September 29-30, 2009
Sep 29 02:31 Who Did Tarryl Represent? Sep 29 08:29 The Mullahs' Lapdog Sep 29 21:16 Kelliher Opposes States Rights? Sep 30 02:48 Alan Grayson's 15 Minutes of Shame Sep 30 14:45 The Path To Positive Reform
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Who Did Tarryl Represent?
After reading this post about another union backing Tarryl Clark, I'm left wondering why the media didn't dig into who she really was representing.
On the AFL-CIO's website, they posted this about health care reform:
What Works: Medicare, Children's HealthI know that Tarryl supports single-payer health care, which is what Medicare is. I know this because I attended a health care forum in January, 2008 that Tarryl held at Whitney Senior Center. Spoeaker after speaker talked about the virtues of single-payer health systems. One woman representing the Central Minnesota Health Care Coalition stood up and said this:
What Doesn't Work: HSAs, Medicare Prescription Drugs
"We don't need health insurance. We need health care."Another woman, Loretta Linus, said this:
"The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that's not true."Tarryl sat there, soaking this all in with a smile on her face. She obviously didn't find anything objectionable to what was said. The other hint that Tarryl is a single-payer advocate was her inviting State Sen. John Marty to be the special guest for the forum. John Marty's been advocating for a single-payer health care system since before I paid attention to the state legislature.
"Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right ."
Another thing that the unions support is higher taxes, especially on "the rich." It isn't a coincidence that Tarryl has supported every major tax increase that the legislature has voted on the last 3 years.
The DFL has kept up a persistent whining seemingly forever that Tim Pawlenty's actions were dictated by his ambition for higher office. Why shouldn't we ask if Tarryl's actions were the result of her ambition for higher office? It's certainly as plausible as saying that Gov. Pawlenty's actions were dictated by his ambitions.
The real test, though, isn't whether you represent various special interest groups interests. It's whether your votes were in the best interests of the constituents that elected you. After going door-knocking with Steve Gottwalt last summer and fall, I'll guarantee that raising taxes wasn't a majority sentiment.
Based on how little support single-payer health care legislation has right now, I'm confident that central Minnesota voters don't support that, either.
At the day's end, I'm still wondering whether Tarryl cared more about gaining the union's support for when she ran for higher office or if she cared more about her constituents in SD-15. Something tells me that it isn't the latter.
I tried finding out where Tarryl stands on EFCA from her campaign website . Unfortunately, Tarryl's website doesn't have an issues page. That's pretty shoddy considering the fact that Tarryl announced her candidacy in late July .
Is Tarryl attempting to hide her position on EFCA because it's a controversial issue? Perhaps, though I suspect that all this union support means that she'd support Card Check legislation if she was elected.
Finally, according to the SEIU's report card , Tarryl voted with the SEIU 100 percent of the time, giving her an A+ rating.
One of the things that the SEIU opposed was David Hann's amendment that would have prohibited school employee salary increases. I guess Larry Pogemiller's talk about the need for shared sacrifice didn't extend to school employees. Of course, Tarryl enthusiastically opposed this belt-tightening measure.
A cynical man might say that the unions got exactly who they paid for.
Originally posted Tuesday, September 29, 2009, revised 22-Oct 7:02 AM
No comments.
The Mullahs' Lapdog
We all knew that Iran's mullahs wanted a President Obama more than they wanted a President McCain. Thanks to President Obama's recent chairing of the U.N. Security Council meeting, we now know why. Jack Kelly reports that French President Sarkozy is fuming that President Obama didn't jump the Iranians during the meeting on nuclear nonproliferation:
What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it.It's embarrassing that the French are right in calling the U.S. weak against the terrorists. President Obama has been a mountain of jello since becoming Commander-In-Chief. He's waffling on what to do in Afghanistan. He's been irresponsible with Iran, especially now that we know that he knew about the second reactor.
'President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Mr. Sarkozy said. "Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions," Mr. Sarkozy said. "North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993."
"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" he asked rhetorically. "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."
Instead of using a stick, preferably one with a hard metal alloy in it, President Obama wants to talk with them. It's obvious that President Obama didn't learn the Reagan Doctrine, which is to win fights by intimidating our enemies into major concessions. Enemies won't cave unless they know that they can't win. Right now, Iran knows that they can't lose because of President Obama's Alice in Wonderland foreign policies.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting why President Obama didn't ambush the Iranians at the nonproliferation meeting :
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.It's sickening to hear that President Obama put a higher priority on image than on being tough. Confronting Iran at the U.N. would've gotten the world's attention. Not confronting them will be taken as a sign of weakness by Iran's mullahs. They now know that they can do whatever they want whenever they want.
