In the House "Affordable Health Care for America Act," and the Senate "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" bills, are provisions to establish the "Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program. These programs are ostensibly created to create a new federal program for long-term care insurance. However, for those who are observing the gaming of the CBO process by both houses of Congress, this is a transparent attempt at making "reform" look "affordable." As the CBO points out, "Because participation in the program is voluntary, collections of insurance premiums uncer CLASS would be recorded as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending)." Over the 2010-2019 period, CLASS would reduce deficits between $72 billion and $102 billion. This is a replay of the Social Security/Medicare ponzi scheme, where a "Trust Fund" is created with the taxes paid into the CLASS trust fund. The replay is also seen when rather than that cash remaining in the "Trust Fund," earning interest, the Congress takes that cash to fund spending, leaving the "Trust Fund" with an IOU from the Treasury. This is an IOU that will be in addition to the unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare that total $107 trillion dollars!
Now, normal people would see this as the ponzi scheme that it is, but CLASS enrollees would have to pay premiums for only five years to be vested in the program. This suggests that the program will experience adverse selection with people close (can achieve vesting) to retirement being more likely to sign up for this. If your young, you may see this as the scam that it is and decide not to throw good money after bad. If you're hard working and successful and prudent in your spending and saving, you have to know that you will not get "one dime" from Social Security. By they time you retire, Congress will "means test" you out of your promised benefits. This will likely be the case in CLASS as well. According the to CBO, "Both the House and Senate legislation would provide considerable authority to the Secretary (of HHS) to adjust premiums for both current and future enrollees and to reduce benefits to the daily minimum of $50 in order to maintain the solvency of the program. By the time you retire, because the money has long been spent, you will likely pay higher premiums for lower benefits. Bernie Madoff would be proud to be associated with these programs.
In the 2010-2019 period, the House version will collect (per CBO) $123.1b in premiums and pay out $21.5b in benefit payments and costs. The Senate version will collect $87.6b in premiums and pay out $15.1b in benefit payments and costs. This is easy budgetary pickings for the snake oil salesmen in Congress. It's like selling a life insurance policy; You get the premium today and let someone else worry about paying the claim in the (hopefully) distant future.
The CBO can't be faulted in this because they can only score the bills as they are written. The real blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the crooks in Congress who have learned to "reverse engineer" the CBO process. We've seen this before with the "doc fix," where they took it out of the "Reform" bills and passed it on a stand alone basis to extend the appearance that "Reform" is "Affordable," when it's neither!
In future elections, we need to remember who these "CLASSy" players are and send them into a new civil program - Cheats lose all serving socialism (CLASS).
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
School stories
Story #1
Helping my 10 year old study for a science test:
Dad: "A relationship in which one organism lives in or on another organism and benefits from that relationship while the other organism may be harmed by it. The answer is not "What is a Liberal.""
Molly: "What is a parasite."
Dad: "Correct."
Story #2
My daughter had to do a "current event" on "Economic Justice." I made some suggestions (not all of them were conservative in nature). She chose to use the "Plan to tax the Rich" to pay for healthcare reform. Her outline included observations such as "I think it is unfair to tax people ..... because those people wither work very hard or are good at what they do."
She receeived an "A" on the presentation, but her teacher approaced her and said something to the effect of "You did a good job, but you have to know that the people you are talking about (the "rich") have inherited money and they really don't work that hard for their money."
Even in a Catholic school, one can not protect your children from the liberal leaning teachers. Needless to say, my daughter knows better than to fall for that.
Helping my 10 year old study for a science test:
Dad: "A relationship in which one organism lives in or on another organism and benefits from that relationship while the other organism may be harmed by it. The answer is not "What is a Liberal.""
Molly: "What is a parasite."
Dad: "Correct."
Story #2
My daughter had to do a "current event" on "Economic Justice." I made some suggestions (not all of them were conservative in nature). She chose to use the "Plan to tax the Rich" to pay for healthcare reform. Her outline included observations such as "I think it is unfair to tax people ..... because those people wither work very hard or are good at what they do."
She receeived an "A" on the presentation, but her teacher approaced her and said something to the effect of "You did a good job, but you have to know that the people you are talking about (the "rich") have inherited money and they really don't work that hard for their money."
Even in a Catholic school, one can not protect your children from the liberal leaning teachers. Needless to say, my daughter knows better than to fall for that.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
My Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch on My "Representative."
