September 26-28, 2009
Sep 26 03:02 Pelosi Still Pushing Public Option Sep 26 00:51 Vice President vs. Reality Sep 26 08:28 Another Tax Isn't What We Need Sep 27 00:37 Why Should We Trust This Administration? Sep 27 15:57 John Kasich, the Familiar Radical Sep 27 22:57 THAT'S WHY You Get Brett Favre!!! Sep 28 00:41 Al Franken: Ideologue Or Idiot? Sep 28 14:16 What Misguided Thinking Looks Like Sep 28 21:37 How Baucus Plans On Hiding Costs
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Pelosi Still Pushing Public Option
According to this Hill Magazine article , Speaker Pelosi is still insisting on pushing a ton of Blue Dogs into political oblivion:
House Democratic leaders could decide the basic outlines of their healthcare bill by Friday after a sharply divided rank and file spent Thursday evening hashing out the shape of the legislation.I think Speaker Pelosi would willingly sacrifice a bunch of Blue Dogs if that's what it takes to pass single-payer health care legislation.
Centrist and liberal Democrats have been warring over whether to include a government-run "public option" to compete with private insurance companies, and other factions are debating whether to pay the cost of the plan with an income surtax on the wealthy.
The fight leaves Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with a difficult choice.
If she chooses a public option, she could lose the votes of many Blue Dogs and other centrist lawmakers. If she scraps the public option, she could lose the votes of liberals. Even with the sizable majority of Democrats, either decision might cost enough votes to kill the bill, as Republicans appear united against it.
Blue Dogs say that if Pelosi follows through on including a public plan, it won't have enough votes on the floor. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a prominent Blue Dog, said there probably isn't enough support for any one approach within the Democratic Caucus to get the needed 218 votes. He said Pelosi should take a sharp turn to the center and see if she can pull together centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans.Rep. Boyd needs to ditch the talking points. They're insulting. Republicans have said no alot because they're opposed to legislation that will destroy what's left of the economy. Thus far, that's the only type of legislation that the Democrats have proposed. The stimulus is a failure. The UAW bailouts were too expensive to be considered successes. The jobs that President Obama promised would be created if we passed the stimulus haven't materialized.
"Somebody's got to find a way to convince Republicans they're not the party of 'no,'" Boyd said.
If Democrats had actually worked with Republicans on the stimulus and on health care, there undoubtedly would've been alot more good legislation that would've gotten true bipartisan support. Instead, the Democrats have followed President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel. Instead, Democrats are about to run off a cliff.
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Sep-09 06:29 AM
I would hope she does with them what Humphrey et al. did with the Dixicrats. Drive them to where they belong. As crypto-Republicans they should join the GOP. There at some point has to be separation of the two parties from being mirrors of each other, and this is as good a time as any. As long as the two party system holds, please offer a difference.
Vice President vs. Reality
Somebody needs to get Slow Joe back on his meds or on his teleprompter fast because it's apparent that he's suffering from delusions . Here's a quote about how the stimulus is working:
"In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well."Fortunately, House GOP leader Boehner is there to correct him:
The Vice President is wildly out-of-touch if he thinks the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' has worked when the nation's unemployment rate is the highest it's been in decades.Vice President Biden is cheerleading when there's nothing to cheer about. Economic growth isn't happening. Jobs aren't being created. Deficits are skyrocketing. Government is taking over industries.
Earlier this year, Democrats promised the American people that the so-called 'stimulus' would create jobs immediately and keep the unemployment rate from going above eight percent. Some 2.4 million jobs have been lost since the Democrats' plan was enacted. Now, Democrats in Washington are attempting to claim it is working even while predicting an extended period of severe joblessness. They can't have it both ways.
Millions of unemployed American workers are being left behind by this administration's economic policies. A jobless recovery is not what the American people were promised. Republicans have proposed smart policies to help hard-working families and small businesses across America weather this storm and get back to creating jobs.
Ask Dave Kleis how well he thinks the stimulus is working. Ask New Flyer how well they think it's working. I'll bet the proverbial ranch that their opinion of the stimulus is dramatically differently than Vice President Biden's opinion.
Mike Pence also jumped all over Biden's comments:
Unless the Vice President's measure of stimulus success is the highest unemployment rate in 26 years, then it is hard to fit his wildest dreams with reality. The reality is the Obama Administration promised that borrowing $787 billion would keep our nation's unemployment below 8 percent. Now, after eight months of stimulus spending, more than two million jobs have been lost and unemployment is quickly approaching 10 percent.I'm betting that more people agree with Chairman Pence's statement than with Vice President Biden's statement. I think that alot of people are questioning this administration's forecasts. They've been off dramatically in terms of their deficit projections. Simlilarly, they've been off dramatically on job creation/unemployment forecasts, too.
