November 6-7, 2009
Nov 06 08:20 DFL, DNC Out of Ammunition Nov 06 06:27 A Testable Theory Nov 06 10:24 Back From the Brink? Nov 06 17:25 Pelosi Subverts The Process; Why Am I Not Surprised? Nov 06 22:41 Steny Forgot A Few Things Nov 07 06:47 AMA Blood Feud Nov 07 07:59 Do As You're Told Or We'll Ruin You Financially Nov 07 13:51 How To Become a Half-Term Wonder
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
DFL, DNC Out of Ammunition
If there's anything that'll prove that politicians or political parties are worried, it's when they put out ill-prepared statements. Yesterday, I quoted DNC Spokesman Hari Sevugan following the Freedom Rally on the Capitol Hill steps. MinnesotaIndependent is quoting Sevugan in this post . Here's a portion of the DNC's official statement:
But it is surprising that after Congressman-elect Owens won a special election by supporting the President's agenda in a New York district that hasn't elected a Democrat since Benjamin Harrison was President, that the Republican party would continue to allow itself to be led around by nose by the likes of Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the rest of the extreme tea party crowd. It's their extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda that has Americans leaving the Republican Party in droves, and so, if displays like today are what they think is a smart political strategy, all we can say is: go for it.If that's the best that the DNC can do, then they're in a world of hurt. That's easily exposed as pure BS.
First, the GOP's "extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda" was so unpopular that it carried Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine to victory. No, wait. The GOP's "extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda" didn't lead to an anti-GOP tidal wave. The GOP's beliefs and policies appealed to independents so much that they voted 2:1 for Republicans and against Democrats.
Second, let's be blunt about this "Democrats haven't gotten elected to NY-23 since the Civil War" meme once and for all. Michael R. McNulty held that seat for 4 years from 1989-1993. While it wasn't called NY-23 at the time, it was the geographic region now called NY-23. If Democrats want to argue on that thin point, I'll let them knock themselves out over it.
Thirdly, Bill Owens campaigned on the fact that he opposes the public option. That's hardly winning "a special election by supporting the President's agenda." Most people would rightly argue that that's winning by running away from President Obama's agenda.
A more telling sign that Democrats are running low on intellectual ammunition is this statement from Maureen Reed's campaign:
Bachmann claims her rally is to remind Congress of the town hall meetings over the summer, but those meetings were orchestrated by insurance companies opposed to meaningful reform from the start. One insurance company in particular was caught urging employees to attend tea parties and has already spent $3.5 million this year lobbying Congress.Reed Campaign Manager Jason Isaacson has to do better. People don't hate insurance companies making profits. It's a huge industry. It isn't uncommon for huge industries to make billions of dollars of profits, though I'll admit that it's getting more rare with each Obama policy enacted.
Michele Bachmann shouldn't be defending her political contributors who have reaped billion dollar profits last quarter; she should be focused on helping the hard working families and small businesses of Minnesota's Sixth District that need health care reform now.
If Mr. Isaacson wants to play that game, then let's have Ms. Reed defend the contributions she's gotten from environmental groups that are driving up the price of a gallon of gasoline and preventing us from being energy independent. I'm betting that Central Minnesota voters care every bit as much about energy prices as they care about insurance company profits.
Isaacson's statement implies that Michele isn't interested in health insurance and health care reform. The DFL and DNC have trotted out that meme ad nauseum. It isn't working, especially after the House GOP plan got a great review from the CBO :
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.Let's compare Pelosicare's policies with the House GOP's plan.
That amendment contains several provisions that are intended to increase rates of insurance coverage by reducing its costs or subsidizing its purchase, including:
CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019-83 percent-would be roughly in line with the current share.
- Regulatory reforms in the small group and non-group markets, including establishing association health plans (insurance coverage that is offered to members of an association) and individual membership associations, and allowing states to establish interstate compacts with a unified regulatory structure;
- 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;
- Federal funding for states to use for high-risk pools in the individual insurance market and reinsurance programs in the small group market; and
- Changes to health savings accounts (HSAs) to allow funds in such accounts to be used to pay premiums under certain circumstances, to make net contributions to HSAs eligible for the saver's tax credit, and to provide a 60-day grace period for medical expenses incurred prior to the establishment of an HSA.
Insurance premiums continue going up under Pelosicare. They drop under the House GOP's plan. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP
Pelosicare raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. The House GOP plan DOESN'T RAISE TAXES. PERIOD. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP
If implemented, Pelosicare would increase deficits by $750,000,000,000 in the first decade and would cost $1,800,000,000,000 for the first decade it's fully implemented. The House GOP plan shrinks the deficits by $68,000,000,000 the first decade. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP
Now who's for reform that (a) doesn't explode the already-exploding deficits, (b) actually shrinks insurance premiums, (c) actually reduces lawsuit abuse practices and (d) that actually does something to help people who've been diagnosed with pre-existing conditions?
