January 1-8, 2017
Jan 01 12:32 Dishonest Paul Krugman Jan 02 07:50 Gov. Dayton-GOP fight looming Jan 02 14:30 Obama will appoint Garland Jan 02 17:58 Open letter to GOP legislature Jan 03 10:10 Rahm Emanuel's homicide crisis Jan 03 14:57 Schumer feels the heat Jan 07 02:12 Factchecking factcheckers Jan 07 18:34 Gov. Dayton's tax 'relief' Jan 08 13:39 Ellison's DNC campaign
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Dishonest Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman's latest column is proof positive that he's exceptionally dishonest.
In his opening paragraph, Krugman wrote "If James Comey, the F.B.I. director, hadn't tipped the scales in the campaign's final days with that grotesquely misleading letter, right now an incoming Clinton administration would be celebrating some very good news. Because health reform, President Obama's signature achievement, is stabilizing after a bumpy year." If Krugman wants to think that FBI Director Jim Comey ripped the election away from Mrs. Clinton, that's fine. That doesn't mean he's dishonest.
When he states as fact that the ACA "is stabilizing after a bumpy year", though, that's dishonest. First, there's no proof that prices are stabilizing. There's proof that prices aren't stabilizing. It's impossible to honestly reach the conclusion that prices are stabilizing.
Then Krugman wrote "This means that the huge gains achieved so far - tens of millions of newly insured Americans and dramatic reductions in the number of people skipping treatment or facing financial hardship because of cost - look as if they're here to stay." That's frighteningly dishonest. Out-of-pocket expenses (health insurance premiums plus deductibles or co-pays) are unaffordable. In October, I wrote this post about Mary Katherine Ham's experience with the ACA:
Like many other Americans, I got a letter last week. This letter is becoming an annual tradition, arriving on my doorstep in October to inform me of my Obamacare insurance premium hike. Last year , the letter said my Bronze plan, purchased on the marketplace formed by the, ahem, Affordable Care Act, would increase by almost 60 percent . This year, my premium is going up 96 percent . Ninety-six percent. My monthly payment, which was the amount of a decent car payment, is now the size of a moderate mortgage. The president refers to these for thousands of citizens as "a few bugs" when to us it feels like a flameout.
What part of that sounds affordable? That doesn't sound like it's stabilized. It sounds like a system spiraling out of control, which is what's happening.
Check out this video of Ed Morrissey's interview of Speaker Kurt Daudt:
Prof. Krugman, you're a disgusting person who's devoid of integrity. I could write a longer post if I wanted to but I won't. I've proven that your article isn't honest. If the NY Times had any integrity, they'd fire you. Unfortunately, they don't have integrity.
Posted Sunday, January 1, 2017 12:32 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton-GOP fight looming
It isn't a secret that there's a major fight looming between Gov. Dayton and Republican leadership on the issue of health care. I've written about the difference in the details between Gov. Dayton's proposal and the Republicans' proposal before. (Here's one of the posts .) Saying that the difference between Gov. Dayton's proposal and the Republicans' plan is significant is understatement. Honestly, this article doesn't outline the differences.
The third paragraph says "DFL Gov. Mark Dayton said he wants to see the Legislature immediately pass his plan, which would provide a 25 percent rebate for people who wouldn't be able to get other help with their surging premiums. About 121,000 Minnesotans are facing steep health insurance premium hikes, but make too much to qualify for federal tax credits."
What's needed to do this debate justice is a side-by-side comparison of the competing plans. Actually, it isn't fair to call Gov. Dayton's proposal a plan when compared with the Republicans' plan. This graphic is worth thousands of DFL words:
The first question that people should ask Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislators is this: why doesn't your plan fix all the things that are broken with the MNsure/ACA system? The other question that I'd ask is this: If you aren't going to make a substantive counterproposal, why aren't you supporting the Republicans' comprehensive proposal? Is it that you think rural Minnesotans have too much access to health care? Are rural Minnesotans' networks too robust?
Unfortunately, it's clear that Gov. Dayton is digging in his heals on MNsure/ACA because, in his mind, reforming it would hurt his legacy. Isn't it time for him to, just once, do the right thing for rural Minnesotans?