I recently received an email encouraging me to “Thank my Representative for supporting healthcare reform.” My “Representative” is Mary Jo Kilroy, and she did vote in favor of the House “Reform” bill, but I won’t be thanking her. I think it is safe to say that the most important issues for Ohioans is getting or keeping a job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio has an unemployment rate of 10.1%, up from 6.8% at this time last year. This puts Ohio in the bottom half of states in terms of the change in the unemployment rate, and tied for 13th in terms of the unemployment rate. So, what is my “Representative” doing to represent Ohio and my district? She voted for the House “Reform” bill which creates 111 new government bureaucracies. This bill is so bad that 39 democrats voted against the bill. The government will tell your insurance company what they need to cover and how much they can charge for the coverage. The cost of the House bill is over $1 trillion. Since the taxes and fees that we will pay for this kick in before the “benefits” are available, the cost is less than it would be if both the sources of revenue and costs were on an apples to apples basis in terms of timing. If that were done, the cost would exceed $2 trillion. Individuals would be penalized for not buying insurance, and employers would be penalized (8% of payroll) for not offering coverage. Over the 2010-2019 periods, individuals and employers would pay an estimated $168 billion as a result of these mandates. These are just two of the thirteen new tax increases that are part of the House version of “Reform.” This will no doubt discourage employers from hiring new employees, unless they absolutely need new workers. If you’re thinking about the comment “If you like your insurance, you can keep it,” forget about it. What is most enlightening is that by 2019 the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of uninsured will decrease by 36 million. 30 million of these will have insurance because they will be forced to buy insurance or because the government used our tax dollars to subsidize their premiums (why not, she voted to use our tax dollars to pay for abortions). Fifteen million of those with new insurance will be in the Medicaid program (which along with Medicare and Social Security) is dramatically underfunded. Only 6 million will be covered by the controversial “public option.” This job killing plan does not seem like reform as much as it seems like redistribution of wealth. It will redistribute wealth, to other states. With the 5.4% “surcharge” on individuals earning over $500,000, Ohio will have a top marginal tax rate of 54.3%. When the government gets over 50% of your income, look for many to relocate to lower tax states. It’s already happening in New York.
Mary Jo, was also kind enough to vote for the “Cap & Trade” legislation that will have a dramatic impact on Ohio and Ohio jobs. Mary Jo will tout all of the green jobs that Ohio will gain from this legislation, but that is a pipe dream. The John Birch Society estimates that this new tax will cost Ohio another 86,000 jobs. This is on top of the average family paying an additional $1,500 per year in energy costs. Again, this legislation was not without significant skepticism. The legislation passed the house by a vote of 219-212, with 44 democrats voting against it. In 2007, 84.2% of Ohio’s electric supply was generated from coal fired plants. Mary Jo wants us to believe that the jobs lost will be made up by “green“ jobs (wind & solar). Recent statistics suggest that only 0.8% of American energy supply is from wind and solar. Good luck replacing the lost jobs with green jobs. Spain made a concerted effort to cut CO2 emissions with a big push into green jobs. Their experience indicated that 2.2 jobs were lost for each green job created, with only 10% of the green jobs being permanent jobs. Nine years after the Spanish experiment with green jobs, CO2 emissions are up 50%!
Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for “Cash for Clunkers,” which, in the initial phase cost taxpayers $3 billion. It is estimated that only 18% of the car sales were due entirely to the program. The other 82% would have bought new cars anyway. I’ll spare you the details on the tax credit that folks are getting to buy golf carts.
Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for the “First time homebuyer credit.” The Treasury Department recently told Congress that at least 19,000 who filed for the credit had not bought a house. Another 74,000 were not first time home buyers. The government is pursuing more than 100 criminal investigations related to the credit. Given this stellar execution from those who want the government to run the healthcare system, Mary Jo voted to extend it.
These programs may keep you on your job for a while, but it’s not going to preserve this over the long term, nor is it going to create jobs. Until we stop with these band aid policies, Ohio will continue to deteriorate.
One must remember that this is what big government does. It’s like a runaway aircraft carrier. It’s not going to change course, it’s going to plow through anything that gets in its way. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the enormous risks these two institutions took during the housing bubble. They continue to take risk with our tax dollars ($111 billion so far in capital infusions).
Mary Jo Kilroy is entrenched in the school of big government. She wants you to be dependent on Big Brother for most, if not all of your needs. If that is what you want, it’s your right to thank her. For me, I am not in the mood for gratitude.