Dr. Reed, I'd welcome your response to the substantive, AND sustainable, reforms proposed by the House GOP, legislation that Michele Bachmann enthusiastically supports.
This is what happens when you send boys out to do a man's job. That's what happens when you rely on someone who's gravitas-deficient.
Posted Friday, November 6, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 06-Nov-09 04:21 PM
Hal Kimball was there, he guessed at a crowd of 5000.
http://buildourparty.blogspot.com/2009/11/steve-king-says-he-can-see-americans-as.html
Think Progress had it at 4000.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/06/bachmann-rally-organic/
And they had it rightly pegged, as best as I can tell it, as orchestrated astroturf lobbyist scripted; same link.
Either way, you can get four thousand to watch paint dry. The Clippers could get four thousand, at their historical worse.
That says a lot more than any spin meister, and Gary, you are one of the better ones, I grant you that but if that woman were in my party I would be doing all I could to poke a rag in her mouth, and since it is always open, it would be easy enough and a public service.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-09 04:33 PM
I've seen the pictures of the event. There's no way 25,000 people attended the event, just like there's no chance that on;y 4,000-5,000 attended.
As for the bullshit that this was an "orchestrated astroturf" event, that's a nice storyline but it's bullshit, too. Please explain how it's astroturfed when homemakers from Washington State, Arizona, Minnesota, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Missouri & Wisconsin attended.
Eric, you're better than that. Next time you print these types of allegations, you'd better have proof for them. Had I not known you & submitted this type of comment, I would've sent it to the spam bin without hesitation.
As for Michele, I've never been more proud of her. While Collin Peterson & Little Timmie Walz sit in Ms. Pelosi's lap & do what they're told, Michele has the spine & integrity to fight against Pelosi's Abomination.
A Testable Theory
When King and I talk about opposing political perspectives, we refer to it as a testable theory, meaning that it represents an opportunity to see which theory is right and which theory isn't. This morning, thanks to Ruy Teixeira and Michael Graham , we've got such an opportunity. First, it's Teixeira's position that Tuesday night didn't representa repudiation of President Obama or his overreach:
TO hear Republicans tell it, Tuesday's elections, in which their candidates captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, were a repudiation of President Obama and indicated a voter shift toward their party. They should calm themselves down. The results don't show this and, in fact, suggest some rather daunting challenges for the Republicans.Fair enough. If Mr. Teixeira wants to defend that position, we'll give him that opportunity. It's Mr. Graham's position that President Obama's ability to deliver Democratic victory after Democratic victory is diminished after Tuesday night:
One year ago today, pundits were writing off the American right for the next election cycle, the next decade; some even said the next generation was lost to the Republicans. And now, just 10 months into the Obama presidency, what's really been lost?Graham also notes a specific person who should worry in 2010:
Virginia (Obama, plus five in 2008), New Jersey (Obama, plus 15) and probably the massive health reform bill (Obama, plus 28 speeches, press conferences and town halls, to no effect).
Tuesday's election proved that one of the other things Obama can't win is another term in the corner office for Deval Patrick. Instead, it looks like New Jersey deja vu all over again.These competing theories can't both be right. My job is to determine which is wrong.
You remember New Jersey, where an unpopular and largely inept governor was relying on Obama's star power and his state's solid Democratic majority to get him re-elected. That, and Gov. Jon Corzine's ability to spend $30 million, $12 million more than his opponent.
And if all that didn't work, Corzine had an independent candidate pulling votes away from his challenger, too.
Sound familiar? If you work in the Massachusetts governor's office, it should. Except Deval Patrick doesn't have Corzine's millions, and Obama won't be able to spend as much time in Massachusetts during the national 2010 midterms as he was able to in New Jersey.
In New Jersey, this analysis makes no sense. While an approval rating isn't the same thing as the percentage of votes received, both figures are good measures of a politician's overall standing. So it's significant that Mr. Obama's approval rating among 2009 voters (57 percent) was identical to the percent of the vote he received there in 2008. In Virginia, while the president's 2009 approval rating was 5 points less than his 2008 voting result, the 2009 electorate was also far more conservative than last year's. Besides being far older and whiter than in 2008, the voters in Virginia on Tuesday said they had supported John McCain last November by 8 points, meaning they were not favorably inclined toward President Obama to begin with. In fact, given that only 43 percent of these voters said they supported Mr. Obama last November, his 48 percent approval rating among them does not indicate a shift away from him but rather toward him.First, Mr. Teixeira's fuzzy math doesn't ring right. First, independents agreed with Gov-elect Christie and Gov-Elect McDonnell by a 2:1 margin:
Exit polls showed independents, who made up nearly one-third of voters in both Virginia and New Jersey, went for the Republicans by a margin of nearly 2-to-1.Nearly a third of the voters Tuesday night identified themselves as independents. While it's true that people didn't say that President Obama's policies directly influenced their decisions, it's foolish to think that President Obama's policies didn't contribute to the growing anti-Washington, 'politicians-can't-get-anything-right' mood.
