October 6-7, 2009
Oct 06 06:02 What's Fueled TEA Parties? Oct 06 12:41 Wesley Clark, Obama Shill Oct 06 16:45 Charlie Crist, Be VERY VERY Afraid Oct 07 03:42 Gibbs' Flippant Attitude On Display Oct 07 09:01 Are The Wheels Coming Off? Oct 07 15:32 Democrats Vote Against Accountability Oct 07 20:40 The Devil's In the Details
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
What's Fueled TEA Parties?
All across the nation, TEA parties have drawn big crowds. Speaker Pelosi says that the people attending the rallies aren't working people, that they're part of an astroturf campaign. The DNC has run a video calling TEA Party activists and the people attending August's townhall meetings an "angry mob."
While there's no arguing that people are upset with things, it's wrong for the DNC to characterize the people showing up at the events as angry mobs. The people who've attended TEA parties and townhalls aren't just upset; they're worried. Mostly, they're people who just want to be listened to.
What's got them worried is the amount of money that's being spent to not create jobs. Another thing that's got them worried is that legislators don't truly want to listen. This winter, the DFL announced plans to conduct hearings as part of their listening tour. As I reported here , their intent wasn't to listen to people but to secretly encourage testimony that re-inforced their agenda that favored tax increases over budget cuts and reforms:
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]This is a perfect example of the DFL's intent to not listen to John Q. Public but rather to find activists who would make statements that the DFL leadership agreed with. That didn't work then here in Minnesota and it won't in other states, either.
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on "Town Meetings".
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
Lots of people showed up for the hearing. Many people got passed over because the DFL cherrypicked the people they wanted to testify. When the hearing was adjourned, an entire section of the City Hall erupted and asked why they couldn't talk about cutting spending. Looking back at the subjects that were talked about, it's clear that the DFL wasn't going to talk about anything that they didn't support.
The American people are frustrated because their elected officials would rather manipulate them than listen to them.
Another thing that TEA party activists are upset about is the fact that they've asked questions about specific provisions in the various health care bills, only to be told that the legislation doesn't contain such a provision. Another time, Claire McCaskill was told by an audience member that President Obama was an advocate for a single-payer health care system. When she replied that President Obama wasn't an advocate for a single-payer health care system, the crowd told her that they'd seen the YouTube of him saying it quite clearly.
Following those types of things, I can't blame the American people for being frustrated. What good are legislators if their constituents know more about complex legislation than the legislators know? What good are legislators if they spend more time spinning things in their direction than they spend giving their constituents a straight answer?
Couple that with their frustration over seeing the Obama administration borrow and spend money at a faster pace than any other administration by a staggering amount and it's pretty easy to understand why people are flocking to TEA parties and townhall events.
During my speech at the 9/12 TEA Party, I echoed King's rallying cry of "NO MORE!!!":
NO MORE will We The People let you ignore us. NO MORE will We The People believe that all wisdom resides in tiny corridors of Washington, DC or St. Paul, MN. NO MORE will we treat the words from a career politician's mouth like they were etched in stone on Mount Sinai.Conservatives criticized President Bush's spending habits but nothing like now. Perhaps that's because his spending, as bad as it was, wasn't as startling as Obama's spending is. Finally, we're demanding that money be spent wisely on things that will create jobs. Without job creation, there is no future. The Great Recession won't end until jobs start being created.
Let's take a lesson from today. Look around you & see how many of our neighbors, our co-workers & our friends are standing with us. For too long, we haven't spoken up because we didn't have the courage to tell our elected officials what we thought.
NO MORE!!!
At the moment, the Democrats seem impervious to calls for fiscal sanity. We tell politicians that we need to create jobs. They ignore us. We tell them that their health care proposals don't cut health care costs and that they cost too much. They ignore us.
If Congress keeps ignoring We The People, they'll soon find themselves joining the ranks of the unemployed.
Posted Tuesday, October 6, 2009 6:06 AM
Comment 1 by Liberty at 06-Oct-09 10:51 AM
Be careful wishing for "jobs". The goal should be full efficiency, not full employment. Unfortunately, when government spends more of what we produce, efficiency dwindles and we'll find ourselves trying to inflate our way out of the hole we already have. Americans must spend less than we make and governments MUST do the same or all the jobs in the world won't save us.