Mary Jo, was also kind enough to vote for the “Cap & Trade” legislation that will have a dramatic impact on Ohio and Ohio jobs. Mary Jo will tout all of the green jobs that Ohio will gain from this legislation, but that is a pipe dream. The John Birch Society estimates that this new tax will cost Ohio another 86,000 jobs. This is on top of the average family paying an additional $1,500 per year in energy costs. Again, this legislation was not without significant skepticism. The legislation passed the house by a vote of 219-212, with 44 democrats voting against it. In 2007, 84.2% of Ohio’s electric supply was generated from coal fired plants. Mary Jo wants us to believe that the jobs lost will be made up by “green“ jobs (wind & solar). Recent statistics suggest that only 0.8% of American energy supply is from wind and solar. Good luck replacing the lost jobs with green jobs. Spain made a concerted effort to cut CO2 emissions with a big push into green jobs. Their experience indicated that 2.2 jobs were lost for each green job created, with only 10% of the green jobs being permanent jobs. Nine years after the Spanish experiment with green jobs, CO2 emissions are up 50%!
Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for “Cash for Clunkers,” which, in the initial phase cost taxpayers $3 billion. It is estimated that only 18% of the car sales were due entirely to the program. The other 82% would have bought new cars anyway. I’ll spare you the details on the tax credit that folks are getting to buy golf carts.
Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for the “First time homebuyer credit.” The Treasury Department recently told Congress that at least 19,000 who filed for the credit had not bought a house. Another 74,000 were not first time home buyers. The government is pursuing more than 100 criminal investigations related to the credit. Given this stellar execution from those who want the government to run the healthcare system, Mary Jo voted to extend it.
These programs may keep you on your job for a while, but it’s not going to preserve this over the long term, nor is it going to create jobs. Until we stop with these band aid policies, Ohio will continue to deteriorate.
One must remember that this is what big government does. It’s like a runaway aircraft carrier. It’s not going to change course, it’s going to plow through anything that gets in its way. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the enormous risks these two institutions took during the housing bubble. They continue to take risk with our tax dollars ($111 billion so far in capital infusions).
Mary Jo Kilroy is entrenched in the school of big government. She wants you to be dependent on Big Brother for most, if not all of your needs. If that is what you want, it’s your right to thank her. For me, I am not in the mood for gratitude.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Excellent Opinion Piece from Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal
Despite Nancy Pelosi's claim that "We won last night," the elections in New Jersey and Virgina are full of significance for the future of the White House and the Congress. The following Wall Street Journal opinion piece is full of information that reinforces the practical implications of these elections, with information at the local and state-wide level.
=======================================================================
Hello, Tipping Point
The Obama presidency was always a race against time.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
'We don't look at either of these gubernatorial races . . . as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts," insisted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday, as New Jersey and Virginia voters gave Democrats a thumping. Unfortunately for the White House, its opinion no longer counts.
On Jan. 20, Barack Obama began a race against time. The White House knew its liberal agenda would prove unpopular in many parts of the country represented by Democrats. So long as the president looked strong, those Blue Dogs and freshmen and swing-state senators would stick. Show them any sign of weakness, however, and rattled Dems would begin to care more about their own re-elections than they did their president. Tuesday, the White House hit that tipping point.
To understand why, join some of those "nervous Democrats" who at this very moment are digging into, say, Virginia's returns. Last year, Dems captured three GOP House seats in the Old Dominion as the state voted for its first Democratic president since 1964. This week, those very same districts provided Democrats their first proof that the Obama agenda is a liability.
There's freshman Rep. Tom Perriello, who, buoyed by the big Obama turnout, won Virginia's fifth congressional district by a scant 727 votes. Today, Mr. Perriello's farming and manufacturing area sports the state's highest unemployment rate. The Democrat suffered a furious backlash over his vote for a cap-and-trade bill that will further crush local manufacturing and was then walloped at a series of health-care town halls.
Voters took their frustration to the polls on Tuesday. Republican Bob McDonnell, who campaigned for governor on jobs and against ObamaCare and climate legislation, took 61.4% of the district's vote. At the local level, Democrats challenged two incumbent GOP Virginia delegates; the Republicans each won by more than 30 points. The GOP last month succeeded in recruiting veteran state Sen. Robert Hurt, a district native, to challenge Mr. Perriello. He's already campaigning on jobs.
Or take Rep. Glenn Nye, who last year won Virginia's Hampton Roads district. Criticized as an outsider with few ties to the local military culture, Mr. Nye nonetheless benefited from Mr. Obama's fierce campaign for the district (which the president won with 50.5%). Yet residents are today anxious about the Democratic commitment to defense spending, and bitter about a Washington proposal to move the Navy's newest aircraft carrier from Virginia to Florida. Mr. Nye was wary enough to buck his party's leadership and vote against cap and trade, though he then got caught lauding the bill's passage.
