November 11-14, 2009
Nov 11 12:11 Is Ruth Marcus the Next Linda Douglass? Nov 11 13:01 A Freight Train Named Kasich Nov 12 00:18 K Street Identifies Vulnerable Pelosicare Voters Nov 12 01:22 Rep. Israel Won't Accept Bachmann's Statement Nov 12 14:53 The Wrong Battlefield, The Wrong Criteria Nov 12 18:41 Tarryl's Disgusting Family Cheapshot Nov 13 08:46 A Jobs Summit Or a Presidential Photo Op??? Nov 14 09:54 What's Missing From Tarryl's Website?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
What's Missing From Tarryl's Website?
I just visited Tarryl's campaign website just to check it out. I didn't immediately put my finger on it but I sensed that there was something missing from it.
Yes, it has the obligatory About Tarryl page . It has a news page , which, BTW, is filled with union endorsements. There's a "Contribute page", too.
Then it dawned on me. Tarryl's website is missing an issues page.
Why won't Tarryl tell people what her positions are on card check, Cap and Tax and Pelosicare? I'll stipulate that she doesn't need a page explaining her position on taxes. I know that she'll vote for the biggest tax increases without hesitation. If given the opportunity, she'll vote for massive tax increases. I know that because that's what she's consistently done in the past.
Still, it's quite possible to put a positions page together for Tarryl.
Given her past silent support for single-payer health care and her willingness to vote for huge tax increases, it's reasonable to think that Tarryl would've voted for Pelosicare, though she would've had to have held her nose to vote for a bill including the Stupak Amendment.
Considering Tarryl's supporters bragged about her 100 percent rating on the environment and considering the fact, again, that Tarryl doesn't hesitate in voting for huge, job-killing tax increases, it's reasonable to conclude that she would've voted for the job-killer known as Cap and Tax.
Considering the fact that Tarryl voted to increase state spending by 17 percent in 2007 at a time when the economy was slowing down, it isn't a stretch to think that she would've enthusiastically supported President Obama's irresponsible budget that's producing unprecedented and unsustainable deficits.
Tarryl has highlighted the union endorsements she's received. That's understandable since they're an important part of getting a DFL endorsement. Here's the question voters should have: Will Tarryl represent the citizens of CD-6 or will she represent the union leadership's interests?
There's alot of blanks that voters need filled in about Tarryl, something that I'm willing to help do. (It's obvious Tarryl won't fill in the blanks herself since it's been almost 4 months since she announced her candidacy.)
Let's just hope that Tarryl starts filling in these important blanks. Tarryl's actions say everything about Tarryl's priorities: Tarryl has time for an interview with a lefty rag like the Daily Beast but Tarryl won't tell Sixth District voters whether her priorities fit with the District's priorities.
Hopefully, we'll find that out soon. Until Tarryl takes the time to fill in the blanks, I'll just study what she's done in the past, then see if there are any parallels between her past votes and the issues she'd face in Congress.
BTW, the Daily Beast has featured such substantive articles like "Levi Johnston Gets a Porn Award" and "Catching Up With the Hipster Grifter", a story about Kari Ferrell, who is serving six months for mail fraud and forgery.
Stop past this blog frequently to stay updated on the hiding Tarryl Clark. I'm doing the job that Tarryl refuses to do.
Posted Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:54 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Nov-09 10:21 AM
Yeah, Clark is a "good" moderate, as is Maureen Reed, but I really would like a Wellstone instead.
This middle-of-the-road approach is sad, but it would be such an improvement over Dark Ages Michele Bachmann, organizer of pep rallies, that we can only hope Clark or Reed reaches the general election, and wins. Even such a moderate would be better than nothing.
And Michele Bachmann, there's never been a bigger nothing in Congress that I can recall.
And, she's a RINO.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-09 11:50 AM
Tarryl isn't a moderate. She's crafted a moderate image but she's a hardline liberal. That's what her votes & her quotes tell us about Tarryl.
If Republicans outwork the DFL, then it's irrelevant who the DFL nominee will be because Michele will win a solid victory.
Is Ruth Marcus the Next Linda Douglass?