Wesley Clark, Obama Shill
Last night, former NATO allied commander Wesley Clark gave irrefutable proof that his loyalties lie with the Obama administration, not with the military he formerly served in. Here's the video of the interview (Be prepared to be sick to your stomach):
The first time I screamed at the television set came after O'Reilly asked about Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops. Clark said that "When a general in the field asks for more troops, you'd better listen." O'Reilly then tried saying that they were on the same page on that. Tried is the key word. Before O'Reilly could finish the sentence, Clark said this:
"But I think that the real issue is 'What's the right mission and what's the right strategy and I don't think it's wrong for the administration to really do a gut check and see if we've got the right mission and the right strategy. If it were up to me, I'd be looking for Osama bin Laden because that's why we went over there in the first place. We missed him the first time. He's not in Afghanistan. He's in Pakistan."Gen. Clark knows that conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating quickly. He knows that Gen. McChrystal did a serious review of both the strategy and the logistics needed to carry out his strategy.
Also, Gen. Clark knows that we didn't go over to Afghanistan solely to kill or capture bin Laden. While it's true that killing or capturing bin laden would've boosted the troops' morale, it's also true that it was important that the NATO forces dismantled the Taliban's training bases, kill their fighters, liberate the country from the Taliban's and al Qa'ida's tyrannical rule and to eliminate al Qa'ida's planning sanctuary.
Gen. Clark knows that killing bin Laden was only part of the mission. He knows this because leaving Afghanistan in the Taliban's control would let Ayman al-Zawahiri continue planning terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark knows that not liberating Afghanistan means that we wouldn't have gained a major ally in the war against Islamic extremists.
Later in the interview, Gen. Clark says that doing a second review of strategy doesn't make President Obama look weak or indecisive, that it's better to get everything right before proceeding. Shame on him for saying that. His statement assumes that Gen. McChrystal didn't do his due diligence before preparing his request for more troops.
Gen. Clark should know that delaying the decision while the Taliban are resurrecting themselves and while NATO casualties skyrocket is unacceptable. President Obama isn't making a decision while soldiers are dying needlessly on the battlefield? That's the type of indecision that a nation at war can't afford from its commander-in-chief.
Here's what President Obama told the VFW convention this August:
By moving forward in Iraq, we're able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March, a strategy that recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base from the remote, tribal areas, to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan . This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war, that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies......Why should we think that the mission and strategy have changed so dramatically since August that another review is in order? President Obama sounded like he knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish in Afghanistan and that he had the right priorities. Six weeks later, it's time to reassess our goals, our strategy and our troop levels needed to accomplish our priorities?
I'm not buying it.
This sounds suspiciously like President Obama voting present again. It isn't the commander-in-chief's responsibility to vote present. It's his responsibility to make timely, informed decisions that help protect our nation and that give our troops everything they need to win.
This administration should send a clear signal that they won't be stopped in destroying what's left of the terrorists' infrastructure network. That's vitally important to preventing another terrorist attack on US soil.
According to iCasualties.org , NATO casualties have skyrocketed since the start of summer. In April, 2009, there were 14 casualties. In July, that total jumped to 76, with August and September coming in with 77 casualties and 70 casualties respectively. Six days into October, we've already sustained 21 casualties.
Mr. President, your indecision is getting soldiers killed needlessly. Shame on you.
Posted Tuesday, October 6, 2009 12:46 PM
Comment 1 by Gen Ramos at 06-Oct-09 07:28 PM
I think you overreact much to what Gen.Clark said. I watched the clip 3 times already and have re-read the transcripts about 2 times. I found not fault in any of the statements that Gen.Clark made.
I guess only in your myopic view of things that you have translated the General's statement as tantamount to impugning or being against Gen.Mchrystal's strategy. You seem to forget your civic history here sir, Gen.Mchrystal is just but one of the many competing experts that the Commander-In-Chief must listen to, where you this concern during the previous administrations handling of this war? I think not.