In Virginia, national issues like health care were cited as driving forces for independents voting for McDonnell. Since the Virginia legislature isn't debating a health care bill, that means that independents were talking about Pelosicare and Obamacare.
Let's look at another factor that Mr. Teixeira isn't talking about. In both Virginia and New Jersey, President Obama campaigned frequently for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine. He didn't have any effect on the Virginia election. Having a president be a total non-factor isn't the type of thing that White Houses brag about. Instead, they'd rather sweep that under the proverbial rug, which Mr. Teixeira does by ignoring it.
In New Jersey, President Obama didn't play a role in the race tightening. Looking at the polling, Corzine didn't make it a closer race either. That's because the main reason why Corzine closed the gap was independent candidate Chris Daggett. It's interesting to note that people started returning to the Christie camp after Democrats admitted that they were paying for robocalls for Daggett.
Democrats essentially said that their candidate couldn't win on his own and that President Obama was powerless to reverse the tide. At minimum, we can say that President Obama was impotent in winning these high profile elections.
The conventional wisdom is that Creigh Deeds lost because he ran a bad campaign and because he didn't embrace President Obama enough. I'll respectfully disagree. Ten months into his administration, President Obama's agenda has made him unpopular with independent voters. Cap and Tax doesn't sit well with Virginia's coal-mining industry. Obamacare worried suburban voters mightily.
Mr. Teixeira, please explain how you can say that Tuesday's elections weren't a repudiation of President Obama's policies when they fed into the growing angst voters feel, especially if they're recently unemployed. Tell me how the public's realization that ARRA is a failure isn't a reflection on President Obama.
Mr. Teixeira can cite exit polling statistics if he'd like but the proof is in the major swing in voters in a single year.
The good news is that we'll have another testable moment next year. The bad news for Democrats is that the results quite likely won't change much.
Posted Friday, November 6, 2009 7:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 06-Nov-09 07:22 AM
Coattailing is a real thing, but probably overly trumpeted in looking at things. Did Bachmann coattail on Bush? She used that mechanism for funding first time, Cheney, Bush, Rove and Hastert in town for her sorry self. But was it coattailing or shaking the money tree?
Is there a single Dem money tree, that way, should be your question.
I do not see it.
I see Obama weakening among progressive thinkers, for being too much like Bush. Blow your smoke, Gary, but when it clears look at the continuity.
So he's lost a part of the coalition and the tepid pro-insurance industry thing that Congress will give him on healthcare and which he will gladly sign proclaiming it a landmark; folks skeptical on both sides will see that for a sham.
So, it is back to the question what have the GOP to sell if they want to win voters?
Not Palin. Not Pawlenty. Not hate and divisiveness, that only goes so far and the RINO purge will have consequences.
If the P and P pandering worked, the NY 23 would still be GOP. Instead, the party went west because the carpetbaggers were pandering to only a segment.
I believe that's the lesson for you and your friends and mentors, Gary, the inmates cannot run it.
Back From the Brink?
After the unemployment numbers were published this morning, even the NYTimes can't sugarcoat what's happening. Also after this month's unemployment figures were released, Rep. Carolyn Maloney said that, yes, they'd pulled the economy back from the brink but that there's still a long ways to go. NO KIDDING!!! Here's the thing from the NYTimes' article that caught my attention:
Dean Baker, a director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he did not expect declining unemployment rates until next spring. " We may be looking at very high levels ," Mr. Baker said, " barring a policy response , for several years into the future."Rep. Mike Pence, the chairman of the House GOP Conference, issued this statement on the jobs report:
Families across this nation are devastated by the reality of a 26-year high unemployment rate. It's hard to find a friend or a neighbor who hasn't been touched by today's news that the national unemployment rate is 10.2 percent. The challenges facing our families and small businesses are obvious to those who are listening. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership has turned a deaf ear to the concerns voiced by countless citizens, and the American people are paying the price.The Democrats' ideology is pushing them to vote on the Pelosi Abomination. They've worshiped at the altar of single-payer, 'universal' health care for a century. A little thing like unemployment reaching a 26-year high isn't on their radar screen when they're focused on an historic vote that would (a) kill health industry jobs, (b) explode the already-exploding deficits and (c) give government unprecedented control of our lives.
"The American people want to know why Congress is forcing through the Pelosi plan for a government takeover of health care instead of a plan that will help create jobs. Concerned citizens don't understand why their elected officials can't work together to create jobs and bring relief to families hurting in the city and on the farm. It is time Democrat leaders abandon their endless pursuit of government-run health care and begin working on bipartisan solutions that will put the American people back to work.