Never in our wildest dreams did we expect the Administration's forecasts to be so far off. Let's give the American people back their hard-earned money, and work together on a real economic recovery plan based on tax relief for working families and fiscal discipline in Washington.
I wouldn't doubt it if Vice President Biden is worried if he'll be asked to serve again in a second Obama administration. After all, he's in charge of monitoring the stimulus progress. Thus far, the stimulus has stunk it up in the American people's eyes.
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Sep-09 06:34 AM
I over time was never overly impressed by Biden. It was a surprise choice, to me, for Obama to have made. Not as big a surprise as McCain's "choice" but - a surprise.
By chosing Palin as his heartbeat-away option, McCain negated any criticism of Biden, that way - based on comparative experience and capability.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-09 02:57 PM
Eric, Sarah Palin is miles ahead of the game compared with Biden. That woman is extremely sharp. Watch what happens between now & 2012.
Another Tax Isn't What We Need
In an interview with Al Hunt, hardline progressive John Podesta said that the out-of-control deficits are justification for adding a value-added tax to our tax burden :
John Podesta compared the nation's current budget crisis to the situation former President Bill Clinton faced in 1993 and said some form of a value-added tax is "more plausible today than it ever has been."In other words, the VAT would be added to the burden caused by the income and payroll taxes. That's the perfect way to run the economy into the ground.
"There's going to have to be revenue in this budget," said Podesta, Clinton's former chief of staff and co-chairman of President Barack Obama's transition team, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing today.
Podesta said Obama will begin by ending the upper-income tax cuts enacted under his predecessor, President George W. Bush. "Then you have to look at whether that gets you far enough of the way," he said.
Comparing the expanding economy that President Clinton inherited with this economy is intellectually dishonest. That isn't shocking since Podesta is a spinmeister through and through. He'll willingly say anything at any time to win the fight. If that means that he has to say something he doesn't believe, then that's what he'll do. In fact, it's what he's done when he served in the Clinton administration.
What's more important than just the call for a VAT is the why question's answer. Here's the why question: Why do we need both a VAT, an income tax and a payroll tax? Here's the answer to that question: Adding a VAT is a great way to exert control on people while paying for an increasingly expanding agenda.
Podesta's ideas radical, which means that Podesta and others like him must be stopped. To not stop his agenda means dire consequences for America.
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:32 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Sep-09 11:00 AM
you know there's this weird concept that liberals don't get. You spend only what you have. I have a job which assuming I'm still employed the next two years I'm basically guarenteed no pay increase let alone might have new expenses (such as a high medical payment). I have to plan with less revenue.
So why can't those liberals get that simple concept?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 26-Sep-09 02:02 PM
Here's a suggestion for them. Create a VAT, but have it apply only ONCE, at the new retail level, and then eliminate all other federal taxes-- income, corporate, gift, capital gains, estate, and personal FICA. I would jump at that in a heartbeat. It's called the FAIR tax, and it would jumpstart the economy as nothing else would, while continuing to produce revenue in the same amount as today.
Of course, they wouldn't want to have all taxes right out in the open like that, which is why VAT is so attractive-- nobody ever sees it, and they can jack it up as high as they want. They can tax us into prosperity, right?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-09 02:55 PM
Jerry, I couldn't disagree more vehemently. It's great in theory but one it's started, government will always find something else to spend the money on.
Why Should We Trust This Administration?
Yesterday, I wrote about Joe Biden's outlandish statement that the stimulus bill was working better than he could possibly imagine . I just finished reading this article , which suggests that it isn't working so well:
Hillcrest Rural Schools in north-central Kansas is set to get nearly $7,000 in federal stimulus money to help its disadvantaged students. Only one glitch: The district doesn't exist anymore. It closed in 2006 when it was merged into another nearby district.Mr. Vice President, why would you say that the stimulus bill is working better than your wildest dreams when checks are being sent out to phantom school districts?
Hillcrest was one of nearly 14,000 school districts or local education agencies nationwide that the U.S. Department of Education reported would get stimulus funds under its Title I program.
