to the 2005 vote:
Emmer said he stands by the bill and stressed that the current law "already stifled freedom of speech." He said he introduced it because Matt Entenza, who is now a DFL candidate for governor, sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to an independent group (527) that then spent the money on Minnesota House races in 2004. Emmer said he was concerned that people were "buying elections" and yet the state bans corporate expenditures.According to the United States Supreme Court at the time, BCRA was constitutional. Ergo, lawmakers were obligated to work within the provisions of BCRA. Here are the 'draconian limitations' Rep. Emmer's bill would've imposed:
"Under the rules of the game then, we were trying to do something with independent expenditures. Two things though, one, the environment has changed. In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, in light of what we're doing now, we don't have the same concerns because we are moving toward a direction where always should have been which is freedom. Let people decide elections, don't let government rules decide the outcomes."
- Individuals limited to a $1,000 cap on contributions to PACs and political funds
- Individuals limited to a $500 cap on contributions to political party units
- Independent expenditures (IEs) from political parties and caucuses limited to $2,000
- IEs over $500 up to the 20th day before an election must be reported within 48 hours.
- Starting the 19th day before an election, IEs over $100 must be reported within 24 hours.
What's more telling is that Rep. Seifert thinks this is a legitimate line of attack, something that's going to hurt Tom Emmer. Frankly, this reeks of desperation. Rep. Seifert knows that he's had a difficult last couple of weeks in terms of winning delegates to the State GOP Convention. His frontrunner status has disappeared.
I'm betting that Rep. Seifert knew that he needed something to change Tom Emmer's momentum. If this is his answer, it fell far short of ebbing Tom Emmer's momentum. In fact, I'm not certain that this won't hurt Seifert with the activists.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a member of Tom Emmer's Steering Committee. The opinions expressed in this post are my own.
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2010 3:41 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Mar-10 05:00 AM
"That sounds like a man who's thinking that the next governor will be working with a DFL majority in both the House and Senate."
Again, that seems to me to be a critical differentiator between the two candidates. I believe that Mr. Seifert will be more likely to produce GOP majorities, but better able to work AGAINST (not with) a persistent but hopefully much diminished DFL majority legislature. YMMV.
What concerns me far more than this difference is the fact that both campaigns seem to have fallen into throwing around tiny barbs from long-past votes or statements, rather than focussing on the important task of which is the better candidate, best able to advance Republican principles in office. That requires both a firm grasp of, and commitment to, those principles AND the ability to articulate them persuasively to a wide audience in order to get himself (and others) elected. Second place pays nothing.
I'm also concerned that this detailed sniping is going to harden positions in both camps and make us unable to unite after the state convention. That would be disastrous. I don't know who is right about these details, and I don't particularly care, particularly since they all seem to be matters of interpretation.
Comment 2 by Average Joe at 09-Mar-10 09:00 AM
Interesting how all these supposed small government Emmer disciples all lose their principles defending restrictions on free speech. Then they have the audacity to say Seifert should be ashamed of the position.
LOL.
Emmer is a campaign looking for an issue. He's a typical lawyer, twisting words like a gymnist.
Comment 3 by Brent Metzler at 09-Mar-10 09:24 AM
"Tom Emmer has been committed to getting GOP majorities elected in the House and Senate. That's what visionary leaders do."
Um, ok? The GOP has 21 members in the MN Senate. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that the Republicans are going to hold every seat they have now. But OTOH, the climate is favorable for the GOP to defeat some DFL members to and it would not be surprising for the GOP to come out ahead. But they need +13 to even have the majority. +13!
Now, maybe Emmer has some magical pixie dust in his pocket that he can get out and sprinkle around on election day to get +13 seats in the Senate, something that hasn't happens for decades in MN. But I think it is more likely that his rose-colored glasses are getting smudged again and it is time to clean them up again and join reality with the rest of us.
The MN House may be easier to win a majority in, but if you don't have both bodies, you will have work with a DFL majority.
Call that defeatist if you will, but I call it reality, and I'd rather support a candidate who doesn't have their head in the clouds then one who campaigns on the assumption that if they win, the GOP will have the majority in both bodies of the legislature.
J Ewing: "I'm also concerned that this detailed sniping is going to harden positions in both camps and make us unable to unite after the state convention."