Then again, we shouldn't expect more from President Obama. After all, that's what obedient little lapdogs do.
Posted Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:47 AM
No comments.
Kelliher Opposes States Rights?
Yesterday, I wrote that Sen. Baucus's health care legislation hides the real costs by dumping the underfunded mandate in states' laps. While writing the post, I wondered what Minnesota legislators thought of having that expense dumped in their laps. Based on this article , it's apparent that it doesn't bother Speaker Kelliher at all:
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the Democratic speaker of the House, said she doubted the proposal stood much of a chance. "Most legislators are interested in improving the health of Minnesotans, and how to do more health care reform," she said. "No one thinks the answer is a states' rights movement."If, God forbid, Speaker Kelliher became Gov. Kelliher and if, God forbid again, Sen. Baucus's legislation dumped billions of underfunded Medicaid mandates on Minnesota, I'll bet that Kelliher wouldn't take a passive approach to the financial mess dumped in her lap. In fact, I'd bet that she'd be mightily upset.
The thing that I haven't heard Democrats say in this health care fight is whether the Democrats' legislation will put too many burdens on their children. Did they bother thinking that the additional tax burden, coupled with the staggering debt service and the inflation this spending causes, will make it difficult or impossible for their children to succeed.
Think of the crushing debt load being dumped on kids in junior high and high school. Then remember that Larry Summers, President Obama's economic advisor, predicted that there would be zero net job growth for the next 5 years.
Why hasn't Speaker Kelliher thought about those considerations instead of thinking about reading from the same intellectually bankrupt ideological playbook as President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Baucus are reading from. It's one thing to be a team player. It's another thing to follow blindly without paying attention to what's heading in your direction.
Minnesota's next governor must provide thoughtful leadership. We can't afford to elect someone who will blindly follow President Obama.
Posted Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment 1 by Janet at 29-Sep-09 10:35 PM
Empty suit, empty suit. That's all he is - follow someone's ideas, get educated in some of the most leftist programs at our universities - result? Can't think, empty suit.
Alan Grayson's 15 Minutes of Shame
I pretty much know everyone's name in congress but I didn't recognize Alan Grayson's name until recently. Now it's time America got to know this jerk better. I say jerk because that's what he was in this hateful diatribe:
The disgusting nature of Grayson's speech speaks for itself. It's obvious that Rep. Grayson is a hatemonger and a backbench bombthrower. After this, it's also possible that he'll be a one-term wonder.
This speech would've fit right in with Howard Dean's speech where he said that "We're in a fight between good and evil and we're the good." Democrats like Dean and Grayson aren't good. Hate-filled people aren't good.
Republicans who heard of the diatribe are demanding that Rep. Grayson apologize :
Veteran Tennessee Republican Jimmy Duncan abandoned customary reticence to chastise Grayson. "That is about the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor, and I, for one, don't appreciate it," Duncan said. "It's fully appropriate that the gentleman return to the floor and apologize," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, another Tennessee Republican.Thus far, an apology hasn't been offered. After this blows up in the media, I suspect Speaker Pelosi will ask Rep. Grayson to fall on his sword. The last thing Democrats need is a hotheaded backbencher shooting his mouth off when they're attempting to cast Republicans as an angry mob.
Besides, it's going to be difficult for Speaker Pelosi this week after the Senate Finance Committee defeated Jay Rockefeller's amendment to include a public option in his bill:
The 15-to-8 vote could forecast the fate of the public option in the Senate as a whole. The outcome was expected but still a defeat for liberals who view government-sponsored insurance for the middle class as a key component of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.The public option is just one of the hurdles standing in the way of the Democrats' health care legislation. Another obstacle that will be difficult to overcome is how to pay for it. The biggest obstacle facing Democrats, though, appears to be Sen. Baucus's attempt to hide the legislation's costs by shoving millions more Medicaid patients onto the states' dime :
Five committee Democrats, including Chairman Max Baucus, joined with all 10 committee Republicans to defeat the measure by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.
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.That provision is sparking a states' rights fight :
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.
In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers is pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.In the public's mind, it's almost irrelevant whether that provision is constitutional or not. The mandates are another reminder of the Democrats' overreach. It's a symbol of them saying that they'll dictate what policy will be, that We The People won't be having input into what policies will be enacted.
Approval of the measures, supporters suggest, would open a legal battle over states' rights versus federal power, an issue that is, for some, central to the current health care debate, but also one that affects a broad range of other matters, including education and drug policy.