When I read Ms. Marcus's Washington Post op-ed , my first reaction was to wonder if she's shooting for Linda Douglass's job as WH health care propaganda minister. Her accusation that Republicans unjustifiably used scare tactics was quickly 'backed up' with criticizing the House GOP's arguments:
Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: "The bill raises taxes for just about everyone." Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.Ms. Marcus differentiates taxes from the 'choice' on obeying the mandate to buy an expensive health insurance policy or paying a fine instead of buying the health insurance. I'm betting people won't differentiate between a tax, that onerous mandate or the fine. I'm betting that they'll just think of those options as money out of their pockets. Whether you call it a fine, a mandate or a tax isn't important to a family's financial situation. They're just out alot of money.
Georgia Republican Tom Price: "This bill, on page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much."The minute I hear that an unaccountable bureaucrat will decide "the manner in which diseases" can be "effectively and appropriately" treated", especially when I know that someone like Ezekiel Emanuel will be administering the program, is the minute I'm thinking the worst.
Not true. The bill sets up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research "in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."
The legislative language doesn't prevent the CCER from telling Grandma to take a pill to alleviate the pain her cancer is causing vs. actually treating and possibly beating the cancer into remission. This administration has been quite clear that they plan on cutting treatments to senior citizens.
Michigan Republican Dave Camp: "Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance."This is stunning. Ruth Marcus unknowingly just highlighted something that the Democrats don't want you to know: that they'll fine you for buying health insurance that they don't approve.
Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardship exceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted, just like others who cheat on their taxes.
The minute Pelosicare is signed into law, HSAs aren't a nannystate-approved health insurance policy.
Let's suppose that you've currently got an HSA and a policy that covers catatstrophic events like a broken leg, stroke or heart attacks. The minute Pelosicare takes effect, the Obama administration will send you a notice that your insurance isn't in compliance with Pelosicare and that they're fining you for not complying with Pelosicare's mandates.
You've done the right thing. You're providing health insurance for your family with your money. You've worked hard. You've done the right thing. And you're getting fined for that.
Doesn't that frost you???
I'm betting that you remember the times President Obama said that people could keep their insurance if they liked it, that nothing would change. Thanks to Pelosicare, that's now BS with an asterisk. You CAN keep the policy. The bad news is that you can't pay for it with pretax dollars. The worst news is that you'll get fined for keeping it.
Does Ms. Marcus understand that that's nannystatism run amok? I'm betting that she doesn't. Further, I'm betting that she doesn't understand the backlash that Pelosicare is creating, both in the courts and in voting booths nationwide next November.
Here's another opportunity for Ms. Marcus to play Linda Douglass:
Florida Republican Ginny Brown-Waite: "The president's own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs."Folks, she's got us on this one. Christina Romer didn't estimate that we'd lose 5.5 million jobs during her time as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. According to Politifact , here's the accurate wording:
Not true. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the bill would increase economic growth and add jobs. Republicans misuse Romer's previous economic research on the impact of tax increases to produce the phony 5.5 million number.
You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?
Another Republican lawmaker, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, put it more accurately when he wrote in a July 20 column, " According to methodology developed by Dr. Christina Romer , the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the government takeover would cost Americans 4.7 million jobs over the next 10 years ."Isn't that reassuring. We won't lose "5.5 million jobs" and Christina Romer didn't develop that methodology while she was chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. She said it when she was a peer-reviewed faculty member at UCal-Berkeley. That distinction makes all the difference.
Is Ms. Marcus that excited to dance on the head of that tiny pin? Is she that desperate to defend this indefensible legislation? Apparently, there's nothing she won't do to make this a reality. Apparently, she's sold her soul just like Linda Douglass did.
Why am I not surprised?
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:30 PM
No comments.
A Freight Train Named Kasich
With approximately a year left before Ohio voters pick their next governor, a new Quinnipiac Poll is giving Gov. Ted Strickland reason to start buying heartburn medicine by the case :
Economic woes in the Buckeye State put Gov. Ted Strickland in a vulnerable position for 2010, a new Quinnipiac Poll (1,123 RVs, 11/5-9, +/- 2.9%) finds.The good news for Democrats is that there's time for Ohio's economy to recover. The awful news for Democrats is that there's alot of time for Kasich to open up a wide lead, something that I think is likely based on this information:
General Election Matchup
Strickland (D) 40 ( -6 vs. last poll , 9/15)
Kasich (R) 40 (+4)
Don't Know 18 (+3)
Former Rep. John Kasich still is an unknown quantity to nearly 70 percent of voters, the poll finds, but has pulled into a tie with the incumbent after trailing by 30 points in Quinnipiac's initial matchup in February.Good luck defining John Kasich as not Ohio's kind of guy. He's typical blue collar Ohio. He's the son of a mailman. He's THE GUY who crafted 5 straight balanced FEDERAL BUDGETS !!! He teamed with Bill Clinton to put together an economy that created 22,000,000 jobs in 8 years.