From what I've heard from conservatives, that ship has already sailed. There are just too many people who would rather see the DFL win if their guy isn't on the ballot.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Mar-10 10:55 AM
First, I don't accept as fact that having a DFL majority in the Senate means that a GOP governor would be working with a DFL majority. That's because, I believe, it's quite likely that a number of DFL senators would be more moderate than the people currently in the majority. While the GOP governor would technically be working with a DFL majority, it's quite possible that, operationally speaking, he'd be dealing with a GOP-leaning body.
Second, I know of 3 DFL Senate seats that are as good as gone. That's before I've done any research into the Senate races. I suspect 13 isn't as daunting a gain as you're making it out to be. It's still daunting, to be sure, but it's far from climbing Everest.
Third, I said that Tom Emmer was committed to GOP majorities in the House & Senate. I didn't say that he was predicting GOP majorities in the House & Senate. That's a huge difference. As such, your comment that Tom's seeing things through rose-colored glasses is misguided. You've heard what wasn't said. It's time you set aside your biases & read what was actually said instead of hearing what wasn't written.
Comment 4 by Drew Emmer at 09-Mar-10 12:08 PM
HF 2116 was simply intended to reduce corruption in campaign finance. The system, as it was and is, is profoundly corrupt. Anyone who thinks the campaign finance process isn't corrupt is simply a fool.
The fundamental motivation of Tom's bill was to create transperancy. In a perfect world we could contribute as much as we wanted to any candidate without having to hide behind corporate shells, 527s and organizations that claim to be charities. As it stands today a small fraction of the spending is done on teh radar, while most is done below the radar.
Tom's campaign isn't mudslinging or distributing hit pieces against Marty. Can Marty's bunch honestly say that?
Hopefully the delegates will hear both candidates out and make an informed choice grounded in facts. That way whichever candidate we endorse we might have a chance to actually win.
......Or we can just keep on lording over the Empire of Nothing that the GOP minorities in both houses have become. This is it folks. We either hold the Govs office and gain in the House or we are effectively irrelevant. We either win enough seats to reform our dysfunctional government or it will continue to grow unabated.
Comment 5 by Brent Metzler at 09-Mar-10 02:14 PM
"While the GOP governor would technically be working with a DFL majority, it's quite possible that, operationally speaking, he'd be dealing with a GOP-leaning body."
So, after losing the governors race *again* the DFL is just going to give it up and do whatever Emmer says?
Doubtful.
Seems more likely when you are not wearing the rose-colored glasses that losing the governor's seat would make the DFL more aggresive in opposing the GOP, not less. Especially in Emmer's case because he's much further apart from the DFL then even Pawlenty was.
"Second, I know of 3 DFL Senate seats that are as good as gone. "
I know 2 GOP Senate seats that are as good as gone. So that makes what, +1? If we're lucky, and I assume that we are, we'll win enough seats to have a veto-proof Senate. But I don't see +13.
"Third, I said that Tom Emmer was committed to GOP majorities in the House & Senate."
I don't even have a clue what that means. Committed to GOP majorities??? I don't predict something will happen, but I'm committed to it? I never accused Emmer of predicting anything, just that it was unlikely to have GOP majorities in the legislature next session.
A GOP majority means 67 seats in the House and 34 seats in the Senate. That's +20 in House and as I've previously said +13 in the Senate. You can't have a majority without winning the seats, and those are a lot of seats, even in a good year. How exactly is Emmer "committed to getting GOP majorities elected in the House and Senate" without, as you delicately put it, predicting that it will happen?
GAMC Details, etc.
Here's some details about the GAMC reform agreement reached last Friday:
Following negotiations, Governor Pawlenty and legislative leaders [Friday] announced an agreement to provide continued health care for Minnesota's low income population. The plan will replace General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC).This wouldn't have happened if Gov. Pawlenty hadn't vetoed the DFL's original legislation and if the House GOP hadn't upheld Gov. Pawlenty's veto. These reforms wouldn't have happened if not for Rep. Matt Dean's tireless insistance on reforming GAMC rather than his settling for jsut refunding the program.
The agreement establishes substantial payment reforms to the state's health care system. "This agreement includes meaningful health care reform and important cost savings," Governor Pawlenty said. "I would like to thank Senator Berglin, Representatives Murphy, Huntley and Dean for their hard work on this issue. This is a step forward in difficult times."