Mr. McDonnell carried Mr. Nye's district by a 24-point margin. Locally, Republicans ousted two incumbent Democratic delegates. Mr. Nye already faces two GOP challengers—both veterans—who, combined, have $400,000 in the bank.
Gerry Connolly? The freshman Democrat last year won the 11th congressional district, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington that has trended blue. Mr. Obama cleaned up 57% of voters, and the district was hailed as an example of a new tide toward Democrats. Mr. Connolly, feeling safe, has supported every aspect of the Democratic agenda, from stimulus to health care.
Tuesday, those suburban voters came swinging back. Mr. McDonnell won 55% of the vote, improving John McCain's number by 13 points. Two more Democratic incumbents on the local ballot went down to GOP contenders. Local businessman Keith Fimian has already announced a rematch against Mr. Connolly; he outraised him by $100,000 in his first fund-raising quarter.
Forget the freshmen—how about Virginia's ninth district, home to 27-year-incumbent Rick Boucher? That's coal country, though Mr. Boucher, confident in incumbency, has been playing a dangerous game of shepherding through his party's climate bill. Will Morefield, a little-known Republican running for the Virginia House of Delegates, centered his campaign against that legislation. He beat the Democratic incumbent by 14 points. Mr. McDonnell? He won a devastating 66% of the district vote.
These are the numbers the 49 Democrats who sit in McCain districts are dissecting. The mass defection in the independent vote, the uptick in the angry-senior vote, the swing in suburban voters, the drop-off in Democratic turnout—the figures have even hot incumbent blood running cold. The White House can shout that this is not a referendum on the president's policies. What vulnerable Democrat wants to take that chance?
The White House and the congressional leadership saw this coming, and it is why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is force-marching her health bill to a vote tomorrow. She's not about to give her members time to absorb the ugly results, or to be further rattled by next week's Veteran's Day break, when they go home for a repeat of the August furies. If not now, she knows, maybe never.
Look for it, nonetheless, to be a squeaker. A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care. Combined with the election results and Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers, this is no recipe for loyalty. Hello, tipping point. Hello, even crazier Washington.
Write to kim@wsj.com .
=======================================================================
Hello, Tipping Point
The Obama presidency was always a race against time.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
'We don't look at either of these gubernatorial races . . . as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts," insisted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday, as New Jersey and Virginia voters gave Democrats a thumping. Unfortunately for the White House, its opinion no longer counts.
On Jan. 20, Barack Obama began a race against time. The White House knew its liberal agenda would prove unpopular in many parts of the country represented by Democrats. So long as the president looked strong, those Blue Dogs and freshmen and swing-state senators would stick. Show them any sign of weakness, however, and rattled Dems would begin to care more about their own re-elections than they did their president. Tuesday, the White House hit that tipping point.
To understand why, join some of those "nervous Democrats" who at this very moment are digging into, say, Virginia's returns. Last year, Dems captured three GOP House seats in the Old Dominion as the state voted for its first Democratic president since 1964. This week, those very same districts provided Democrats their first proof that the Obama agenda is a liability.
There's freshman Rep. Tom Perriello, who, buoyed by the big Obama turnout, won Virginia's fifth congressional district by a scant 727 votes. Today, Mr. Perriello's farming and manufacturing area sports the state's highest unemployment rate. The Democrat suffered a furious backlash over his vote for a cap-and-trade bill that will further crush local manufacturing and was then walloped at a series of health-care town halls.
Voters took their frustration to the polls on Tuesday. Republican Bob McDonnell, who campaigned for governor on jobs and against ObamaCare and climate legislation, took 61.4% of the district's vote. At the local level, Democrats challenged two incumbent GOP Virginia delegates; the Republicans each won by more than 30 points. The GOP last month succeeded in recruiting veteran state Sen. Robert Hurt, a district native, to challenge Mr. Perriello. He's already campaigning on jobs.
Or take Rep. Glenn Nye, who last year won Virginia's Hampton Roads district. Criticized as an outsider with few ties to the local military culture, Mr. Nye nonetheless benefited from Mr. Obama's fierce campaign for the district (which the president won with 50.5%). Yet residents are today anxious about the Democratic commitment to defense spending, and bitter about a Washington proposal to move the Navy's newest aircraft carrier from Virginia to Florida. Mr. Nye was wary enough to buck his party's leadership and vote against cap and trade, though he then got caught lauding the bill's passage.
Mr. McDonnell carried Mr. Nye's district by a 24-point margin. Locally, Republicans ousted two incumbent Democratic delegates. Mr. Nye already faces two GOP challengers—both veterans—who, combined, have $400,000 in the bank.