"This race is about Ted Strickland," Quinnipiac's Peter Brown says in the poll release. "Because so few voters have a firm fix on Kasich, the campaign is likely to be a race to define him in the eyes of most voters. That will mean the Strickland campaign will be trying to convince those seven in 10 voters who don't know enough about Kasich that he isn't their kind of guy."
Considering Ohio's unemployment rate, the ineffective, if not failed, Strickland economic record, coupled with the irresponsible federal spending, I'm betting the proverbial ranch that this is exactly the type of setting that John Kasich will shine in.
There's other bad news from Quinnipiac's polling, namely that it's a poll of registered voters. Midterm elections are won by who turns out their party's activists. GOP activists certainly know and identify with John Kasich. The party's activists will run through walls for John Kasich.
The same can't be said for Gov. Strickland. While he's a decent candidate, he isn't the type of candidate that inspires fierce loyalty. It isn't that the Democrats' machine won't work hard on GOTV. It's that Ohioans won't be inspired to vote for Gov. Strickland.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. The Democrats had better hope that it isn't a replay of last Tuesday.
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:07 PM
No comments.
A Jobs Summit Or a Presidential Photo Op???
President Obama's announcement that he's holding a jobs summit at the White House in December is a really stupid idea on a variety of levels. First, it's admitting that the irresponsible and expensive stimulus bill is a failure. Second, it highlights the fact that unemployment during the OBama administration has grown dramatically.
Thirdly, it gives people another opportunity to question this administration's and this Congress's competence. That isn't good because the public already thinks that Republicans would do a better job with the economy than Democrats by a wide margin.
This should be a red flag that this summit won't produce anything that'll help spur job creation:
The forum, which will gather business executives, economists, financial experts and union leaders, will be aimed at examining initiatives to accelerate job creation, Obama said.What do unions and non-profits know about creating jobs? I mean, seriously. If President Obama is serious about creating jobs, why doesn't he stop the health care bill in its tracks? The plethora of tax increases on small businesses are job-killers. He could also tell Democrats that Cap-And-Trade is a nonstarter, too, because it's a job-killing tax increase that will hurt businesses and families alike.
President Obama's job summit is a photo op to show people he cares about creating jobs. I don't care whether he makes another speech about the importance of creating jobs. My sole criteria is whether his administration and the Democrats in Congress actually DO SOMETHING that starts creating jobs.
Mr. President, Caring means nothing with us. We The People demand results. If you aren't part of the solution, we'll consider you to be part of the ongoing problem. The time for speechifying is over. It's time for positive results.
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 9:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 13-Nov-09 09:15 AM
At least the one Bachmann kid has a job. At taxpayer expense? Like his mom? Benefits?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Nov-09 04:07 PM
Eric, thanks to Obamanomics, he's one of the few people who won't be unemployed this year. Obama's economic policies are a disaster. The stimulus bill has failed. The jobs 'saved' website is filled with errors, like the $1,047 riding lawnmower that saved 50 jobs. It's a joke.
Obama's been an abject failure.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Nov-09 02:29 PM
Hey, give the one some slack. The only thing he knows is speeches and photo ops; let him have it. I would much rather have him displaying his trademark smile and speechifying than actually DOING something. The first is harmless, or even beneficial because his incompetence is on full display. The latter is dangerous, as we've already seen.
We have to rephrase the old adage. In this case, it is better he open his mouth and be thought a fool, than to be silent and just do stupid stuff.
Comment 3 by Walter Hanson at 13-Nov-09 05:01 PM
wait a minute Gary. I thought the line was that the stimlus has worked beyond their wildest dreams. Why do they have to do a jobs submit?
Umm isn't that admiting that the stimlus has failed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-09 01:40 AM
Walter, Check out the post's first paragraph. You'll notice I said that holding a jobs summit is "admitting that the irresponsible and expensive stimulus bill is a failure."