Minnesotans rejected Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's agenda this past November. They want to move in a different direction. (More on that in a future post.) They aren't happy with the direction Gov. Dayton and the DFL have taken Minnesota in.
Posted Monday, January 2, 2017 7:50 AM
No comments.
Obama will appoint Garland
After reading this Washington Times article , there's little doubt in my mind that President Obama will appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
First, the article says "Mr. Obama's moment will come just before noon, in the five minutes that the Senate gavels the 114th Congress out of session and the time the 115th Congress begins. In those few moments the Senate will go into what's known as an 'intersession recess,' creating one golden moment when the president could test his recess-appointment powers by sending Judge Garland to the high court." It continues by saying "The move would be a legal gamble under the high court's last ruling in 2014 on recess appointments. That 9-0 decision overturned a handful of Mr. Obama's early 2012 picks, saying the Senate was actually in session when the president acted, so he couldn't use his powers. That ruling also said, however, that there's a difference between appointments made during the annual yearlong session of Congress, dubbed 'intrasession,' which Mr. Obama used in 2012, and picks made at the end of the year, after Congress adjourns, which are known as 'intersession.'"
This statement is downright foolish considering who we're talking about:
William G. Ross, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, said Mr. Obama would have the power to elevate Judge Garland. But he said it would be "politically unwise and damaging to the prestige of the court. It would exacerbate acute political tensions that have roiled the transition process and promise turbulence from the very start of the Trump administration, and it would contribute to the growing public perception that the court is unduly political," Mr. Ross said.
Anyone that thinks President Obama worries about doing controversial things is kidding themselves. He thrives on those things. That's why I'm certain he'll appoint Garland.
The political downside for Democrats is that they'd be required to defend that indefensible decision. Republicans would use that against them in 2018, which is already shaping up to be a bloodbath for Democratic senators. That, however, isn't a big deal to President Obama. What does he care? He's already decimated the Democratic Party during his time in office:
Since President Obama took office, there are 12 fewer Democratic governors, 63 fewer Democrats in the US House of Representatives, 12 fewer Democrats in the US Senate and almost 1,000 fewer Democrat state legislators.
Why would President Obama care if Republicans picked up another dozen Senate seats after he's out of office?
Posted Monday, January 2, 2017 2:30 PM
No comments.
Open letter to GOP legislature
To: Speaker Daudt, Senate Majority Leader Gazelka
From: Gary Gross, uppity peasant
Subject: Health insurance premium relief
Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Gazelka, I'm sure you're well aware of Gov. Dayton's insistence that you pass his health insurance premium relief plan, aka passing his wimpy political relief proposal. According to this article , he wants you to pass his wimpy proposal virtually immediately.
As a loyal conservative activist, it pains me to say this. I'm asking you to follow his direction (with an asterisk.) I know that the GOP plan includes premium relief. I know that the GOP legislation isn't the same as Gov. Dayton's wimpy proposal. (Thank God for major miracles, right?)
Please pass the GOP legislation ASAP, then send it to his desk. When it's passed, I'd recommend that you hold a major press conference right at 6:00 pm CT that night so that each of the Twin Cities TV stations is forced to cover the press conference/celebration announcement. Also, circulate this comparison table to the media:
Highlight to Minnesotans that the GOP legislation that you've passed in the opening days of the regular session includes extensive premium relief that Gov. Dayton insists get passed. Then highlight for Minnesotans that it also includes plans to improve access to care, competition & choice and make provider networks more family friendly.
Dare Gov. Dayton to veto your legislation. Dare him to explain why he didn't work with you on these issues that would improve Minnesotans' lives. Dare him to explain why he vetoed a bill that's attracted significant bipartisan support.
Highlight to Minnesotans that you're fighting for them. Highlight to Minnesotans that Gov. Dayton's fighting for ... well, who knows what he's fighting for these days.
Posted Monday, January 2, 2017 5:58 PM
No comments.
Rahm Emanuel's homicide crisis
Donald Trump highlighted Rahm Emanuel's homicide crisis recently. According to the article, 762 homicides were committed in 2016, which is a 57% increase from 2015.