Effective June 1, 2010, the plan creates a new hospital-based coordinated care delivery system in partnership with county agencies. Coordinating Care Organizations (CCO) will manage health care and provide medically necessary services for eligible Minnesota residents. Capped block grants to CCO's will be funded with $71 million from the state's General Fund in FY 2010-11 and $131 million in FY 2012-13.
The Governor and legislators also agreed to establish a method to reimburse CCO's for drug costs associated with medical care. Drug reimbursements would be capped at $45 million coming from the General Fund in FY 2010-11 and $83 million in FY 2012-13.
To ensure a seamless transition to the CCO model, GAMC will be temporarily extended under the agreement through May 2010. The extension will be funded with $28 million from the Health Care Access Fund. As a result, the Department of Human Services will not proceed with its plan to transition GAMC recipients to MinnesotaCare.
The agreement also includes a six month Uncompensated Care Pool (UCP) for hospitals that are not designated as CCOs. The temporary UCP will be funded with $20 million from the Health Care Access Fund in FY 2010-11.
GAMC eligible individuals are low-income adults, ages 21-64, who have no dependent children and who do not qualify for federally funded health care programs. Funding for the program was set to end April 1, 2010. When GAMC funding ended, enrollees were to be automatically moved to MinnesotaCare.
During a conversation with a loyal reader of this blog, I asked if these global budgets might be seen as an incentive to the CCO's for providing more preventive care rather than curative care. I was told that that's precisely what legislators were hoping would happen. The GAMC program, which will disappear at 12:01 am on June 1, 2010, didn't provide that type of incentive.
There's now a new challenge before the DFL. This time, the DFL agreed to reforming a portion of the health care system. That wasn't their first choice. Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan (HF3036) has passed its first committee test just like last year. Just like last year, Steve's Healthy Minnesota Plan would save Minnesota's taxpayers approximately $350,000,000 annually.
Let's see if the DFL adopts Steve's legislation as a way of reducing Minnesota's $994,000,000 deficit. I hope the DFL adopts Steve's common sense reform but I'm still pessimistic on that happening. Her'es hoping my pessimism is proven wrong.
Either way, Minnesotans will know that Republicans like Matt Dean, Laura Brod and Steve Gottwalt have common sense reform ideas that will save Minnesota's taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It's now the DFL's decision as to whether they'd rather play follow the leader in reforming health care or whether they'd prefer playing the role of obstructionist.
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2010 4:27 AM
No comments.
Obama: "I Hate Insurance Companies; Let's Give Them $336 Billion"
For a man who supposedly hates insurance companies, President Obama sure has a way of showing his disgust with them. Frankly, I wish President Obama would show his disgust for me in similar fashion. Here's what ABC is reporting :
"(Health Insurers) will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. This is no secret," the president said. "They're telling their investors this 'We are in the money. We are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship,'" the President told supporters at a stop in Pennsylvania today.The American people have figured out that this is what passes for critical thinking on the Obama administration's part. My first reaction to this post was "they 'punish' companies by making them more profitable? Please punish me like that. I'd settle for not getting that harsh of punishment."
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, wrote to insurance company executives demanding that they justify premium hikes.
Neither mentioned that the Senate health reform bill, which is the basis for Democrats' last best chance at comprehensive reform, would give the insurance companies millions of new customers required by law to buy health insurance. It would also require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of age, gender or pre-existing condition.
To help pay for the new insurance requirements the government would give to people money to buy insurance, $336 billion over the next ten years. That money, ultimately, would have to go to...drum roll...insurance companies.
It isn't difficult to fiure out why the insurance companies haven't launched a full-scale ad campaign against Obamacare. They're probably thinking of this Br'er Rabbit line :
"Please don't throw me in the briar patch."President Obama's grandiose rhetoric isn't matched by real action. In fact, more often than not, his actions more closely match what he says he's opposed to. The American people have figured that out, which is why his popularity has dropped so dramatically. We're reaching a point where President Obama's credibility is suffering.
"But The New Tax Credit [For Health Insurance] He's Proposing? That Wouldn't Go To You. It Would Go Directly To Your Insurance Company, Not Your Bank Account," said Obama in October on the Campaign trail.President Obama will say anything to get his health care legislation passed. America knows that. That's why Republicans are prepared to run on the health care issue :
And yet that's exactly what Democrats' proposal would do and why so many would prefer public insurance option to compete with the private market. Supporting the Senate bill will be tough for many liberal Democrats in the House .