K Street Identifies Vulnerable Pelosicare Voters
Thank God for K Street activists and Roll Call magazine. Thanks to K Street's ad buy and Roll Call's reporting , we now have a substantial start to a list of vulnerable Democrats. Here's the list:
The ads will air in the Districts of Democratic Reps. Jim Himes (Conn.), Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Dina Titus (Nev.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.), Mark Schauer (Mich.), Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), Debbie Halvorson (Ill.), Bill Owens (N.Y.). Gary Peters (Mich.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Bill Foster (Ill.), Kurt Shrader (Ore.), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Steve Kagen (Wis.), John Hall (N.Y.) Dan Maffei (N.Y.), Tim Bishop (N.Y.) and Leonard Boswell (Iowa).The ads they're talking about are explained here:
The labor-backed Health Care for America Now and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers on Monday announced a $650,000 television ad buy to thank 20 Members who voted for the Affordable Health Care for America Act.I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's important that we make that list of people famous.
"It takes courage to stand up to the lies and scare tactics," HCAN's Richard Kirsch said in a statement. "It's imperative that voters understand the important role these Members of Congress have played in taking an historic step."
Rather than doing a copycat ad buy like HCAN and AFSCME are doing, though, I think a better way of putting things into perspective is to send out a mailer into these districts that contains a side-by-side comparison of sorts. On the left side of the page, we'd list the tax increases, the 111 new bureaucracies and the outrageous fines included in HR 3962.
On the right side of the page would be the GOP alternative. I'd highlight the fact that the GOP alternative increases competition by letting companies sell health insurance across state lines, includes lawsuit abuse reform, which increases defensive medicine costs and DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY TAX HIKES.
If we're going to let people know about these congress-men and -women, let's give voters the entire picture. Let's let them know what these "courageous" members voted for but let's also tell voters about the GOP alternative that they "courageously" rejected.
I'd suggest to NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions that the NRCC buy a couple strategically located billboards in each of these districts, too. That way everyone knows what these 20 "courageous" congress-men and -women voted for and against.
Simply put, let's make them famous by Election Day 2010. The American people deserve to know which congressmen and women ignored the will of the people.
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:24 AM
No comments.
Rep. Israel Won't Accept Bachmann's Statement
Rep. Steve Israel is demanding that Michele Bachmann apologize because one sign at last Thursday's health care rally had images of the Holocaust:
Rep. Steve Israel is still waiting for an apology four days after people protesting health care reform legislation used Holocaust imagery at a rally organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann.I certainly understand why Rep. Israel would be upset with the sign. That's a perfectly legitimate reaction. What isn't a perfectly legitimate action is Rep. Israel demanding an apology, espcially after Rep. Bachmann's office issued this statement:
Thousands of protesters, including tea-partiers and anti-abortion activists, attended Thursday's rally outside the Capitol in response to Bachmann's request for a "House Call" to urge lawmakers to reject the health care bill the House of Representatives passed Saturday.
Many in the crowd expressed their opposition with signs, one of which read, "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945." It bore images of Holocaust victims.
"Sadly, some individuals chose to marginalize tragic events in human history, such as the Holocaust, by invoking imagery and labels which have no purpose in a policy debate about health care.It's obvious that Michele Bachmann doesn't condone or defend this indefensible action. It's equally obvious that Michele Bachmann is sincerely criticizing this behavior because it doesn't belong in any discussion, especially in a public policy debate.
These regrettable actions negatively shift the focus of the current discussion on this issue. The American people deserve an open and honest debate to ensure the best possible solution to our health care problems, and I agree that these unfortunate instances are wholly inappropriate."
To her credit, Michele Bachmann didn't criticize the person, then say something like "but I can empathize with their emotions." This wasn't a "yes, but..." statement. Bachmann's statement was clear and unequivocal in condemning the sign.
I said in the beginning that Rep. Israel's anger with that vulgar sign are undoubtedly genuine and visceral in nature. I stand by that opinion. It's just that it's difficult imagining why Rep. Israel is insisting on an apology after Rep. Bachmann issued such a tightly worded, unequivocal statement condemning the sign.
I suspect that Michele will talk in private with Rep. Israel within the next week or so and that this will all be patched up.