The Democrats' mantra that they're cleaning up the mess left by "the last eight years" isn't playing anymore. This graphic shows that the Democrats' projections are rosy but that reality destroys their projections:
Economic reality doesn't match the Democrats' projections, most likely because the Democrats' projections are just window dressing, not serious predictions based on sound economic principles. Most likely, they're wishful thinking.
This is just another instance where Democrats aren't setting the right priorities. They're rushing to pass unpopular legislation that will hurt the economy while ignoring putting in place economic policies that would lift the economy from the rut it's in. Voters of all stripes won't accept policies that keep unemployment at or near today's 10.2 percent.
Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, partisanship fades when you're unemployed or you know someone who is unemployed. At that point, people stop caring whether the man or woman with the solutions has a D or an R behind their names. That's why the DNC is most likely ordering Maalox by the case as they put a strategy together for 2010.
Whether we're back from the brink or not is immaterial. What's got people's attention is whether they're unemployed or not and whether they see signs for hope. Right now, people haven't seen proof that Pelosi's minions care about the economy.
Posted Friday, November 6, 2009 10:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 06-Nov-09 04:14 PM
Bush chickens coming home to roost.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-09 04:34 PM
Wrong. These are all problems of Obama's own making. You can't forever blame the guy who isn't there. Man up for a change. Admit that the stimulus is a disaster & that Obamanomics is a failure, too.
Pelosi Subverts The Process; Why Am I Not Surprised?
The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon wrote that House Democrats are intentionally gaming the CBO system in an attempt to limit the public's outcry against the bill:
Obama budget director Peter Orszag laid the groundwork for this feat. While director of the CBO in 2007 and 2008, he fostered a more collaborative relationship between the CBO and members of Congress, which enabled the agency to provide behind-the-scenes guidance to Democrats crafting their mandate . That's why the cost of the Democrats' individual mandates appears nowhere in the half-dozen or more "preliminary cost estimates" the CBO has completed on various Democratic health-care bills.Look at that last sentence because it truly is the money line. Pelosi's Democrats don't want people to know the true cost of the Pelosi Abomination. Pelosi is scheduling a vote for this weekend, at least in part to prevent squishies from returning home and facing questions from angry constituents.
In Massachusetts, which has enacted what is essentially the Democrats' health plan, mandatory premiums account for about 60 percent of overall costs, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. On-budget government spending is just 40 percent. By my count, mandatory premiums accounted for a similar share of the Clinton health plan's projected cost .
So while the CBO estimates that the coverage expansions in the House Democrats' legislation would trigger about $1 trillion of new federal spending over ten years, the actual cost of those coverage expansions is more like $2.5 trillion .
This deserves highlighting because it proves that Pelosi doesn't care that the public hates her bill and its price tag. This is the Democrats' Holy Grail achievement if it's signed into law. They care more about it than they care about doing what the people expect them to do.
Pelosi's Democrats don't care that the Pelosi Abomination will heap hundreds of billions of new tax burdens on middle class people, pile new mandates on individuals, small businesses and state governments and cuts half a trillion dollars from seniors' health care programs. There isn't a demographic group that won't be affected.
Pelosi's Democrats don't even care that this legislation will drive doctors into early retirement, which will inevitably trigger rationing of health care.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT IMPROVING HEALTH CARE!!! THIS IS ABOUT INCREASING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CONTROL OVER OURThe Little Tyrant From San Francisco is too gutless to even let the public compare her abomination with the House Republicans' plan. The House Republicans' plan actually lowers insurance premiums, doesn't add to the annual deficits, includes abusive lawsuit reform and doesn't raise taxes. The House Republicans' plan also increases portability and deals with the issue of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.
LIVES!!!
In other words, the House Republicans' plan deals with the actual problems facing John Q. Public, something that Pelosi's Abomination doesn't attempt to do.
Democrats voting for this bill will pay a steep political price. Byron York aptly writes that the idiots following Pelosi are more afraid of her than they're worried about their constituents. That's why I'm calling for the next phase of the movement to be starting up highly visible PACs that pledge to defeat any Democrat that votes for this bill, starting with representatives like Tom Perriello, Tim Walz, Walt Minnick, Earl Pomeroy, Betsy Markey and Baron Hill.
Speaking of Tim Walz, his op-ed says that Pelosi's Abomination will "will protect jobs, families":
The House health care bill has four important pillars of reform:That's the first "pillar." Here are the other three pillars:
The first pillar stops runaway costs and rewards quality care. A patient-centered initiative spearheaded by Mayo Clinic is at the heart of rewarding quality.The current fee-for-service payment model in Medicare perversely encourages health care providers to perform unnecessary procedures and tests.
The second pillar reforms the insurance industry to benefit ordinary folks.H.R.3962 doesn't reform the health insurance industry. It destroys it by overregulating it out of existence. H.R.3962's overregulation stifles competition by overmandating coverages. Finally, H.R. 3962 cuts $426,000,000,000 from Medicare , which will lead to rationing of seniors' health care.