Didn't President Obama put VP Biden in charge of monitoring the flow of ARRA dollars and to report back on the benefits that have happened as a result of the spending? In fact, he did. How did it go unnoticed that 14,000 non-existent "school districts or local education agencies nationwide" got stimulus checks? If that's the Obama administration's idea of a watchdog, they're better off finding someone who actually cares about providing oversight. They'd be better off if they just hired ProPublica for the job:
In Kansas, 11 school districts that no longer exist are on the U.S. Department of Education's distribution list for stimulus funds. They are set to receive nearly $600,000.A little old blog can track this spending but Joe Biden, the man that "nobody messes with", armed with a huge staff to track ARRA spending, can't find it and prevent it?
We found these school districts when Kirby Ross, managing editor of the Phillips County Review in Phillipsburg, Kan., alerted us that our county-by-county stimulus tracker [1] included two districts in his area that didn't exist. That prompted us to do some more digging.
Thinking about Biden's failure to provide meaningful oversight on ARRA funds raises other questions. Why I should trust this administration to find $500,000,000,000 in Medicare wasteful spending when it can't identify nonexistent school districts? Why should I think that they're interested in being the public's watchdog? Thus far, I haven't seen anything they've done that proves that they're interested in watching out for my wallet.
I've heard this administration talk about fiscal restraint. I can't deny that. Still, I haven't seen anything that can be viewed as proof that this administration is serious about getting spending under control. For that matter, I've seen nothing from the Democrats' majorities that makes me think that they'll look into where the money is being spent.
During the 2006 campaign, Democrats whined that the Republican congress hadn't conducted proper oversight on the Bush administration. Democrats campaigned that they would conduct oversight hearings. I took that to mean that they'd conduct witch hunt after witch hunt on the Bush administration. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, this Democratic congress won't look into where the money is being spent. I haven't even heard of them asking for an inspector general's investigation for stimulus funds.
This is what happens when people hear what they want to hear instead of doing real due diligence. It's what happens when people accept a politician at their word without verifying if their actions match their actions. President Obama said all the right things during the campaign. Unfortunately for the American people, his words haven't matched his actions. Unfortunately, Joe Biden's words are worthless.
That's all I need to not trust this administration.
Technnorati: Stimulus , Joe Biden , President Obama , Fraud , Corruption , Budget Forecast , Unemployment , Deficits , Democrats
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 27-Sep-09 06:09 AM
So what? One seven grand error. How does that compare to Bush-Cheney times, diversion of materiel in Iraq?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-09 02:11 PM
That's right. Bush 'diverted' funds away from the "real war", right??? Isn't that the war that Obama is abandoning?
Don't lecture me on Iraq until the Vacillator-In-Chief puts national security ahead of pure political gain.
John Kasich, the Familiar Radical
John Kasich has long been known for his putting together 5 straight balanced budgets and pushing a pro-growth agenda. Now that he's running to defeat Ted Strickland as Ohio's governor, he's introducing common sense plans that career politicians think of as radical :
Instead, he said, government should be run like a business, with evaluation programs to determine whether programs are needed, how they can be improved and whether they produce results. "That's a radical idea in government," he said sarcastically.Unfortunately, he's right in saying that politicians won't think of eliminating programs that aren't improving people's lives. Government programs have the nasty habit of living long beyond their usefulness.
The good news is that Gov. Kasich would apply the same principles to Ohio's problems as he brought to solving Washington's problems. I can't stress enough the importance of electing John Kasich to solving the nation's economic troubles. If he's elected, he'll implement policies that actually will jumpstart America's economy. He won't only talk about stimulating the economy. He'll actually deliver on growing Ohio's economy.
Unlike the Vacillator-In-Chief, John Kasich won't waver. He'll actually keep his promises. Unlike the Vacillator-In-Chief, John Kasich doesn't put a time limit on his promises. Unlike the Vacillator-In-Chief, John Kasich knows how to keep spending under control and create jobs.
On education, he argued that dollars should follow the student. He supports educational vouchers and charter schools as a way to put pressure on public schools so they'll make necessary changes. "It isn't money, it's results, and we need to drive them," he said. "We need more choice. We need innovation."The Democrats are arguing that there's a need for a public option to give private insurance 'competition'. While they're making that argument, Democrats are vehemently opposed to giving vouchers to parents and children to provide competition to the government-run school monopoly. It's something that fits into the Democrats' do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do habits. Competition is great, Democrats say, except when their special interest allies have to compete for business.
The bottom line is that John Kasich is a true leader with a track record filled with remarkable accomplishments that created 20,000,000 jobs and brought prosperity to milions of people. John Kasich made an impact; Ted Strickland was a backbencher follower.
Things haven't changed.
Posted Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:01 PM
No comments.