The Texas senator said Republican candidates would be asking voters, "Are your health care costs lower?" "And I think the answer to that would be, no, they're not," said Cornyn, answering his own question in a briefing with reporters. Asked if Republicans would be running on repeal of the legislation if it survives, he replied, "If the bill passes, I think that's surely one of the things that we'll run on."This is a winning issue for Republicans. People hate the Democrats' health care legislation. If Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts running by touting himself as the final nail in the Democrats' health care coffin, think of how potent that position will be in Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.
Last year, President Obama made a decision that health care was the hill that Democrats were willing to die on. This November, that's precisely what will happen. Republicans will take the Democrats up on that opportunity.
President Obama's doublespeak, with assistance from willing Democrats, will be their electoral undoing.
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2010 2:49 PM
No comments.
Romney's Sinking Ship?
Ed's post reminded me of the various reasons I can't support RomneyCare. The inclusion of Romney's interview this past Sunday with FNS's Chris Wallace gave me knew reasons why I won't support Mitt Romney should he decide to run for president in 2012. Here's a quote from Gov. Romney's interview with Chris Wallace:
What we did is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people had to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it or paying their own way. No more free riders.CFG's Andy Roth thinks differently :
"We can say unequivocally that that is not a conservative plan," Andy Roth, Club for Growth's vice president for government affairs, told our reporter Ryan Derousseau when asked for comment on Romney's claim about Romneycare.Gov. Romney is turning a bad hand into the worst hand possible. There's an old maxim in poker about a really crappy hand that holds "the best way to throw that hand is away." That's what Gov. Romney should've done right from the start.
On Sunday, Romney elicited skepticism even from Fox's Chris Wallace when he said: "There a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing. What we did I think is the ultimate conservative plan."
But Club for Growth's Roth dismissed this as bunk, citing Romneycare's individual mandate as proof. "The individual mandate is diametrically against what free-market conservatives believe in," he said, adding that if Romney thinks his plan amounts to a conservative policy "than I think he is in the wrong party."
Instead, Gov. Romney's pride wouldn't let him do that. Instead, he fought to explain why his plan was better. Right now, I'd say that tactic isn't working. In fact, I'd say that tactic is failing miserably.
Mr. Roth is right. This isn't what free-market conservatives believe. Gov. Romney is left with the difficult task of arguing that government telling private citizens what to buy in great specificity is a good thing. Paul Ryan illustrated what free-market principles look like this interview :
1. Here in Minnesota, there are 65 separate mandates on health insurers, all of which drive up the cost of a health insurance premium. With Ted Kennedy & Co. writing health care 'reform', isn't it likely that their legislation will contain lots of expensive mandates? Wouldn't that necessarily drive up health care costs?Congressman Ryan's plan is the quintessential free-market conservative plan because it relies on people making their own decisions on how best to address an area of need. RomneyCare is the exact opposite. It tells people what they should do.
Yes. That is one of the major problems with a public plan. Insurance shouldn't be one-size-fits-all. The public plans being proposed by Ted Kennedy and others will likely mandate a lot of coverage that not everyone needs, making it more expensive for everyone. We've seen this problem at a state level where a state mandates coverage for something like hair regrowth formula, that only a small percentage of the population even wants access to, but ultimately, those mandates drive up the cost of insurance for everyone, even those who don't use much coverage at all. The Patients' Choice Act addresses this problem by allowing insurance plans that sell health insurance through state exchanges to be exempt from these mandates. These plans only need to meet the minimum benefit standard prescribed by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. People need to be able to purchase health insurance that isn't heavily loaded with mandates.
2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
Think of Ryan's Patients' Choice Act as what real health care reform looks like. By contrast, I've started thinking of RomneyCare as the disastrous 'big brother' to ObamaCare. No thanks. Obamacare hasn't even been enacted but I've already had too much of it.
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2010 4:02 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Mar-10 07:57 PM
I"m always puzzled by politicians who want to defend something that everyone else has already realized was less than promised-- a not uncommon occurence with government "reforms." One would think that it would be far easier to tell people that, while it seemed a good idea at the time, there were compromises or hidden flaws that have only now become obvious. I don't think politicians have any record of infallibility to defend, except perhaps in their own minds.
Comment 2 by Jeannetta at 09-Mar-10 07:58 PM
The only positive to Romneycare is that it's done on a state level where it should be *IF* it is ever to be done which is questionable.
I used to support Romney, with this interview, his support for McCain and his support for Bennett, I think I'm done.