The third pillar promotes competition and choice for people who don't have insurance today or lose it in the future.
Finally, the fourth pillar will improve seniors' access to quality, affordable health care and protect the doctor-patient relationship .
Does Rep. Walz expect seniors in his district to believe that cutting doctors', hospitals' and nursing home reimbursement rates won't cause rationing or lead to doctors to stop treating elderly?
It's apparent that Rep. Walz (a) is Ms. Pelosi's lapdog, not an independent voice for southeastern Minnesota and (b) doesn't think his constituents are bright enough to detect his spin. It's also apparent that Rep. Walz is comfortable repeating Ms. Pelosi's refuted talking points even though they've been demolished months ago (August to be precise).
BTW, Rep. Walz's behavior is a sharp contrast between himself and Michele Bachmann. Michele's got a spine made of titanium whereas Little Timmie has a bark that makes toy poodles sound ferocious.
Speaker Pelosi might get the bill passed this weekend. After that vote, though, Democrats will have to return home. When they do, they'll be greeted by angry constituents demanding to know why they voted against their constituents' wishes.
Speaker Pelosi is hanging Democrats out to dry. After this vote, the Senate will take time because Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to pass a bill as destructive as Pelosi's Abomination. That's gonna leave guys like Tim Walz defending his voting for the failed stimulus bill, the omnibus spending bill that increased federal spending by double digits, for the national energy tax and for the government takeover of health care.
When Democrats return home to their districts, their constituents will put the fear of God in them. After a weekend or a week facing angry constituents, these Democrats might think that they'd rather fight Pelosi than their constituents.
Posted Friday, November 6, 2009 5:35 PM
No comments.
Steny Forgot A Few Things
Steny Hoyer's op-ed uses all of the Democrats' discredited talking points, which is why his op-ed is a disaster to people with common sense.
Reform will mean security and stability for the middle class. Insurance companies will never again be able to deny you coverage because of "pre-existing conditions" that can range from asthma to pregnancy. They will never again be able to decide that you've gotten too sick for the coverage you've paid for.To believe old Steny tell it, you'd think that Pelosi's Abomination fixes everyone's complaints with our current system, lowers health insurance premiums and reduces the budget deficits to boot. Actually, that's Steny's claim:
Americans will be able to have affordable insurance through a new Insurance Exchange, a competitive marketplace, if they change jobs, lose a job, or strike out on their own as an entrepreneur. In fact, an analysis from MIT recently showed that the Insurance Exchange will significantly reduce premiums, by $1,260 per year for a family with an income of about $90,000, up to $9,050 in savings for a family with an income of $38,590.
For seniors, reform protects access to their Medicare doctors, creates incentives for physicians to cooperate on higher-quality care, and closes the prescription drug "donut hole" that leaves drugs unaffordable for millions.
For small businesses, reform can help control rising premiums that put them at a competitive disadvantage against foreign companies and big businesses. They will also be able to access the Exchange to buy coverage at lower rates only available today to the biggest companies.
Finally, reform is good for our budget. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the Democratic bill will reduce our deficit by $104 billion over 10 years, and won't increase deficits in the years after that.To use George Will's favorite line: WELL!!!
There's just one problem with Steny's claims: they' don't have anything to do with reality. For instance, I'll give Democrats the option to either admit that the Medicare cuts are illusionary intended to prevent this bill from having a huge deficit or they can admit that they're cutting Medicare Advantage to the bone and that they're forcing inferior coverages on those seniors currently enrolled in MA. They can't have it both ways.
Noticeably missing from Steny's op-ed is the mention of tax increases. Why, old Steny didn't even mention taxing "the rich" to pay for Pelosi's Abomination. Why would old Steny have us believe that they can make all these changes without raising taxes while balancing the budget?
Might this op-ed be a Peter Orszag bait-and-switch special ? You don't know what a Peter Orszag bait-and-switch special is? Here's the definition of a Peter Orszag bait-and-switch special:
Obama budget director Peter Orszag laid the groundwork for this feat. While director of the CBO in 2007 and 2008, he fostered a more collaborative relationship between the CBO and members of Congress, which enabled the agency to provide behind-the-scenes guidance to Democrats crafting their mandate. That's why the cost of the Democrats' individual mandates appears nowhere in the half-dozen or more "preliminary cost estimates" the CBO has completed on various Democratic health-care bills.It isn't difficult to game the system. First, you start with telling CBO you plan on cutting $426,000,000,000 from Medicare even though there's no proof that you'll ever cut that money. Next, you raise taxes, everything from excise taxes on so-called Cadillac plans to taxes on medical devices to fines against companies for not offering health insurance to its employees and fines against individuals who refuse to purchase health insurance.