THAT'S WHY You Get Brett Favre!!!
The game is on the line, 12 ticks of the clock are left. Brett Favre has been hit repeatedly. You're at the 32 yard line of the rejuvenated 49ers team. What's left in Favre's massive bag of tricks? Just this:
Folks, THAT'S WHY you forget about the football punditry and go get Brett Favre. More than a couple people criticized Brad Childress for going back on his statement that Favre was no longer an option after Favre announced that he was staying retired. Whatever.
Mind you, I'm still not impressed with Childress as an offensive guru. A team with Adrian Peterson, Percy Harvin and Brett Favre should be averaging 35 ppg. They shouldn't have to pull out a win with 2 seconds left against an improving 49ers team.
Speaking of AP, the AP's Dave Campbell wrote that Mike Singletary's 49ers held Adrian to 85 yards on 19 carries. I don't disagree that they put together a pretty good effort against AP. Still, I couldn't quit thinking that there are some pretty elite runners that would consider an 85 yard day a pretty good day against this 49ers defense. In 3 games, AP has 357 yards rushing, a 119 ypg average.
Percy Harvin is quickly becoming a special talent. He returned a kickoff 101 yards for a touchdown, then added 3 catches that produced first downs. It's clear that Favre really likes having 'the Harvin option'. As for who's faster between Harvin and Adrian, I'll bet the proverbial ranch on young Mr. Harvin. And it ain't that difficult of a decision.
This post wouldn't be complete without mentioning the intense fight the 49ers put up. That defense is quickly heading to elite status. That said, it's pretty obvious that the 49ers offense needs some upgrading this offseason. Frank Gore is a legitimate threat running the ball but it's pretty thin after that.
The Vikings defense deserves some kudos, too. It isn't every day that a defense prevents a team from converting a single third-down play into a first down but that's exactly what the Vikings did today. San Fransisco went 0-for-11 on third down. You won't win alot of games doing that.
Finally, the day belongs to Brett Favre. He got hit too often. His receivers dropped too many passes. After all that, all he did was pull off another late game miracle. Not bad for someone that aged.
UPDATE: Here's the video of Percy Harvin's kickoff return for touchdown:
Posted Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:10 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 28-Sep-09 08:48 AM
Cincinnati defeated Pittsburgh the same final drive way - Carston Palmer at quarterback.
Having an excellent quarterback does not mean you'll win the entire thing.
Green Bay had Farve in his prime and won only once. Denver had Elway and it took a running game too, to put them over the hump.
It sure looked in both games as if the losing team had the better defense; although all four teams had sound defenses.
Recall the Dennis Green days, all that scoring and out the first post season game against Atlanta.
In the trenches, San Francisco looked to be dominant on its offensive line, the backup running back gain yardage, and Peterson being stopped showing the SF defensive line dominated.
This is only three games into the season. Farve will do his job.
The success will be determined in the trenches; the O-line having to spring Peterson and protect Farve; the D-line having to rush sufficiently so that the Shawn Hills of the league cannot pick apart the secondary.
Next Monday will be interesting.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 30-Sep-09 06:58 PM
Eric:
The game against Atlanta wasn't the first post season game. It was the third week of the playoffs (the second the vikings played because they had a bye).
It looked like this dominant performance you thought you saw of San Fransico was when they stopped blitzing and gave more coverage in the secondary. When they were blitzing Farve was picking them apart.
As for the rushing game the most important thing was gap control. On the run Peterson broke all the 49ers had run to the left opening the right for Peterson.
Furthermore keep in mind one thing like Barry Sanders is that opposing defenses will look dominant and stop Sanders for one and two yards for most carries. And then suddenly Sanders or Peterson will be gone.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Al Franken: Ideologue Or Idiot?
After reading this article , it's difficult for me to tell whether Al Franken is just an ideologue or if he's really that stupid. Here's what he said that makes me think he's that stupid:
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., called the House bill a "blueprint for a stronger economy." "The legislation the House passed includes a renewable-energy standard similar to what Minnesota passed two years ago, incentives for more energy efficient products...and tax breaks for clean energy production," Franken said in a statement. "This energy plan will lower your power bill, create jobs and whole new industries, and actually solve the problem."Sen. Franken is talking about the national energy tax bill that the House passed. Then-Sen. Obama said that, under his plan, " electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket ." Rep. John Dingell said that the House legislation was " a tax and a great big one ."
