January 19-22, 2017
Jan 19 03:57 Democrats overplay CBO report Jan 19 14:43 Ken Martin vs. Jason Lewis Jan 20 09:53 The American way in action Jan 20 20:17 President Trump's "dark" speech Jan 21 07:34 DFL's, Tina Liebling's hysteria Jan 22 05:59 Evaluating the Obama coalition
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Democrats overplay CBO report
It's apparent that Democrats are overplaying the CBO's report on repealing the ACA. It's apparent after reading this Washington Post article .
That's apparent based on the opening paragraph of their article, which says "At least 18 million people would lose health insurance in the first year if Republicans move ahead with plans to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan, estimates a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."
The first telling part is when CBO says 18,000,000 "people would lose health insurance in the first year if Republicans move ahead with plans to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan ." That sentence alone nullifies the importance of the CBO's analysis. That's because Republicans have consistently said that they'd pass the repeal and replace in the same piece of legislation. They've also promised to not let anyone get left hanging while transitioning from Obamacare to the new and improved health care system.
This doom and gloom is helping Democrats overplay their hand:
The number of people without insurance would grow to about 32 million within the first decade if congressional Republicans follow a 2015 plan to repeal the health-care law without an alternative, the new report says. It also estimates that health insurance premiums for people buying individual non-group coverage would double within a decade, further complicating GOP promises that people will not lose coverage under their plan.
It's clear that the new plan to replace the ACA will be significantly different than anything that's been used before. Further, Democrats are setting themselves up for failure. The only way that the Democrats' strategy will work is if Republicans totally drop the ball. The chances of that happening with President Trump, Vice President Pence, HHS Secretary Price, Speaker Ryan and Sen. John Barrasso leading the push is virtually nonexistent.
Rest assured that President Trump's first State of the Union Address will include details of what the replace plan will include. I'd expect that legislation will have been submitted by then. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if the legislation will gotten its first hearings by then. Once President Trump blasts this information out to the nation, the Democrats' handwringing and demagoguery will put them in God's little acre -- between a rock and a hard place.
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:57 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 19-Jan-17 08:14 AM
I'm still waiting for Trump and new HHS Secretary Price to do one thing ASAP. Order that the ACA be followed and that Congress and their staffs must buy Obamacare plans rather than their Cadillac Congress health plan. Repeal and replace will come quickly after that.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jan-17 09:23 AM
Jerry, to do the replace right, which should be the goal, they'll need to proceed carefully. That doesn't automatically mean slowly. It means this has to be well thought out. The change is coming. Why create extra steps, extra complications? That's inefficient.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 19-Jan-17 05:39 PM
18 million who probably didn't want it in the first place or were getting it through some other government program to begin with.
The Democrats are also crying about all the jobs that will be lost, jobs that were only created because the ACA was so damn worthless.
Ken Martin vs. Jason Lewis
In this article , DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin says that "Democrats will focus more on policy as they try to hold Lewis to just one term. 'It certainly will be a huge target for national Democrats and, of course, for us here at the DFL. It's still on paper a 50-50 district.'"
That's a point of contention. Technically speaking, CD-2 should be a 50-50 district in normal times, it isn't a 50-50 district operationally because the Democratic Party has gone nuts. The DFL isn't a centrist party anymore. They've abandoned blue collar workers and farmers. They've gravitated toward top-down-government-knows-best policies like Obamacare. They're trying to kill the fossil fuel industry. Angie Craig raised lots of money. She ran an aggressive campaign. What happened is that she wasn't a good fit for the district.
In CD-2, the DFL's standard-bearer, Angie Craig, promised to expand Obamacare. As a result, she lost after leading going into the final month.
Once Rep. Lewis starts voting for welcome reforms and the results start coming in, he'll be in a stronger position for re-election. Now that Lewis has gotten sworn in, he's rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. There's no reason to think he won't represent the district well.
That should make Ken Martin plenty sad.
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:43 PM
No comments.
The American way in action
There's something majestic about the way Americans transition from one administration to another. The routineness with which we celebrate the coming of a new administration with anticipation, hopefulness and, perhaps, a little antipathy isn't replicated anywhere in western civilization. For instance, when the British, one of our closest allies in the world, elects a new prime minister, the outgoing prime minister is given little time to clear out of 10 Downing Street.
It's definitely something done in a hurry.
This year as in all other years, the process has been drawn out, with people from the incoming administration's transition team meeting with their counterparts from the outgoing administration since virtually the day after the election on Nov. 8, 2016. The point is that it's literally been a months-long transition. Former presidents have been arriving all morning. George and former First Lady Laura Bush arrived. Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter are here, too. As I write this, the Clintons haven't arrived yet. Of course, Bush the Elder and Barbara Bush won't attend because of health issues, though Bush the Elder sent a touching letter to President-Elect Trump.
Nothing conveys the finality of this event like this picture, though:
Here's wishing the Obamas a long and prosperous life.
Posted Friday, January 20, 2017 9:53 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 20-Jan-17 02:22 PM
Like Obama or not, that has to be one unusual experience when you walk out of the office of the most powerful person on earth knowing that you'll never be back in that position again.
No more Air Force One, no more concierges, no more meals made for you (although on that account, the Obamas probably will have a chef), etc, etc.
Tomorrow morning when he wakes up, it'll be in entirely new surroundings with none of the power and perks that he enjoyed. It's gotta be a weird experience.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 20-Jan-17 05:32 PM
You mean none of the perks like a lifetime pension, secret service protection for life, ability to make millions giving worthless speeches? Yeah, poor guy. I just hope he goes away like GW did but then again we know that won't happen.