So quit your bull crap and stop pretending like you actually care about troops and shit, cause I can smell your fart like a skunk. No matter what Pres.Obama do you will have something to gripe about and against. Man for once think before you spew your illogical hatred towards the CINC.
Lest we not forget who is the arbiter and the ultimate decider here it's Pres. Obama and Gen.Mchrystal knows this. You on the other hand do not.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-09 11:23 PM
I found not fault in any of the statements that Gen.Clark made.With all due repect, Gen. Clark said that it wouldn't be wrong to do a strategic assessment of Afghanistan. As I ponted out, that was done in February & the report was released in late March. Then President Obama restated the need to win in Afghanistan in August in front of the VFW convention, where he emphasized the fact that they'd done a comprehensive study of the strategy.
Let's remember, too, that President Obama said that this was a war we have to win. Why wouldn't a commander-in-chief take the advice of his two top generals in the region (Petraeus & McChrystal) ahead of the political advice of VP Biden? That's stupidity!!!
Gen. McChrystal is just but one of the many competing experts that the Commander-In-Chief must listen to.Right, just like McArthur was just "one of the many competing experts" that Truman had to listen to.
So quit your bull crap and stop pretending like you actually care about troops.Believe it or not, I care both about the troops & about seeing that our government do everything to prevent future terrorist attacks. You don't have to be in the military to want that.
Man for once think before you spew your illogical hatred towards the CINC.Stop projecting. I don't hate President Obama. I just passionately disagree with his unwillingness to make a timely decision. When the top general in Afghanistan says that they need more troops soon or else we're at risk of losing the war there, I think it's entirely logical to expect the CINC to make a prompt decision.
Charlie Crist, Be VERY VERY Afraid
It's now official: Charlie Crist has a million reasons to be worried that his done deal Senate seat isn't inevitable after all. In an email to supporters, here's information on why Crist should be worried:
Today, I want to thank you for the support you've given my campaign for U.S. Senate. Because of your generosity, we raised almost $1 million during the third quarter that concluded last week .That's a very big number for someone running against the NRSC's hand-picked liberal candidate to replace RINO Mel Martinez.
This is a strong statement about the direction you believe our Republican Party, our state and our nation should take. It is also an encouraging reminder about how piece by piece, supporter by supporter and idea by idea, we are building a movement that will only continue growing and gaining momentum as we move forward .Charlie Crist thought that this would be an annointing, that people wouldn't notice his liberal policies, ranging from raising taxes to campaigning with President Obama for the less than stimulating stimulus bill . Considering the numerous bad decisions he's made, why should Florida Republicans want Charlie Crist representing them in the United States Senate? Should they get excited at having another go-along-to-get-along RINO serving in the Senate? Should Florida Republicans get excited about having someone represent them that agrees more often with President Obama than with principled conservatives?
The answers to those questions is an emphatic HELL NO!!!
Florida Republicans, however, should be very excited about the possibility of having a charismatic, well-spoken, principled conservative like Marco Rubio representing them and fighting for them in the US Senate.
I'm betting that Florida Republicans would prefer a conservative who they don't have to worry whether he'll vote with the liberal extremists or whether he'll cast the right vote. I'm betting that Florida Republicans will want to know that they'll have someone who represents their priorities, not the priorities of K Street lobbyists and spendaholic liberals.
We don't need more go-along-to-get-along types. They aren't the solution; they're part of the problem. We must insist on principled conservatives who defy inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom. We must insist on that because they're the only people who put their constituents' priorities ahead of all others' priorities.
Florida, this isn't a difficult decision. It's a choice between someone whose loyalty is to himself (Crist) vs. someone whose loyalty is towards his constituents (Rubio).
Posted Tuesday, October 6, 2009 4:50 PM
No comments.
Gibbs' Flippant Attitude On Display
Tuesday afternoon, Robert Gibbs, the Obama administration's version of Baghdad Bob, displayed a flippant attitude about a serious hearing on whether the Obama administration's czars violate constitutional principles. This article highlights Gibbs's flippant attitude perfectly:
The White House was not impressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on czars today, if press secretary Robert Gibbs's comments were any indication. The hearing, entitled "Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch Czars," was chaired by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), one of the few Democratic critics of Obama's "czars."Gibbs' flippant attitude notwithstanding, this is a source of much consternation to people who care about the Constitution. Robert Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama this winter expressing proper concern that Congress couldn't conduct proper oversight into the activities of the czars.