Here's my question for Sen. Franken: When was the last time that someone passed a "great big" tax that "would necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket" during a deep, long-lasting recession that strengthened an economy? Can Sen. Franken cite a single instance of this happening? Or is he simply reading from Harry Reid's talking points? HINT TO SEN. FRANKEN: There's a reason why Reid is trailing miserably in his re-election attempt.
At our 9/12 TEA Party, the central theme to Mike Beard's speech was that great economies aren't built by conserving. They're built when energy is abundant and cheap. When I told King that, he quickly agreed with me. The two are inextricably linked. You can't build a great economy with expensive energy prices.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said there are several proposals in the Senate that will merge into one for a floor debate. For her, she said, the focus has to be on energy independence. "We need to get control over our energy in America," she said. But in doing so, she added, lawmakers have to ensure that middle-class Americans "don't get socked with higher rates."Ensuring that "middle-class Americans 'don't get socked with higher rates'" eliminates cap and trade from consideration as part of our energy policy going forward. It simply doesn't fit. If the Democrats water the bill down, then there isn't enough incentive for companies to change their ways. If they don't water down the legislation, then consumers get hit with high prices. It's a 'pick your poison' moment.
The reality is that the best way to improve the environment is to lift the moratorium on nuclear energy. The best way to produce the cheap energy we need for a thriving economy is by opening up more of the OCS.
The reason that isn't being done is because the Democrats, Sens. Franken and Klobuchar amongst them, don't have the fortitude it takes to tell the environmental extremists to take a hike. Until Democrats do that, they'll be beholden to these extremists.
That isn't something we can afford.
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009 12:41 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Sep-09 07:12 AM
Let me help you. Franken really IS that stupid. I'll say it again, as I did during the theft of the Senate election: Minnesota does not deserve to have the TWO biggest doofuses representing us in the US Senate. One of them has to go.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 28-Sep-09 08:42 AM
"At our 9/12 TEA Party, the central theme to Mike Beard's speech was that great economies aren't built by conserving."
That means we should not call you "conservatives?"
How about "Profligateers?"
What DO you "conservatives" want to "conserve?"
Not graduated taxation of income, something we have had just short of one century, when federal income taxation passed into being a part of the Constitution.
You want to alter that.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-09 11:29 AM
Eric, According to Dictionary.com, here's the most fitting definition of conservative:
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showinessThe strongest economies have happened when the most people are making money, aka profits.
I also find it objectionable for you to use the word profligateers. Again, using Dictionary.com's definition of profligate:
utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipatedWhen did it become shamelessly immoral to see people prosper? I must've missed that memo.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 28-Sep-09 04:46 PM
The only people engaged in profligate spending, at this point, are federal Democrats, the MN DFL having been stopped only by their own incompetence. Their liberal fantasies were dashed by the the inevitable liberal comeuppance of running out of Other People's Money. As one of the Other People, I applaud the governmor for being the only grown-up in the room.
What Misguided Thinking Looks Like
An LTE in this morning's St. Cloud Times is ripping Gov. Tim Pawlenty for being an absentee governor. Shocking, I know. In his LTE, Mike Weber whines about Gov. Pawlenty creating a PAC. Here's Mr. Weber's whining on the subject:
"Freedom First", what a clever name for his fundraising committee. It should bring in big money from the Tea Party, NRA and Rush Limbaugh fans. Too bad the money raised won't be used to relieve some of Minnesota's deficit.It's bad enough that Mr. Weber thinks that TEA Partygoers are all 'hardline conservatives'. That's been proven false numerous times. Independents and some liberal supporters of President Obama are attending TEA parties because they're upset with President Obama's radical agenda thus far.
I'm perfectly happy, though, to let liberals think that the TEA parties are all about hardline conservatism. They'll find out that it's really a protest against (a) elitist politicians ignoring the will of the people, (b) out-of-control spending, (c) massive bailouts and the government takeover of health care. Democrtas will find out next November that these issues cut across partisan lines.
It's also getting tiring to read the daily anti-Pawlenty diatribes because they're so mindless. The line about using the money for Minnesota's deficit is utterly mindless. It has nothing to do with reality. It's just another liberal wasting space to whine about Gov. Pawlenty.
Here's Mr. Weber's final exhortation:
For the sake of the Republican Party's future, it's time for the Silent Republican Majority to rein in their fringe members who still feel that political oneupsmanship is what politics is all about rather than doing anything meaningful to help this country.Actually, the TEA party movement that Mr. Weber spoke so derisively about despises "political oneupsmanship". TEA Party activists believe in 'cards-on-the-table' politics. We've had it with political gamesmanship. We've had it with politicians that think we can't read bills, as though that takes a special skill only found in the corridors of power in Washington, DC. Following these principles will eliminate the political gamesmanship while demanding accountability from our elected officials.