Thus far, Mayor Emanuel has counted on friendly media treatment to essentially sweep this crisis out of sight. Thus far, it's worked, with the important part of that being 'thus far.' According to the article, "Donald Trump used his Twitter bully pulpit on Monday to blast Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for allowing his city's murder and firearms shooting rates to spiral out of control. 'Chicago murder rate is record setting - 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016,' Trump tweeted. 'If Mayor can't do it he must ask for Federal help!'"
The article continued, saying "Chicago's statistics underline a story of bloodshed that has put the city at the center of a national dialogue about gun violence. The numbers are staggering, even for those who followed the steady news accounts of weekends ending with dozens of shootings and monthly death tolls that hadn't been seen in years."
Then there's this:
Police and city officials have lamented the flood of illegal guns into the city, and the crime statistics appeared to support their claims: Police recovered 8,300 illegal guns in 2016, a 20 per cent increase from the previous year.
Imagine that. Criminals didn't use legal guns. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. That's more proof that we need additional gun laws. NOT!
It's time for Mayor Emanuel to crack down on gang-on-gang violence. I don't care if they kill each other. It's that innocents get caught in their crossfire. That can't continue. If Emanuel won't fix that, then he should be booted from his office.
The first priority of a mayor, governor or president is to protect his people. If he can't do that, then he's a failure. That shouldn't be tolerated. Further, he shouldn't be replaced with another liberal who pretty much agrees with Emanuel. That's just kicking the can down the road. That's unacceptable. Period.
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:10 AM
No comments.
Schumer feels the heat
Now that the new Congress has been sworn in, Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court has faded into history's mists . With the nomination's passing came the obligatory statements from the Senate Majority Leader and the new Minority Leader.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said "I've been clear throughout that the next president would name the next Supreme Court justice. Now, the president who won the election will make the nomination, and the Senate the American people just re-elected will consider that nomination."
New Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), issued a sour grapes statement through his spokesman, saying "What Senate Republicans did to Judge Garland, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution was appalling. Judge Garland is respected on both sides of the aisle. That he did not even get so much as a hearing will be a stain on the legacy of the Republican Senate."
To the average voter, that sounds like "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH." It sounds like sour grapes. The truth is that Democrats wanted to shift the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation when Justice Scalia unexpectedly passed away. Republicans essentially said 'Not without a fight first.'
While Democrats express their sour grapes, the American people will move on. They'll worry whether Senate Democrats will attempt to force families to continue using the ABACA. They'll worry whether Democrats will insist on not protecting the US-Mexican border. People in Chicago will wonder if the Trump administration will be called in to deal with all of the gang-on-gang violence or whether they'll be frequent targets of gang-on-gang violence.
Sen. Schumer has more than a little pressure on him. If he makes deals with President Trump, he'll get booted by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for being too soft. If he takes a Warren-like hard line, he'll imperil somewhat moderate Democratic senators for their 2018 re-election campaigns.
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:57 PM
No comments.
Factchecking factcheckers
I'm getting tired of having to factcheck professional 'factcheckers'. The worst 'factchecker' is Politifact but others are 'gaining ground' on them. Shortly after my computer returned from the shop, I saw this factcheck , which is critical of Donald Trump's tweets about the ACA.
In Factcheck's article, they cite this tweet from Gov. Dayton where he said "The ACA has provided quality healthcare to +20M Americans. Its problems could've been corrected if GOP had tried to improve, not destroy it." That's a myth that's being peddled by Democrats in their propaganda battle to prevent the repeal of the ACA.
Betsey McCaughey, one of the foremost experts on health care, highlighted the reality in an op-ed that I wrote about in this post . McCaughey explained "Will 20 million lose coverage? Not even close. Sixteen million of those who gained coverage are enrolled in Medicaid, the public program for low-income residents. Obamacare allowed states to expand who could sign up for Medicaid, with the federal government covering the tab. Repeal could result in less federal funding. But no one is pushing to abolish the nation's health safety net. And states that just expanded Medicaid are unlikely to do a 180 and shrink it. The 16 million are likely safe."
Any factchecking organization that doesn't do basic research like that isn't trustworthy. That doesn't mean that they might not occasionally stumble into the truth. I'm just saying they can't be relied on to consistently be accurate factcheckers. Finally, factchecking tweets, then saying that they pulled quotes "on ACA Out of Context" is a bit absurd. It's impossible to provide detailed context in 140 characters.
