January 25-26, 2017
Jan 25 08:09 Sen. Schumer's obstructionism Jan 25 09:09 Reject this request until... Jan 26 00:09 Gov. Dayton proposes single-payer Jan 26 01:50 Tucker vs. Jonathan Gruber Jan 26 12:34 The DFL's ideological superiority? Jan 26 17:10 Dems officially go scorched earth Jan 26 17:42 Premium relief bill passed
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Sen. Schumer's obstructionism
If there was ever a doubt about whether Senate Democrats would be obstructionists, this article should shout 'Democratic obstructionism'. President Trump announced today that he'll announce his SCOTUS nominee next week sometime. Democrats are feeling bitter that Republicans give Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick to replace Antonin Scalia, a committee hearing.
It isn't surprising to hear that "Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee to the high court, with 10 months remaining in Mr. Obama's second term. That deep resentment is certain to color their handling of Mr. Trump's choice just as it has contributed to their resistance to moving quickly on Mr. Trump's cabinet selections."
I respectfully disagree with that last statement. Democrats aren't just upset with the fact that Republicans didn't hold a hearing on Judge Garland. They're also upset that Hillary lost. They're upset that they didn't retake the majority in the Senate, too. They're upset that their coalition was demolished by 'blue collar billionaire' Donald Trump.
That's their fault. Democrats hitched their wagon to Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's stars. The DNC leadership team was corrupt to the point that they, not voters, picked Hillary Clinton to be their presidential nominee. Mrs. Clinton ran the worst campaign in the last half-century.
All indications are that they see the forthcoming nomination as a chance to take a strong stand against the new president, since they still have the power to filibuster a Supreme Court choice - at least for now.
Democrats now think that resisting the newly-sworn-in president is their path back to power. What they're really doing is paving the way for his re-election.
People won't agree with Senate Republicans not granting Garland a hearing but they definitely won't agree with Democrats acting like spoiled brats, either. That's what the Democrats' 'resistance' looks like to apolitical people.
Top Democrats say they don't intend to play 'tit for tat' with the nomination. But they say they will insist on what they consider to be a mainstream candidate capable of securing at least the 60 votes needed to thwart any filibuster. Otherwise, they promise to do whatever they can to block the nominee.
The Democrats are being stupid. If President Trump nominates Judge Gorsuch, he'll be nominating a solid judge whose opinions are well-written. Do Democrats really want to put up a big fight against an articulate judge? It's their option but I wouldn't advise them to do that. That's wasting tons of political capital on a lost cause. If Democrats filibuster President Trump's SCOTUS nominee, they'll put the Supreme Court off-limits for a generation. This is the face of Democratic senators:
This is rich:
"We are not going to do what the Republicans did," said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, "but if the candidate's out of the mainstream, I can tell you I will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against them."
That's coming from the liar who sabotaged Mike Pompeo's confirmation vote.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:09 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 25-Jan-17 11:26 AM
Hey, Senator Schumer, YOU do not get to decide who is "mainstream"! You are so far up the left bank you cannot even see the water!
Reject this request until...
Minnesota State, aka MnSCU, has requested a budget increase of $178,000,000 over the next biennium. The higher education committees should reject that request if it isn't tied to significant reforms. MnSCU is run by a chancellor who's in way over his head. MnSCU's Board of Trustees is, at least theoretically, supposed to provide oversight over the system. They've failed in that assignment.
The Department of Higher Education, which is run by former Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, hasn't lifted a finger, either. The shop of cronies continues without interruption. No interventions are anticipated because, frankly, nobody wants to deal with the unpleasantness of doing what's right for the taxpayers who support the system or the students who are attending MnSCU.
If you think that's all, think again. The House and Senate Higher Education committees, chaired by Bud Nornes and Michelle Fischbach respectively, haven't lifted a finger on oversight or proposed any reforms. This morning, I sent this email to Chairman Nornes:
I could've written a much longer letter if I'd wanted to but I'm confident Chairman Nornes got my point. The question now is whether he'll act on this. I'm not confident about that. Large-scale reform of Minnesota State, aka MnSCU, is required. As I wrote in my email to Chairman Nornes, more Minnesota students have left for North Dakota and Wisconsin than students from North Dakota and Wisconsin have come here. That's been happening for years. It's time that stopped.
The mismanagement has been apparent to anyone who's paid attention. It's cheating taxpayers and students. It's time to stop.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:09 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 25-Jan-17 10:40 AM
How does a 17% decline in Fye enrollment in 6 years with no end in decline ahead warrant an increase? More money for less students when inflationary pressure is at all time low, that sounds like less work for more pay which is great deal for the worker and a horrible deal for those who pay the bill. It is long past time for some real oversight.
Gov. Dayton proposes single-payer
Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Gazelka should reject Gov. Dayton's proposal to 'reform' health care by going to a single-payer plan . The article starts by saying "A new form of health insurance could be available next year to Minnesotans in the individual health insurance market if a proposal by Gov. Mark Dayton gains approval of state legislators and the federal government."