"I don't know if Senator Feingold is calling Franklin Roosevelt to be a witness," Gibbs quipped. "I forget the...said lofty scholarly title of said hearing."
Republicans have criticized the White House for appointing too many czars that don't require Senate confirmation. Democrats respond that previous presidents, including Republicans, have made use of so-called "czars."
" I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this ," Gibbs added.
Here's the best explanation why this hearing was important :
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.The question that Congress needs answer to is whether Congress can hold these special advisers accountable. At this point, the best I can confirm is that I don't know. With a system of government predicated on checks and balances to prevent corruption, oversight capability is a must. I won't trust any administration if that trust is predicated on willingly bypassing the opportunity to question officials' decisionmaking.
Constitutional accountability won't attract the splashy headlines like healt care reform. That doesn't mean it isn't important to the health of our nation.
Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:46 AM
No comments.
Are The Wheels Coming Off?
After I read this article , the first reaction was to question whether the wheels were coming off health care reform's bus. Whether it is or isn't, this isn't the type of news that will make Rahm Emanuel sleep well at night:
Senate Democrats are facing another round of delays in their effort to expand Americans' access to health care because of concern over the cost of the plan and demands that they disclose more about it.If these eight Democrats hold fast to their demands, it'll throw a major wrench in the Democrats' plans. The last thing Max Baucus wanted was to have CBO report on the effects his bill would have on states and the amount of tax increases in the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee has yet to vote on its bill as it waits for the Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost. And a group of eight Democrats whose votes may be crucial to final passage urged that the public be given more time to read new drafts of the legislation.
Adding to the unease was the disclosure last night by a congressional panel that it underestimated the fees that drug companies, insurers and medical device makers would pay toward the overhaul. The industries would be assessed $29 billion more than first calculated, the Joint Committee on Taxation said.
"I want to wait until all the stuff is on the table" before deciding how to vote on the finance panel bill, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said yesterday afternoon. He said he needs to see the CBO analysis first.
Baucus said he's hopeful the CBO will deliver an estimate as early as today on a measure that was priced at less than $900 billion over 10 years before the panel made changes. He said the next steps depend on what the CBO finds.Sen. Baucus's bill might have a federal price tag of less than $1,000,000,000,000 but that won't reflect the total cost of the bill. Rest assured that Republicans will scream bloody murder about the costs the bill will push down to the states in one of the biggest unfunded mandates in US history.
Another part of the bill that's certain to get criticized is the part that imposes fines for people who don't buy health insurance.
Yesterday, Carl Cameron said that the timetable was likely to get pushed back to late November. That's verified with this paragraph from the Bloomberg article:
These obstacles may thwart plans by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to start debate in the full Senate next week and get the final legislation to President Barack Obama before the Nov. 26 Thanksgiving holiday. Reid is already coping with friction among fellow Democrats over issues such as whether to create a government-run program to compete with private insurers.If things get pushed back past the Thanksgiving break, then more senators will squirm heading into a difficult election year. Along with that consideration, waiting until Thanksgiving to have a final vote will give people alot of time to study the bill and pick it apart. As Ed notes here , that's the last thing they want:
You know how they figured that out? They read the bill. Imagine what Americans could find in this legislation if we had time to read it before the Senate took a vote! Of course, that's really what Durbin wants to avoid, not a minimal three-day waiting period, which, by the way, is still less than the five-day waiting period imposed on Americans who want to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase firearms.The longer thoughtful conservatives can keep pressing for transparency, the more likely it is that we'll find objectionable provisions in the legislation, the more likely it is that we'll find hidden costs to the legislation, too.
SIDENOTE: This is the least transparent Congress in history. They refused to let people read the conference committee report on the stimulus bill before voting on it. They did the same thing in the House of Representatives with Cap and Trade. Now, Sen. Baucus is insisting that the Finance Committee vote on his 'Mother of all unfunded mandates' bill before writing of the actual bill and before CBO is able to study the effects the actual bill would have on states and people.