Here's the transcript of what Gov. Dayton said about the ACA:
Gov. Dayton insists that Republicans took him out of context but here's what he said:
But ultimately, I'm not trying to pass the buck here, but the reality is the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable to increasing numbers of people. And Congress, which has been totally deadlocked in terms of making any necessary changes or improvements, is going to have to step into this in January with the next administration, and make the kind of changes such as, if : the federal government [provided] for catastrophic health care occurrences - you'd bring the rates down very significantly. :
And the subsidies that the federal government provides, the tax credits, are going to need to be increased and expanded to, again, reduce the cost burden on those who are buying insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
So I mean, there are a number of things that need to be done, federal, and there are some things we can do at the state. But the magnitude of this problem, Minnesota is not alone in this. There are many other states that have experienced significant increases, our increases are higher on a percentage basis because our base rates were lower, previously - but still very drastic increases and there are other states where providers, like in our case Blue Cross Blue Shield, have left the market entirely.
In other words, the ACA is affordable ... if the federal government provides massive subsidies to 90% of the people. Gov. Dayton later said that "there are a number of things that need to be done." That's proof that President-Elect Trump's tweet didn't mislead with Gov. Dayton's statement.
Posted Saturday, January 7, 2017 2:12 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's tax 'relief'
Anders Koskinen's article on Gov. Dayton's tax 'relief' bill is enlightening in that it proves that Gov. Dayton still hasn't learned that sending money to cities and counties doesn't shrink families' tax burdens. It just adds to those cities' and counties' spending.
The key part of Koskinen's article is where he writes "the proposal ends up seeing the state spending $1.60 in subsidies for every dollar of direct tax relief . Dayton's proposal includes $21 million in middle class tax cuts, $61 million of child care tax credits, and $34 million of property tax credits for farmers. A further $186 million, however, is a series of subsidies ."
Lt. Gov. Tina Flint-Smith adds "Our tax bill would provide significant relief to farmers by buying down the cost of local school district levies. I urge the Legislature to provide this needed tax relief for Minnesota farm families this session. In 2013, the DFL majorities in the House and Senate passed a bill with the same promises. It failed miserably. I wrote about those failures in this post and this post .
Despite all the DFL's claims, property taxes skyrocketed anyway. While it isn't shocking, it's more than a little disgusting.
The DFL theory is that sending money to cities and counties should reduce the need for raising taxes. The reality is that it increases cities' and counties' spending. That's been proven repeatedly. That's why I called the DFL's tax relief proposal a theory. It certainly isn't verifiable fact.
Posted Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:34 PM
No comments.
Ellison's DNC campaign
Keith Ellison is hoping to turn his support of Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton, into a winning message in his bid to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). At this point, outsiders think Rep. Ellison is the leader to succeed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the full-time chair of the DNC. Whether DNC insiders think that is another matter.
Outsiders think that he's the leader because he's been endorsed by "Harry M. Reid (NV), who announced his support on Sunday, and Reid's expected successor, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). On Monday, Ellison's list of endorsers also included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."
The article portrays Ellison as a team player, saying "Longtime Clinton aide Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, worked with Ellison to help draft the Democratic Party's platform in meetings where she represented Clinton and he Sanders. "I saw him as a very constructive voice in the platform process. And it was very apparent he was working hard to unite the party," said Tanden, who is staying neutral in the DNC Chair race and not endorsing any candidate."
I don't doubt that Ellison has the ability to unite the Democratic Party. That isn't the Democratic Party's problem. The Democrats' biggest problem is that they're far off the left end. Their other major problem is that they'll do anything that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party wants. That why they've alienated blue collar workers like miners and pipeline builders. Until blue collar Democrats insist that the Democratic Party incorporate their agenda into the Party's agenda, they should make clear that their votes will go to the party that listens to them. Period.
Politics should be, to a certain extent, about which party has actually listened to that constituent group. On that note, it's impossible to picture Keith Ellison guiding the Democratic Party to be ideologically inclusive. It isn't difficult picturing the DNC being more ideologically rigid under Ellison, though.
Posted Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 PM
No comments.