It's sad that people like Mr. Weber will play their whining liberal games without giving thought to what they're saying. This thing has roboletter written all over it.
It doesn't miss a single liberal whining point. (I refuse to call them talking points because they're nothing but whining.) A smart high schooler could write something more on point without the whining.
It's totally incoherent. Instead of picking a subject and using facts to bolster an argument, Mr. Weber chose to express his laundry list of anti-Republican whining points. There's no focus, no attempt to persuade.
These types of roboletters might better be described as mindless activism, which has alot in common with an old ESPN favorite punch line that says "Much sound and fury, signifying nothing." That's all this is.
A diatribe is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009 2:16 PM
No comments.
How Baucus Plans On Hiding Costs
Thanks to the Wall Street Journal's article , we now know how Sen. Baucus's legislation hides the total cost of the legislation:
One reason it allegedly "pays for itself" over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor.Five years of subsidizing the states' cost of health care isn't much incentive for ruining future budgets. When legislatures figure out that their hands are getting tied and that they'll be getting the blame when they have to raise taxes or cut programs to pay for Sen. Baucus's bill, they won't be keen on the idea:
Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019-or about one-third of ObamaCare's total spending-to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.
About 59 million people are on Medicaid today, which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode, by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother, and father and crazy uncle-of unfunded mandates.
In some states it is far higher, 39% in Ohio, 27% in Massachusetts, 25% in Michigan, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Forcing states to spend more will crowd out other priorities or result in a wave of tax increases, or both, even as Congress also makes major tax hikes inevitable at the national level.I'd call Sen. Baucus's bill insanity but I don't want to insult insane people. This is horrible policymaking. Frankly, Big Sky voters should fire him the next time he's up for re-election.
The National Governors Association is furious about Mr. Baucus's Medicaid expansion, and rightly so, given that governors and their legislatures will get stuck with the bill while losing the leeway to manage or reform their budget-busters. NGA President Jim Douglas of Vermont recently said at the National Press Club that the Baucus plan poses a "tremendous financial liability" and doesn't "respect that no one size fits all at the state level." He added: "Unlike the federal government, states can't print money."
This clears something up, though. This obviously is why his committee voted against letting people read through this bill. Democrats voting against transparency must've thought it better to keep the public in the dark. They clearly didn't want people finding out the poison pill tucked into their legislation. Unfortunately for them, their attempt failed.
What's more is that Republicans are highlighting the Democrats' bills' biggest shortcomings :
"Health care reform that wreaks fiscal havoc on states and piles debt on our children and grandchildren is not reform at all," Boehner said. "President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid need to scrap this costly government takeover of health care and start over on a responsible health care reform plan our nation can afford."The Baucus bill imposes a nasty underfunded mandate on states, as do the other Democrats' health care legislation. Sen. Baucus quickly highlighted the fact that his bill wouldn't add a penny to the deficit. Now we know what type of gimmicks he used to accomplish that. It's sad that he didn't accomplish this without burdening the states with massive amounts of unfunded liabilities.
"State budgets around the country are feeling the squeeze of tough economic times. Unfortunately, after passing a $1,700 per family national energy tax, Democratic leaders in Washington are now trying to ram through a $1 trillion massive federal expansion into health care that will create yet another unfunded mandate on states by permanently expanding Medicaid," said Rogers. "This is yet another example of how out of touch Washington has become and why Congress needs to start over on common-sense, affordable, free market health care solutions."
Either way, taxes will be raised as a result of the liabilities imposed on government as a result of the Democrats' legislation. I don't think that people will differentiate between federal tax increases to pay for increased Medicaid spending and state tax increases to pay for increased Medicaid spending. Either way, it's alot of money they'll have to pay for a financially wobbly program.
At the end of the day, I think it's likely that Baucus has added a new group of enemies to his plan, namely state legislators who'll have to deal with the mess he created. If you couple that with middle class people who'll be forced to buy insurance, you've got a massive motivated group of opponents.
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009 9:42 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-Sep-09 09:07 AM
Perhaps we should say something nice about Baucus' bill? I think it is a very good thing that they are talking about expanding an existing unworkable program further into bankruptcy rather than creating another new and even more unworkable program that will immediately bankrupt the country. Better that "the poor" be destroyed by the currently available insanity rather than have all of us die from an even more virulent form of the disease.