Finally, I'd say to the activists attending TEA Parties that such signage is repulsive and doesn't belong in any setting. It gives Democrats a legitimate argument about our behavior. This must stop ASAP. Our job is to persuade, not insult. That sign can't persuade people because thoughtful people are repulsed by it.
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:22 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 12-Nov-09 07:30 AM
Thank You, Gary, for taking a stand against this type of hateful rhetoric.
So, how did SD 15 GOP Secretary Leo Pusateri react when you told him to stop HIS continual use of nazi comparisons? I imagine you have told him to stop ASAP!
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 13-Nov-09 07:59 PM
Gary:
Just curious how did Israel react when Rep. Grayson of Florida made his bad use of the term holocust. I dont' remember a single Democrat attacking that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 15-Nov-09 01:20 PM
It was only after the St Cloud Times national reporter called Bachmann, that Bachmann made this statement.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-09 06:16 PM
It was only after the St Cloud Times national reporter called Bachmann, that Bachmann made this statement.You know this how???
Comment 4 by James Kessler at 15-Nov-09 05:54 PM
He isn't accepting the apology for the simple reason that she isn't accepting responsibility for it. She needs to apologize for egging that sort of crap on in the first place.
What? You guys think you can say whatever you want, from calling the other major party in this country "traitors" and "unAmericans" and "threatening freedom" and when others start acting like your side it's your responsibility? When your party's officials and leaders seem to have a habit of calling the democrats everything from "socialists" to "fascists" to "Nazis" to "slavemasters" your party doesn't get to claim innocence when the people who support you start mimicing you.
Oh and by the way, Mr. Hanson, you may want to bother to remember that Rep. Grayson did apologize for what he said and acknowledged that he stepped way over the line.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-09 06:16 PM
Mr. Kessler, Michele isn't accepting responsibility for it because it isn't her responsibility. She can't control the sign's vulgar language thanks to this thing called the First Amendment.
Let's settle something once & for all. When America sides with a dictator who tried ignoring his country's constitution, that's something that's un-American. That's what President Obama did with the lawful removal of Zelaya in Honduras. We've stood on the side of liberty throughout our history, starting with our own Revolutionary War, down through FDR standing with Europe after the Nazis tried capturing Europe.
When the Democrats pass a bill that penalizes people for doing the right thing, when that legislation imposes $729,000,000,000 of additional taxes on every person in the United States, when the Cap & Tax legislation that the House of Representatives passed woul increase taxes by almost $2,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, I'd say that qualifies as threatening our economic freedom.
Mr. Kessler, I'm calling you out. Show me proof of any GOP leader that's called anyone a Nazi. You're full of shit. It hasn't happened. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.
Yes, conservatives have called Democrats socialists because that's what they are. Dictionary.com offers this definition of socialism:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.If the definition fits, DEAL WITH IT!!!
I'll let this comment stand. In the future, though, comments that make accusations that the commenter doesn't provide verification for will be deleted.
Comment 5 by Eva Young at 15-Nov-09 11:38 PM
Because the statement originally appeared in the St Cloud Times article about this.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-09 01:46 AM
So you're implying that her statement wasn't sincere? Why would you care when Bachmann's office made this statement otherwise?
Comment 6 by Eva Young at 15-Nov-09 11:40 PM
from the St Cloud Times [emphasis mine]:
When asked to comment on Israel's video, Bachmann issued this statement Tuesday:
"Sadly, some individuals chose to marginalize tragic events in human history, such as the Holocaust, by invoking imagery and labels which have no purpose in a policy debate about health care. These regrettable actions negatively shift the focus of the current discussion on this issue. The American people deserve an open and honest debate to ensure the best possible solution to our health care problems, and I agree that these unfortunate instances are wholly inappropriate."
Comment 7 by Eva Young at 17-Nov-09 10:31 PM
I'm merely stating the facts and timeline - which speak for themselves.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Nov-09 10:47 PM
Your facts say nothing important about Michele, though the intended insinuation you included speaks volumes about you.
The Wrong Battlefield, The Wrong Criteria
Tuesday, after finishing this post , I did a quick scan of FB. After scanning that quickly, I noticed former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman was online so I asked him his opinion on the health care debate, specifically the GOP's arguments in the House.