In Massachusetts, which has enacted what is essentially the Democrats' health plan, mandatory premiums account for about 60 percent of overall costs, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. On-budget government spending is just 40 percent. By my count, mandatory premiums accounted for a similar share of the Clinton health plan's projected cost.
So while the CBO estimates that the coverage expansions in the House Democrats' legislation would trigger about $1 trillion of new federal spending over ten years, the actual cost of those coverage expansions is more like $2.5 trillion .
Finally, you phase in the coverages over a 4-5 year period but you start all of the taxes immediately. Like Michael Cannon said, the true cost of the bill is $2,500,000,000,000 for the first 10 years that it's fully implemented.
Another thing that Old Steny must've missed was his explaining how Pelosi's Abomination cuts health care costs when every moving target gets hit with a tax increase. Is Old Steny telling us that those companies will just eat the cost of those tax increases rather than passing them onto consumers?
I wouldn't read anything into all these omissions. It's not like Speaker Pelosi would tell Old Steny to intentionally omit these things. Just because Madame Speaker has accused the CIA of consistently lying to Congress while they're under oath doesn't mean she'd tell the Majority Leader to lie about what Pelosi's Abomination. i'm sure that it's all a misunderstanding.
Who am I to question their voracity or their patriotism?
Originally posted Friday, November 6, 2009, revised 07-Nov 6:57 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Nov-09 12:51 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget this is the same CBO when it scored the Bush tax cuts it predicted that tax revenues will drop. The Wall Street Journal followed the prediction from 2003 and it was something like $250 billion off with revenues being higher.
Part of the rationale the Democrats are using is that they can predict these revenues will come in, but they won't.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
AMA Blood Feud
Democrats were excited to tell the world that AARP and the AMA had endorsed Pelosi's Abomination, otherwise known as H.R. 3962. This Newsmax article shows that there's more to the story than Speaker Pelosi is telling us:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is facing a rebellion from some of its members, who have introduced a resolution to revoke the organization's endorsement of the Democrats' healthcare proposals.There's a full scale rebellion within the AMA :
AMA delegates tell Newsmax that the association's board of trustees failed to obtain delegate approval before endorsing the reform proposals . The AMA's delegate assembly is considered the group's primary policy-making body.
Dr. James Dolan, the president of the Florida Medical Association, tells Newsmax the delegates "are pretty upset with the board of trustees right now" and an emergency resolution will be submitted to revoke the endorsement.
Rescinding the AMA endorsement would be a significant blow to Obamacare at a critical point in the debate, as reflected in Democrats' reaction Thursday when they'd won endorsements from AMA and the AARP.
In fact, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons announced their opposition to the House bill today.That isn't the only grumbling within the medical community:
"Sadly, in the ongoing health care reform debate, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We could not support H.R. 3200, the 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' which was introduced in the House last July and unfortunately, we must now oppose this new House bill too. It contains no significant changes or improvements when it comes to the issues we believe are vital for true health care reform in this country ," said AANS president Troy Tippett.
Former AMA president Stormy Johnson is preparing a resolution to rescind the endorsement, sources said. And the surgeons are introducing a resolution that would call on the AMA to actively oppose any legislation that includes a public option or a temporary doc fix or that doesn't include medical malpractice reform.When this fight is over, I suspect that we'll find out that the this administration threatened the AMA. It's already known that this administration cut a deal with them :
At a May 11 White House meeting that US officials called a "game changer," drugmakers, the insurance and hospital lobbies, and the American Medical Association, representing physicians, committed to finding a total of $2 trillion in savings in the healthcare system over the next 10 years. Hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry even agreed to fund a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to promote reform.This is hardball politics at its corrupt worst. This administration is telling the world that the AMA supports Pelosi's bill even though the directors of the AMA didn't put the endorsement up to a vote. This is yet another example of an organization's leadership that doesn't pay attention to its rank-and-file. In much the same fashion as the TEA Party activists saying NO MORE!!!, the various sub-groups are saying NO MORE!!! WE WILL BE PAID ATTENTION TO!!!
Republicans and their 'family' of 527s should be at this meeting getting videos shot of these groups rebelling, then taking them to Capitol Hill. Seeing the open rebellion might change votes.
The bottom line is that Republicans shouldn't back away from a bare-knuckled fight on this. It's just too important not to do everything possible.
Posted Saturday, November 7, 2009 6:56 AM
No comments.
Do As You're Told Or We'll Ruin You Financially
If I was asked to write a caption to the penalties included in Pelosi's Abomination, I'd write this:
Pelosi to America: Do as you're told or we'll ruin you financially.Thanks to Rep. Dave Camp's press release , which includes the Joint Committee on Taxation's (JCT's) letter , we now know that the penalties for not complying with Speaker Pelosi's tyrannical demands are astronomical:
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing: buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately."WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Pelosi is a tyrant. She's telling America that we must do what she says or we'll be prosecuted, with the very real possibility of getting ruined financially by the federal government. This isn't a dictatorship!!! Just because Speaker Pelosi is acting like it is doesn't make it so.