While that excites hardline progressives, aka socialists, like John Marty, the vast majority of legislators (including Democrats) will reject single-payer health care. That's because it's failed each time it's been tried. Mssrs. Daudt and Gazelka should investigate the numbers that Gov. Dayton is pushing because they aren't credible. According to the article, "The new public option would be available to most Minnesotans for an average price of $469 per month, about 12 percent less than the $538 monthly premium for private insurance in 2017, the Dayton administration said. Dayton's office estimates the plan would save families an average of more than $800 per person annually in 2018 compared to 2017."
The chances that those numbers are accurate are virtually nonexistent. Let's understand that these figures come from the party that insisted that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Further, let's understand that Gov. Dayton's goal is to prop up a failed government program by proposing another big government 'solution'. As I've said before, single-payer either fails outright wherever it's tried or it dramatically reduces health care options.
Then there's this:
Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, applauded the governor's public option plan. "Access to quality, affordable health care is the benchmark for success, and this is exactly what Minnesotans will get with this expansion," he said. "Passage of this plan would restore comprehensive networks in rural Minnesota, and give hope to many Minnesotans who are struggling to keep up with health insurance costs."
At the bill-signing ceremony for MNsure, Sen. Lourey said " The people won on this bill ." Considering how much pain MNsure has caused, should we think that Sen. Lourey's opinion isn't worthless? I certainly don't think it's worth anything. Watch this video before forming an opinion on whether Sen. Lourey is a legitimate health care expert or a political shill:
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:09 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 26-Jan-17 08:19 AM
I really do not think that pixies and leprechauns make very good nurses and doctors, but apparently that is what the DFL has in mind. I prefer the "magic" of the free market. Can we try /that/ for a while?
Tucker vs. Jonathan Gruber
If ever there was a reason why progressive spinmeisters should steer clear of getting interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Gruber's interview offers the biggest reason to avoid Carlson. During the interview, Carlson caught Gruber in his spin at least half a dozen times. Throughout most of the interview, Dr. Gruber came across as elitist and intellectually outmatched.
When Carlson asked Gruber why recent polling showed fairly strong disapproval of Obamacare, Dr. Gruber replied "I think they feel that way because there's been a lot of misinformation about what the law has done." Carlson immediately picked up on that, inquiring "You once famously said that the law got passed because of the stupidity of the American voter, not understanding the intricacies of the funding of this law. You since apologized but it seems as though you still feel that way. You just said people don't like it because they don't understand it. But I mean, it's their health care. Are they that dumb that they don't understand how great it is?"
That led to another misstep by Dr. Gruber when he said "Tucker, that isn't what I said. What I said was inartful. That's why I apologized." Let's get honest about something. What Dr. Gruber said wasn't inartful. It was intentional. It was repeated:
Something that's repeated that often isn't off-the-cuff. It's intentional. It's elitist, too. Then there's this exchange:
CARLSON: I thought this law was supposed to help everybody.
DR. GRUBER: This law was never supposed to help everybody, Tucker. The law was actually supposed to leave the vast majority of Americans alone.
That isn't true. The plan was always intended to push people into policies that the ACA's architects were pushing. That's why Politifact rated President Obama's statement that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as their Lie of the Year" a few years back. Dr. Gruber was exposed as a political shill Wednesday night. It isn't that Dr. Gruber was "inartful." It isn't that he wanted people to keep their health care plans that they liked. It's that he wanted to tell the people he thinks of as too stupid what's best for them.
Watch this entire video. It's a frightening insight into a progressive elitist's mind:
Finally, this Trey Gowdy interrogation of Dr. Gruber is must-see TV:
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:50 AM
No comments.
The DFL's ideological superiority?
DFL State Rep. Rick Hansen is worried that the Trump administration's review of the EPA's grants and contracts might prevent some of his pet environmental projects from getting completed. He isn't sure what's happening so he's jumping to conclusions rather than waiting until this Friday, which is when the review is supposed to finish.
According to the article "the MPCA received an email from federal officials saying: 'EPA staff have been reviewing grants and contract information with the incoming transition team. Pursuant to that review, the agency is continuing to award program grants, state revolving loan fund grants to states and tribes, and we are working to quickly address issues related to other categories of grants. The goal is to complete the grants and contracts review by the close of business on Friday, Jan. 27.'"
Rep. Hansen thinks he knows what the problem is. According to Rep. Hansen, "I think you have a deadly combination of a lack of experience and a sense of ideological superiority, where people's ideology is driving decisions, versus experience."
Apparently, Rep. Hansen thinks it's wise to criticize things that he doesn't know anything about. That's a little irrational. Further, it's apparent that Rep. Hansen is engaging in a little projection. The DFL, like their national brethren, has thought that they're superior to the GOP. Again, this election, voters didn't agree with the DFL and the DNC. These voters gave Republicans an even bigger margin in state legislative seats, governorships and the White House while helping Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate.