I prefaced that by saying the House GOP had talked too much about deficit neutrality and that they hadn't focused enough on whether the bill would make health insurance premiums less expensive. Here's Sen. Coleman's reply:
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?Norm couldn't be more right in his analysis. I'm not suggesting, nor was Norm, that the cost didn't matter. He's right in saying that people ar worried now that annual deficits are measured in trillions of dollars. That's got families frightened about every expense.
Here's the context that we should view the rising cost of health insurance premiums:
Our taxes will increase under the Democrats' plans. Health insurance premiums will continue rising under the Democrats' plans. We'll be spending trillions of dollars over the next 20 years. The new debt that's being created by the Obama budget is crushing the next generation's future.
Now Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars to partially fix the problem? I don't think so.
Deficit neutrality is important but only if it's coupled with good policies that lower health care and health insurance costs. Who cares if a bill is deficit neutral if it punishes people for being responsible :
The minute Pelosicare is signed into law, HSAs aren't a nannystate-approved health insurance policy.Shouldn't We The People impress on the legislators, the ones who theoretically work for us, that WE DEMAND that this get corrected ASAP? Shouldn't We The People DEMAND that lawsuit abuse reform be included in any reform legislation? Shouldn't We The People DEMAND that anything that's done will lower insurance premiums?
Let's suppose that you have an HSA and a policy that covers catatstrophic events like a broken leg, stroke or heart attacks. The minute Pelosicare takes effect, the Obama administration will send you a notice that your insurance isn't in compliance with Pelosicare and that they're fining you for not complying with Pelosicare's mandates.
You've done the right thing. You're providing health insurance for your family with your money. You've worked hard. You've done the right thing. And you're getting fined for that.
After all, that's what President Obama campaigned on :
Barack Obama ran for president on a promise of saving the typical family $2,500 a year in lower health care premiums.This is proof that the Democrats' legislation is another bait-and-switch gambit. Yes, another. The stimulus bill was touted as a bill to jumpstart the economy. Nine months later, we know that it was a bill to jumpstart the Democrats' political allies. This legislation was touted as bringing down health care costs, which were "crippling private industry."
But that was then. No one in the White House is making such a pledge now.
This legislation does nothing to slow down health care costs to small businesses or families. I noted above that HR 3962 punishes people for doing the right thing. how is that helping families? How is piling on $729,000,000,000 of new taxes helping small businesses?
The federal government shouldn't tell us that a health insurance policy that's legal today isn't legal once health insurance 'reform' is enacted. It's time that We The People told our employees that they'd better start listening to us or we'll fire them in less than a year.
Obama was the one who raised expectations of lower premiums. From one city to the next, and during the presidential debates, Obama made the pledge almost as often as he vowed to remove troops from Iraq: "We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."Whether President Obama raised expectations is irrelevant. We The People can't afford to keep paying ever-increasing health insurance premiums. Thus far, only the House GOP alternative lowers insurance premiums. That isn't just my opinion. It's the verdict that CBO has rendered:
He has barely uttered it since taking office. The last recorded mention by Obama was in May , when he announced that six health industry groups agreed to lower the growth rate in health care spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, resulting in a savings of $2,500 per family "in the coming years."
CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.Here's another provision in the bill that should get closer scrutiny:
A State Innovations grant program to provide federal payments to states that achieve specified reductions in the number of uninsured individuals or in the premiums for small group or individually purchased policies.When welfare reform was passed in 1996, the states were the testing ground for what eventually became part of the national welfare reform. It only makes sense that we look to the states to be the experimentation stations for health care reform.
Until the Democrats' legislation does something to increase competition and lower health insurance premiums, their legislation should be a non-starter. Lowering OUR COSTS is the only criteria that's important.
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:56 PM
No comments.
Tarryl's Disgusting Family Cheapshot
Tarryl Clark has hit a new low in terms of personal attacks. Tarryl's always been thin-skinned but this hits a new personal low. Tarryl went way out of bounds during this interview with the Daily Beast :
Clark also took aim at Bachmann's attacks on AmeriCorps, which she has likened to " re-education camps ." Bachmann's criticism came back to haunt her when it was reported her son had joined Teach for America, an AmeriCorps program.What a cheapshot, though I can't say I'm surprised. I've known for awhile that Tarryl's a cheapshot artist, all the way back to a health care forum at Whitney Senior Center that I posted about here .
"We have three things in common: We're women, moms, and we both have sons in AmeriCorps," Clark said. "The difference is I'm proud of mine and we should be proud of our young adults giving something to the community."