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax." [page 1]
"If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply!" [page 2]
"Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
Section 7203: misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201: felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]
It's now vital that We The People reject Speaker Pelosi's tyrannical demands. This is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they fought for independence. In fact, I suspect that they'd be leaders of the TEA Party protests if they were living through this type of tyranny.
I suspect that they'd be standing with people arguing that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose these mandates on people, that the Tenth Amendment prevents that constitutionally.
If the bill's provisions were enacted, here's what we'd have to deal with:
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker's bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.As long as we have the ability to get to Capitol Hill, we should be fighting Speaker Pelosi and her corrupt minions over this legislation because it's evil. Yes, you read that right. This legislation, especially the penalty provisions, are EVIL!!! Anything that tells We The People that the government, whatever the level, can tell us that we must purchase things that we don't want to buy is evil. It's a GIGANTIC STEP towards a Soviet style command-and-control economy.
Speaker Pelosi needs to hear from everyone across the nation that we're rejecting her tyrannical legislation, that they work for us and that we'll take our deep disgust out on Democrats across this nation. We should make clear that passing the Democrats' legislation will lead to a mass termination of Democrats next November. We should emphatically tell Speaker Pelosi AND HER MINIONS that they'll face a political earthquake next November the likes of which will make Virginia's elections look like a minor tremor.
Yesterday, Byron York wrote that Democrats are more afraid of Speaker Pelosi than their constituents . That dynamic must be flipped on its head ASAP . It's time that the Democrats knew with unflinching certainty that they're acting against the will of the people and that their actions will carry with it a termination notice next November.
That's the only right course of action to take when our liberties are being stripped away by a tyrant like Speaker Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic minions are waging war against the American people. If it's war they want, then war they will get.
UPDATE: Ed NAILS IT in this post :
The radical nature of the bill has finally become clear. The Democrats most at risk have begun peeling away, abortion vote or no abortion vote. They have to win re-election in less than a year, and this will be Exhibit A for their Republican challengers looking to paint them as big-spending statists more interested in bullying their constituents than listening to them.Ed's exactly right. I referenced Byron York's article where he said that moderate Democrats were more afraid of Speaker Pelosi than they were of their constituents.
Don't be surprised to see more Democrats start to jump overboard this weekend. Steny Hoyer didn't think he had the votes yesterday, and the longer this goes, the fewer he will wind up having.
I think that just changed with this information getting out. If people don't get upset to the nth degree, then they're comatose.
Posted Saturday, November 7, 2009 9:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Nov-09 10:27 AM
At least now you are talking about something essential, and not about how public option would swamp private insurers because they would be unwilling to compete and because they pay their top people obscene amounts of money, divide markets, and have exorbitant featherbedding "marketing" costs - what beyond lobbyist and campaign contributions that means is unclear to me - but your crying towel about those rapacious people being squeezed out - most would say sooner rather than later.
Now you are looking at something that people should care about, how things might be worse instead of better.
I realize the insurance maggots, excuse, I meant magnates would care about your earlier arguments, but now you are talking to a public that might not say, "Good if it really happens," to what you are saying now.
But you KNOW the smoke and mirrors show really will make things more profitable for those who buy influence, and you KNOW any "public option" will be a tiny fig leaf to cover a naked sell-out to insurance and other vested interests.
That is the argument you now are making Gary, and you can dissemble if you care to, but the force is to be exerted to do what other than force people into buying coverage under terms that will be industry set [i.e., rapacious] vs. government set [where the industry would be more on regular payments to the politicians instead of having gotten an up front total sale].
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-09 01:56 PM
At least now you are talking about something essential, and not about how public option would swamp private insurers because they would be unwilling to compete...It isn't that private insurers won't compete against the government. It's that the government just prints money or raises taxes to artificially compete with private insurers. Let's see how they'd compete if they couldn't raise taxes & couldn't print money to float their monopoly.
This bullshit that government can do things better is insulting. This morning, Tim Kaine talked about the predatory tactics that insurance companies engaged in in turning down claims. What the idiot doesn't talk about is that Medicare turns down more claims than any private insurance company. Where's the outrage over THEIR predatory business practices? When you start answering those substantive questions, then let's talk.
As for the insurance industry making a 2.2% profit industry-wide, I'll ignore the Democrats' claims that they're evil. QUESTION: Why do Democrats have a problem with people making money? Bill Clinton understood the importance of the private sector. President Obama thinks of the private sector like a collection of maggots, kinda like you think.