If Democrats want to kid themselves into thinking that they're still a national party, that's their right. It's also delusional thinking. The EPA isn't a popular agency. If Democrats want to whine about the Trump administration reviewing their decisions, don't expect voters to listen to the Democrats' whining.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:34 PM
No comments.
Dems officially go scorched earth
This article confirms what I've thought for a couple of weeks. It verifies with quotes from Democratic politicians that Democrats are waging a scorched earth campaign.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told Politico that "They were entitled to a grace period, but it was midnight the night of the inauguration to 8 o'clock the next morning, when the administration sent out people to lie about numerous significant things. And the damage to the credibility of the presidency has already been profound. They were entitled to a grace period and they blew it. It's been worse than I could have imagined, the first few days."
According to the article, "In legislative proposals, campaign promises, donor pitches and even in some Senate hearings, Democrats have opted for a hard-line, give-no-quarter posture, a reflection of a seething party base that will have it no other way."
This isn't surprising. Democrats have been displaying their anger over losing the election since the day after the election. They'd felt certain that Mrs. Clinton would win handily. To lose by a fairly wide margin stunned them.
The other contributing factor to the Democrats' scorched earth campaign is the fact that that's what they specialize in. That's who they are. They're all-but-officially the over-the-top party:
At a forum this week for candidates running to be the next DNC chair, the very idea that the party should try to work with the new president was dismissed as absurd. That's a question that's absolutely ridiculous," said New Hampshire party Chairman Raymond Buckley, when asked whether the Democratic Party should try to work with Trump where it can find opportunities.
Television commentator Jehmu Greene offered: "If you saw the millions of people who marched in the streets this weekend and participated in it, they are looking to the Democratic Party. We have an opportunity as a party to be that place of resistance. So we have to form a solid resistance as a party. And no, it is not about working with Donald Trump."
What's ridiculous is the notion that a formerly major political party refuses to put their big boy britches on and act like adults instead of acting like spoiled brats.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:10 PM
No comments.
Premium relief bill passed
Republicans and the DFL found a way to compromise this week. Republicans accepted Gov. Dayton's plan to provide premium relief for people buying health insurance on the individual market but made too much to qualify for federal premium support. Gov. Dayton accepted the Republicans' reforms. In the end, neither side got everything they wanted, which was anticipated, but everyone got something that they wanted.
Shortly after the House passed the conference committee report by a vote of 108-19, Republicans issued a statement, saying that their bill allowed "for-profit HMOs to operate in Minnesota (like most states) which will increase options for consumers, modifying stop loss coverage to make it easier for more small businesses to offer affordable insurance to their employees, providing greater transparency for proposed insurance premium changes by requiring earlier disclosure of proposed rates, allowing Agricultural Cooperatives to offer group health insurance to their members so farmers and their families can get better access to care and more affordable coverage, ensuring Minnesota employees can benefit from the recently passed federal 21st Century Cures Act which allows employers to make pre-tax contributions toward employee health insurance costs, network adequacy reform that will assist in ensuring more options for residents in rural Minnesota while prohibiting surprise billing to protect consumers from previously undisclosed costs."
The Senate voted 46-19 in favor of the bill.
DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin issued this statement:
Today, we saw compromise prevail. After working with Gov. Dayton, the House and Senate passed a bipartisan solution to the current health insurance premium crisis. Although the bill is nowhere near perfect, this compromise helps Minnesotans now and keeps the door open for Minnesotans' input on further health care reforms in the future.
Minnesotans could have seen relief 3 months ago but Republicans in the legislature wanted to get something out of the deal for themselves. Instead of working to get more to help Minnesota's families, they showed their true colors and prioritized big corporations and big profits.
While I am pleased that our legislature was able to pass this relief that so many Minnesotans are counting on, I hope that for the rest of the legislative session, Republicans remember that Minnesotans are expecting their legislature to work for them, not against them.
Earlier this week, Gov. Dayton proposed a 'reform' that would inflict single-payer health care on Minnesotans. That bill is all but officially dead despite Martin's statement that this compromise "keeps the door open for Minnesotans' input on further health care reforms in the future."
As for Martin's whining statement that "Minnesotans could have seen relief 3 months ago but Republicans in the legislature wanted to get something out of the deal for themselves", the truth is that Gov. Dayton insisted that the bill not include any reforms. Gov. Dayton insisted that it just provide premium relief. Republicans insisted that there be substantive reforms because, without them, they'd be right back here next year with another bailout.
Today's bill is a first step in a session-long effort to address the problems created by Obamacare and MNsure," said House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown. "As the first month of session comes to a close, Republican majorities have shown an ability to get things done for Minnesotans and to work productively with the governor."
Gov. Dayton will sign the bill.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:42 PM
No comments.