After the forum ended, I talked with Sen. Marty, identifying myself as a "bombthrowing crazy conservative." To his credit, Sen. Marty chuckled and said something along the lines of 'as long as you're willing to learn.' It was a lighthearted moment.
While I was talking with Sen. Marty, Eric from Liberal in the Land of Conservative spoke with Tarryl. When their conversation finished, I walked over to Tarryl to start a conversation. Before I had the chance to even say hello, Tarryl said , in a fairly loud voice, "Hey. There's Gary. He HATES me." Though she said it with a smile on her face, she let it be known at other forums and meetings that she didn't like me because I criticized her policies, her quotes and her votes.
I've criticized Tarryl for saying that the 2008-09 budget wouldn't "do many good things". I've criticized Tarryl because she voted for every major tax increase during the 2007 session. I've criticized Tarryl for not conducting serious oversight hearings aimed at identifying wasteful spending. I've even criticized her for telling Tom Hauser that the best the legislature could hope for in finding savings from the 2008-2009 budget was $500,000,000.
Admittedly, I've thrown in a snarky jab from time to time but that's the nature of the blogging beast. I'm proud to say that I've never taken a personal shot at Tarryl.
After the event, I spoke with Eric and told him what Tarryl had said. He agreed that it was inappropriate even if it was meant in jest. I'm perfectly willing to forgive and forget. In fact, that's what I'd done until I read Tarryl's cheapshot at Michele.
I don't need to defend Michele on policies. She's perfectly capable of defending herself in that area. I will defend Michele when another politician takes a cheapshot at her family, though. What Tarryl did is inexcusable. Unfortunately, I'm finding out that it isn't out of character for her.
It's important that we remember that Tarryl said Michele was a "devil with a blue dress on" after the Sixth District DFL endorsed Patty Wetterling as Michele's opponent. In fact, King said at the time that it would be appropriate for you to apologize for that statement:
As our representative, you have an obligation not to piss off people you may need to work with in that capacity. You let the politics of the particular moment get ahead of those obligations Saturday. My readers who live in the district and I will not forget this in November. An apology to your district and to Sen. Bachmann would seem to be in order.I see Eric has a tweet up about Tarryl's cheapshot in which he criticizes Michael Brodkorb and Luke Hellier? I guess it's easier to cheapshot those you don't like rather than defend Tarryl's indefensible statement. ( PS- I'll bet Eric didn't know that Luke worked on Michele's first campaign. Anyone care to lose that bet?)
To be fair, Eric didn't try defending Tarryl's indefensible statement, which is about the only thing Eric's tweet has going for it.
It's time for Tarryl to do the right thing and apologize for her dragging Michele's family into this. That's what a person of dignity would do.
While we wait to see whether Tarryl apologizes, read Andy's post on this debacle . Let's hope that Eric hints that Andy's one of MB's puppets. If that happens, things could get interesting fast.
Originally posted Thursday, November 12, 2009, revised 13-Nov 7:32 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 13-Nov-09 09:05 AM
"Dragging her family into this."
Who, exactly has been on the soapbox consistently braying about five children and twenty-three foster children since the days of trying to sabotage and pervert the schoolboard in Stillwater?
I think Clark should have been more on point, however, about whether or not the Bachmanns' clinic has healthcare coverage for workers.
The last public mention, Eric Black back in the Wetterling race focused on the lack of coverage by the Bachmanns.
That's more on point.
But when it comes to cheapshots, how can you not say it's cheap to shoot at the operation that gave your offspring a paying job?
In hard times, the Bachmann son has work and a paycheck.
Or is he an unpaid volunteer?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Nov-09 09:19 AM
Eric, Michele's talked about her 5 children & 23 foster children only in a biographical sense. They've never been used to win policy debates. That's Tarryl's mistake. Tarryl used Michele's son as a way to deliver a cheapshot against Michele. It was Tarryl acting like a spoiled little brat, which, unfortunately, is her habit.
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Nov-09 10:36 AM
Anyway, it was more a slapshot than a cheapshot. She wound up just across the blue line, and let one go the goalie could not really handle. Only a meager defenseman effort to put the body between the shot and the goal.
Only moans and complaints as it caught the back of the net to score one for the good guys.
She shoots, she scores.