NEWSFLASH: Capitalism is the worst economic system except all others. It's what made America the world's economic powerhouse. TRY IT SOMETIME!!! You might just like the results.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 08-Nov-09 01:40 PM
fyi - Gary, there was a range of reasons some voted against HR. 3962
And it's been said each Senator and each Rep is a law unto himself or herself - the party can whip, but it cannot nail dissenters.
The most cogent voice of opposition I have seen, this link:
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=153995
The hypocrisy of others, voting both ways, is exposed. It was an industry bill and only BS thrown against the wall (and most sticking) created any viewpoint that it was not.
It is a disgrace.
How To Become a Half-Term Wonder
The first quote I remember from presidential campaigns was Gerald Ford declaring that Jimmy Carter would soon become a "one-term wonder." He said it with such confidence that it's stuck with me all these years. That quote was triggered this morning because, in his first hour as a congresscritter, Bill Owens declared that he'd be a half-term wonder :
Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today. Owens indicated in a press release that he was now in favor of the bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during his campaign .This is terrible timing for Owens with Rep. Camp publicizing the fines that Pelosicare will impose on individuals, small businesses and families. Honestly, it's political suicide. Breaking your biggest campaign promise less than an hour after getting sworn in isn't something that people won't notice. I'll bet the proverbial ranch that Owens' constituents will read him the riot act at his first townhall meeting in the district.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill . Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option .
There won't be a need for lobbyists and community organizers to fill a large gymnasium 10 times over. All it'll take is a bulletin at a grocery store and a few tweets and you'll have a packed gymnasium to read Rep. Owens the riot act. That's if Rep. Owens has the spine to even hold a public event like that, which certainly isn't a guarantee considering the spinelessness he's shown thus far in his less than illustrative congressional career.
Whereas Michele Bachmann is a profile in courage standing up to the Tyrant By the Bay, aka Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Owens is a profile in spinelessness.
If Rep. Owens votes for Pelosicare, then I'd suggest he start locking in the price for a U-Haul trailer because he'll be using their services within a year.
Posted Saturday, November 7, 2009 1:53 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Nov-09 02:45 PM
I wonder can a bunch of voters in the his district sue the entire federal government that they were the victims of fraud since Owens had told them if elected he will vote against the public option.
It's quite obvious that Owens and anyone supporting him clearly committed fraud to get this vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-Nov-09 08:49 AM
I believe that premise has already been rejected in the courts. The notion that a politician can be sued for lying would have a "chilling effect" on his free speech, and the fault in the matter clearly lies with any fool that would believe him. Caveat Emptor.
Besides, even if you won, he would pay you off with your own money.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 08-Nov-09 10:15 AM
Your quote from Ford is interesting.
He realized the chickens from the Nixon-Ford and oil embargo years would come home to roost during the Carter presidency, which happened, and that people would blame the person in office and not the causative past.
Ditto for Obama. Never mind a war done on borrowing. Just only look at the dishonest way Bushco imposed the Kyoto promises, while publicly saying otherwise because the hardship his administration caused and/or assisted would have been blamed on him if he'd been an honest man. And now he is in hiding, totally quiet, letting Cheney be the blusterer.
Now Copenhagen will be happening and there will be some lurid domestic thing going on - drawing out healthcare contentiousness plus who knows what else - while the future is being mapped by people wanting to plan on a global scale. Some distraction will be paraded by mainstream media.
But the major alternative to globalism is naked multi-party mercantilism, and the war threats and wrenching cycling of overcapacity worldwide that go with that are viewed as bigger concerns to orderliness than scaling down the living standards in the more prosperous nations to share the limited resources of the earth in a more stable way.
So, is the Tata auto a bigger threat to things than melting of the ice caps? Whichever way you answer, talking Tata, Toyota, and GM and Chrysler in terms of the citizens of this country and the major prosperous European nations being governed into taking lowered standards of living - that seems verboten. So the politicians and news organs on all sides of the US spectrum, and in Asia and Europe all lie a little or a lot.
But change is happening. Being better with limited resources of the earth, that IS hard to argue against in the abstract, but when it affects individual, family, and community affluence and greed, the lying starts. In DC. In the press. Among politicians on even the smaller stages. The corporations buy FOX and MSNBC coverage [Olberman being told to drop the Bill O'Reilly as worst person gig for example] and government support is bought via lobbying and long treasured revolving door rights once out of office.
Do you suppose Michele Bachmann will be offered a book contract once voted out? I could see that.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-09 02:05 PM
Do you suppose Michele Bachmann will be offered a book contract once voted out? I could see that.Michele isn't getting defeated anytime soon, Eric, so just brace yourself for Michele having a long, productive career in the majority. Whether it's Tarryl or whether it's Dr. Reed, it's kinda irrelevant. Tarryl's been exposed as a anti-business liberal who doesn't fit this district. Dr. Reed is a proponent of single-payer health care, which is less popular in the 6th District than toxic waste. If either candidate stays within 8 points in 2010, they should consider themselves lucky.