Rep. Grayson's behavior is reprehensible but no more so than Democrats ignoring the will of the people in cramming this reprehensible legislation down our throats. At minimum, Rep. Grayson owes Republicans an apology. At worst, he needs a new occupation.
Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 30-Sep-09 01:14 PM
I think you are correct saying the Baucus bill is loaded with deceit.
Can you imagine if he were pulling this stuff if Lyndon Johnson were President?
He'd be called in, there'd be talk of water projects, flood control money, some of those mines up there in Montana that are pollution problems, and how all the range-fed cattle money could go to Texas.
It would be a hoot to see Baucus treated as high-handed as he treats all us plain folks in the public.
But he only gets majorities in committee, remember this, by having some Dems and all GOP votes his way. The facilitators are deserving of their degree of shaming. Go for it, Gary.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 30-Sep-09 06:18 PM
Gary:
Is it my imagination, but weren't the democrats outraged a week or so ago that a Republican member of Congress called Obama a liar during his speech and wanted to formally censor him. I assume that since this member were accusing people of wanting to commit murder Nancy and the Democrats will immediately censor him or kick him out of Congress?
Furthermore since that speech haven't there been moves to make those people which Obama said couldn't get on the plan such as making them legal which Obama wants to do as do over 20 members of Congress including our fifth district congressman.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Path To Positive Reform
Just because the Senate Finance Committee defeated two amendments that would've created a public option doesn't mean that the public option is dead...yet. We've passed the first test but there's many hurdles left to go before we kill the bad reform legislation that the Democrats are proposing. One thing we should be highlighting is the fact that Canada is seeking a private option :
When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no longer hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.Let's be honest about this fight: because we have don't have the numbers, Republicans don't have the numbers to affect positive change. We also don't have the bully pulpit. What we've got, though, is appealing ideas that are based off of verifiable information. The more people read stories like this, the better our options look.
So wait she did.
In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. 'When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery,' said Woodkey, 72. 'They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor.'
So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days. 'I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada,' Woodkey said. 'It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone.'
Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.
Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned. More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.
One argument that we must start making is that insurance for all is worthless if we don't have enough medical professionals to treat people. I wrote here about the IBD poll of 433 doctors. Here's a refresher of that post:
The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for, an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.What's more is that there are amendments pending that would tie private insurance payments to the Medicare payments. That would have catastrophic results. Doctors, hospitals and clinics couldn't stay in business. They'd need bailouts to keep operating. Where's the savings then?
Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.
Another thing we should be highlighting is the fact that we'll need massive new tax increases to pay for reform. At minimum, that's a volatile subject right now. Why would we want to pay higher taxes for an inferior product, especially when we don't have the money?
Another thing to highlight is the possibility (likelihood?) that lower reimbursements would lead to layoffs of medical personnel. If doctors, hospitals and clinics don't have the money to pay all of their expenses, isn't it likely that they'll cut costs?
Shouldn't Americans start asking why Canada, which has experience with the system Sens. Schumer and Rockefeller proposed, is opting to move away from their system? Why are Canadians illegally building private clinics? I'll keep my eye on this because I'm betting that the private clinics will become wildly popular with the Canadian people. I'll bet that these clinics will prosper because they won't have to wait in line like they're currently doing.
Another difference between private clinics and hospitals vs. government-run facilities is that private facilities will be more responsive to their patients, which will lead more people picking private facilities over government-run facilities.
Finally, let's challenge the Democrats to keep 'public option plans' afloat without without tax increases, price controls and mandates. The simple fact is their system would quickly collapse. We know that because Medicare is collapsing right now.
Let's learn from Canada's and Great Britain's mistakes. Yes, I know Sen. Schumer will tell us that his system wouldn't be anything like Canada's and Great Britain's systems but that's pure spin. Schumer's plan will result in price controls and rationing just like Canada's and Great Britain's systems.
Only then will we be able to change directions and implement positive reforms.
Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:52 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Sep-09 04:19 PM
Where are we going to find another couple of hundred Joe Wilsons? Every time people like Schumer tell a howler like "it won't be like Canada's system" somebody needs to shout out "you lie." Schumer may or may not believe it, but that's simply the unimportant difference between deceit and delusion.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 01-Oct-09 07:03 AM
It's a big lie, WSJ style.
Nobody in Canada wants it beyond a few uber-rightwing whackjobs.
Where's your statistical proof, either percentage of healthcare in Canada sought from private sources; or percentage in any credible poll saying they want a private option.
And then, private option, Gary, is the keyword. Not privatized.
OPTION. The word the uber-rightwing-whackjobs keep ignoring or mischaracterizing.