That's why defeating Democrats in 2010 is vitally important. It's vitally important that wedemote Nancy Pelosi to Minority Leader. The minute we do that is the minute that we stop being a speed bump for the Democrats' machine.
Based on the Bloomberg article, it's impossible to say that the wheels will definitely come off the health care reform bus but it isn't too early to say that the possibility exists like it hasn't before.
Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:04 AM
No comments.
Democrats Vote Against Accountability
The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives just voted against holding Charlie Rangel accountable for his hiding income, thus giving thoughtful people the ultimate proof that they aren't serious about corruption.
House Republicans have failed for a third time to oust Rep. Charles Rangel as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Despite the expected defeat Wednesday, the GOP did keep the spotlight on the New York Democrat's ethical problems, although the matter will be turned over to the House ethics committee for a long-term investigation. The House voted 246-153 to refer the resolution to remove him to that panel in a partisan vote that had no meaning except to revisit Rangel's problems.What's the delay? Rangel has admitted that he didn't properly disclose important details about his financial situation by filing an adjustment to financial disclosure forms. This isn't a case of he said, she said. This isn't an instance of allegation competing with counterallegation.
The Harlem congressman is faced with allegations of financial improprieties, including failure to pay taxes on investment income and neglecting to report assets and income on his congressional financial disclosure forms.
If he wasn't an important ally of Speker Pelosi and President Obama, Charlie Rangel would be facing some serious penalties from the IRS. That's undeniable fact. For that matter, if he were a corrupt Republican, it's a safe bet that Charlie Rangel would've faced harsh House sanctions and rightfully so.
Nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity thinks that Charlie Rangel didn't try hiding income from the IRS. Nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity thinks that Charlie Rangel didn't doctor his financial disclosure statements to hide his hiding of income.
Rep. John Carter is right :
"We cannot tolerate a double standard in this country, one for the common man and another for the rich and powerful," says Carter, a former state judge for over 20 years. "To allow Mr. Rangel to continue to serve as Chairman of the very committee with IRS oversight, without paying a nickel in penalties, and with no end in sight to his ethics investigation, sends a clear message to the American public that this government refuses to abide by the same laws they impose on the working people of this country. With this vote, those people can see exactly where their representative stands on the issue of equality under the law."Speaker Pelosi said before becoming speaker that that congress would be the most ethical, the most transparent congress in history. It's ironic that she won't even live by the rules that they subject We The People to, something that Speaker-Elect Gingrich insisted on in the Contract With America.
This proves that the Democrats are arrogant, that they think they shouldn't have to live by the same rules that they impose on others. Especially in a TEA Party world, that isn't acceptable. In this TEA Party environment, we expect all corruption to be punished. In fact, it's a demandment.
It's long past time where elites live by one set of rules and the rest of us are forced to live by the laws on the books. NO MORE will this double standard be tolerated.
Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:36 PM
No comments.
The Devil's In the Details
According to the CBO, the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81,000,000,000 over the next decade:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a cost estimate of the healthcare reform bill under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, concluding it would increase federal spending by $829 billion over 10 years but be offset by enough spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the budget deficit by $81 billion.Before Democrats start getting giddy about that report, they shouldn't forget some important details contained in the CBO's report :
The net number of legal U.S. residents without health insurance would reduce by 29 million over 10 years, the CBO further concluded.
The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.In other words, the CBO's estimates are tentative based on the fact that they don't have the legislative language. Based on that alone, this summary figure is tentative at best.
It's also important to note this information from the report:
Among other things, the Chairman's mark , as amended, would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance ; set up insurance "exchanges" through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid ; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums ; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code.The income that the bill expects from the excise tax on "insurance plans with relatively high premiums" will be negligible because that provision will be killed by the unions. There's a better chance that I'll get struck by lightning twice while holding a winning lottery ticket than there is of that excise tax making it into the final bill.
That paragraph briefly touches on expanding Medicaid without talking about the impact that will have on states' budgets. Simply put, that provision alone will explode state budgets and trigger massive tax increases nationwide. Those massive tax increases will kill entrepreneurial activity and job growth.