President Trump's "dark" speech
Byron York's article about media reaction to President Trump's inauguration speech is telling in that it exposes the media's groupthink. York notes that "Talking to people on the Mall was like entering a universe entirely apart from that of the political commentariat. In the pundits' world, Trump delivered a pessimistic and foreboding address, one sure to further divide the nation. The adjective of choice was 'dark.' 'Unusually dark,' wrote The Atlantic. 'Short, dark, and defiant,' wrote USA Today. 'A dark vision,' wrote the Los Angeles Times. There were many, many more."
One of the "many, many more" articles or segments that used the term dark was Rachel Maddow's meltdown , where she said "It was militant and it was dark. The crime, the gangs, the drugs, this 'American carnage,' disrepair, decay. You can't imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that.'"
I agree with Maddow. I can't "imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that." His style was to paper over things that were going terribly wrong rather than fixing things. President Trump is the opposite. President Trump isn't into papering over things. He's into fixing things. I'm betting that the American people will notice the difference between the last administration and President Trump within the first 100 days.
This paragraph from President Trump's speech was magnificent and transcendent:
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another - but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
This video provides a nice glimpse into how FNC's pundits viewed the speech:
They didn't gloss over things. They just presented things as they were. Finally, when I heard President Trump say that "we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to the other -- we are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the American people", I thought that was worthy of the best stuff that Peggy Noonan wrote for President Reagan. It was positively epic. I could picture President Reagan delivering that line with gusto, too.
President Trump (man, it feels good to finally say that), here's wishing that you and, more importantly, the nation change directions to a more prosperous reality. That doesn't mean I hoped President Obama would fail. It's that I simply didn't think he'd succeed. That isn't dark. It's just reality.
Posted Friday, January 20, 2017 8:17 PM
No comments.
DFL's, Tina Liebling's hysteria
Tina Liebling's most recent e-letter update is a portrait of the DFL's hysteria. I first noticed Rep. Liebling's hysteria when I spotted this hysterical tweet , which said "House GOP passed plan to let insurance companies sell junk insurance w/o coverage for things like cancer, Lyme disease, autism."
Rep. Liebling didn't like it when I challenged her by saying "We'll determine what's junk & what isn't if you don't mind. Your record of predicting what's good for us isn't exactly inspiring." Rep. Liebling's reply to my initial tweet said "If you get cancer and your insurance policy doesn't cover cancer, it's junk." I followed that up by saying "Why think that people, consulting with their physicians, can't figure this out? Catastrophic policies are great for young people. Your thinking seems based on the theory that people can't figure these things out. Shame on you for thinking that!"
Rep. Liebling's I-know-what's-best-for-you thinking continued in her e-letter update:
Republican legislators are also taking the opportunity to help corporate insurance companies. They are proposing sweeping and risky changes to the insurance system--including allowing for-profit health insurance companies to operate in Minnesota. Changes to the insurance system could potentially cause even more instability and rate increases next year, but the GOP in both House and Senate have rushed them through committees. They refuse to pass relief for consumers without their other proposals. This is holding hostage the over 100,000 Minnesotans who need insurance in place before the end of open enrollment--January 31.
Republican legislators have said that they're tying reforms to the relief because they don't want to have to revisit this DFL-created crisis next year. This is what Speaker Daudt said in this statement :
"Our plan provides emergency premium aid while preserving access for life-saving care for thousands of Minnesotans struggling under the effects of Obamacare," said House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown. "Minnesotans know we need to start fixing this problem now so we don't find ourselves in the same situation next year. Republicans have and will continue to lead on this issue and offer concrete solutions to fix the health care mess Democrats created."
It's clear that Rep. Liebling just wants to spend money without fixing this crisis. Speaker Daudt has put a higher priority on fixing this DFL-created crisis.
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2017 7:34 AM
No comments.
Evaluating the Obama coalition
The topic that didn't get discussed often enough after the election is the viability of the so-called Obama Coalition. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote a book titled " The Emerging Democratic Majority " that was based on the belief that demographics pointed to a permanent Democratic majority.
Part of the description for their book says "In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call ' progressive centrism ' and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations. As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda -- and a clarion call for a new political order."
The Obama Coalition was built, in large part, on identity politics. The book's description isn't accurate. In fact, it isn't close. What we've learned since this book was written is that Obama's coalition isn't transferrable. It's his . Since he'll never be on the ballot again, it's time to admit that significant parts of that coalition have switched allegiances to President Trump. Other parts of former President Obama's coalition decided to sit this election out because neither candidate excited them.
Putting it briefly, there's a reason why it's called Obama's Coalition. It's Obama's coalition because it doesn't work for candidates who aren't Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders put together his own coalition. Admittedly, it was significantly smaller than Obama's but at least he realized he couldn't rely on former President Obama's coalition.
While Democrats don't have to start from scratch, they have to rethink their identity. They'll have to rethink their policies, too. If they don't, they won't win back white working class voters. Without them, they can't win states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Posted Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:59 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Jan-17 08:15 AM
While I hate to give the progressive's any ideas on how to win, if they stopped identity politics and focused on American politics, it will help them out. Love or hate Trump but he spoke to the entire population instead of just the LGBT's, "African-Americans", Latino-Americans, etc. The progressives haven't learned that you can't divide your own base and still conquer.
I hope they continue to not learn from their past mistakes.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 23-Jan-17 08:08 AM
Without monolithic voting from those identity blocs, their "winning coalition" cannot win, and their error is assuming that demography = destiny. That is, if we appeal to "blacks" that every black thinks exactly the same and will vote Democrat. It's racist! Or appealing to so-called women's issues gets them 100% of the women's vote. It's sexist! (and stupid and insulting).