Here's another important paragraph:
According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010; 2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources.The $89,000,000,000 deficit reduction can't be achieved without the $201,000,000,000 in revenues from the excise taxes imposed on Cadillac health care coverage.
By 2019 , CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million, leaving about 25 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants).This legislation would increase the deficit by $112,000,000,000 and it wouldn't get close to universal coverage? I can't believe that the American people are going to look kindly at legislation that contains (a) several major tax increases, (b) $404,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts, increases the deficits when the bill is finalized and that leaves 23,000,000 people uninsured.
That's before talking about Medicare reimbursement rates :
Among other things, the Chairman's mark , as amended, would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance "exchanges" through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code.Does anyone think that hospitals and doctors will sit still while they get shortchanged compared with what they're getting now? Hospitals and doctors are already getting shortchanged, causing them to shift costs to people with private insurance. Imagine how this will affect rural hospitals and nursing homes, too.
Here's some preliminary reaction to the unfunded mandates being shipped to the states through increased enrollment to Medicaid:
GOV. TED STRICKLAND (D-OH): "Still, Strickland warned on a recent visit to Washington that 'the states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.' Strickland said that he wants 'a health-care package that is inclusive and provides for all citizens,' but he added that if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes to 'see the federal government assume the greater portion of the costs, if not the total costs.'"In my opinion, there's no way that state legislators and governors will consent to getting hit with the mother of all unfunded mandates. They'd be the villain in the public's eyes for passing a huge tax increase that they'd need to pay for the unfunded mandate that the federal government would dump on them.
GOV. JOHN LYNCH (D-NH): Six Democratic governors did not sign the letter for various reasons. In the case of New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, he did not sign because the letter failed to 'address concerns regarding potential cost shifting to the states,' said Colin Manning, a spokesman for the governor. 'And this concern has been shared by a number of governors that Gov. Lynch has spoken to across the country,' Manning said."
GOV. PHIL BREDESEN (D-TN): "My Guess Is That Most Other States Would Face A Similarly Painful Situation If These Costs Are Passed Down." "In his letter to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Bredesen also urged the senator and his fellow lawmakers to temper down their proposed changes to the low-income healthcare entitlement, an expansion Corker later described as an 'unfunded mandate' that could overburden states at a time when many are struggling to manage the recession. 'My guess is that most other states would face a similarly painful situation if these costs are passed down,' Corker explained in his own statement on Tuesday."
GOV. BEV PERDUE (D-NC): "The Absolute Deal Breaker For Me As Governor Is A Federal Plan That Shifts Costs To The States." "We are all hungry for a solution, but the absolute deal breaker for me as governor is a federal plan that shifts costs to the states."
GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): "I Don't Think It's An Accounting Trick, I Think It's An Unfunded Mandate,We Just Don't Have The Wherewithal To Absorb That Without Some New Revenue Source !"
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM): " We Can't Afford That, And That's Not Acceptable. "
GOV. BILL RITTER (D-CO): "Our Only Point Was That A Significant Medicaid Expansion Should Not Operate As An Unfunded Mandate For The States."
GOV. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): "They Thought The Best Way, The Federal Government Thought The Best Way Is By Expanding Medicaid To Make That Happen. But We Have Said, 'Under No Conditions Can We Take Unfunded Mandates.' You can't raise the eligibility of Medicaid 133% and put a $100 billion back on the states to pick up ."
The best way to characterize the CBO's report is to say that it's a great headline for Democrats but the details don't help Democrats. In fact, I'm betting that, within a week, the CBO's report will be a net negative for Democrats.
Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Oct-09 07:54 AM
Why expand Medicaid when about 1/3 of the people now uninsured are eligible but won't sign up for it? Why cut Medicare when many health care providers are already refusing to take Medicare patients? If Medicaid works, why do we need a public option? If the reason we need "reform" is because health care, er, insurance costs too much, why does this reform cost more than we're spending now? Why hasn't a preliminary bill to eliminate all that waste, fraud and abuse been passed already?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Oct-09 09:07 AM
There you go again, Jerry, asking important logical questions of liberals.
Seriously, all of those questions are worthwhile questions that deserve a straight answer. Unfortunately, those answers won't be forthcoming because the Finance Committee isn't into the transparency thing.