Gerry Connolly? The freshman Democrat last year won the 11th congressional district, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington that has trended blue. Mr. Obama cleaned up 57% of voters, and the district was hailed as an example of a new tide toward Democrats. Mr. Connolly, feeling safe, has supported every aspect of the Democratic agenda, from stimulus to health care.
Tuesday, those suburban voters came swinging back. Mr. McDonnell won 55% of the vote, improving John McCain's number by 13 points. Two more Democratic incumbents on the local ballot went down to GOP contenders. Local businessman Keith Fimian has already announced a rematch against Mr. Connolly; he outraised him by $100,000 in his first fund-raising quarter.
Forget the freshmen—how about Virginia's ninth district, home to 27-year-incumbent Rick Boucher? That's coal country, though Mr. Boucher, confident in incumbency, has been playing a dangerous game of shepherding through his party's climate bill. Will Morefield, a little-known Republican running for the Virginia House of Delegates, centered his campaign against that legislation. He beat the Democratic incumbent by 14 points. Mr. McDonnell? He won a devastating 66% of the district vote.
These are the numbers the 49 Democrats who sit in McCain districts are dissecting. The mass defection in the independent vote, the uptick in the angry-senior vote, the swing in suburban voters, the drop-off in Democratic turnout—the figures have even hot incumbent blood running cold. The White House can shout that this is not a referendum on the president's policies. What vulnerable Democrat wants to take that chance?
The White House and the congressional leadership saw this coming, and it is why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is force-marching her health bill to a vote tomorrow. She's not about to give her members time to absorb the ugly results, or to be further rattled by next week's Veteran's Day break, when they go home for a repeat of the August furies. If not now, she knows, maybe never.
Look for it, nonetheless, to be a squeaker. A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care. Combined with the election results and Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers, this is no recipe for loyalty. Hello, tipping point. Hello, even crazier Washington.
Write to kim@wsj.com .
Is this what the founding fathers had in mind?
Watching the Health Care debate from afar, I feel incredibly naive. The back room deals being struck by the Liberal left with Democrats and Republicans, in addition to Senators who are on the fence regarding the Senate vote on the ultimate reform bill makes me ask the question “Are they voting the way that they are because a) It’s in the best interest of the United States, b) It’s in the best interest of their constituents, c) I’m getting something (no doubt paid for by taxpayers) for my district that will help me get reelected, or d) I am running for reelection, and I need to move to the center to keep my job??? I am inclined to think it is 70% option “d.” and 30% option “c.” At the end of the day, I guess the ends justify the means – whatever it takes to defeat this massive expansion of government and explosion of the deficits is fine by me. Despite being pretty cynical about politicians to begin with, this “Ah Ha” moment has been disturbing. The thought of these folks using our tax dollars to reward elected officials to support legislation that the majority of Americans oppose is insulting to say the least. I’m with Bart Stupak on taxpayer funded abortions, but the fact is that he is still voting for something that will be very destructive to our freedoms and the future that our children and grandchildren will inherit. My hope and change has relied on the expectations that Congressional membership would eventually distance themselves from Obama’s far left agenda. I think that is starting to happen, perhaps for different reasons than I expected (more self-preservation than opposing philosophies of representative government). Now I am focused on a much more important change – the change that will come again when voters move from the left to the right (more conservative ≠ Republican). My hope is that voters will be more discriminating in their choices. I think we can recover from 4 years of the current leadership (White House and Congress), but I am afraid that 8 years would be a knock out punch for the America I know and love.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Nancy Pelosi's "Victory"
Liberals got a little over 50% of votes for the House Bill. In the Senate, it will take 60% to advance a bill. 17 of the 39 "Blue Dogs" voted for the bill. 39 democrats voted NO and 1 "Republican" voted yes (in exchange for $$$ no doubt) it's not known if the other 22 voted against it on principal, or were given a "pass" when the bill had enough votes to pass. Some others voted for it with the expectations that the Senate would fix it's defects. The House appeased anti-abortion members, by mandating that anyone who is getting support for their premiums can't buy a plan with abortion coverage (public option won't cover). The cost of the House Bill is a little bit more than $1 Trillion, and that is before accounting for the perennial "doc fix," whatever deals were struck to get yes votes, and the mismatch of when "payfors" kick in and when the cost of the bill starts up. Issues that will need to be resolved in melding the House and Senate bills include payfors, individual and employer mandates, public option structure. The blended Senate bill is still waiting on a CBO score which will also include an analysis of the impact that the "Reform" will have on insurance premiums. Lieberman (Democrat) has said he will vote against a bill that has a public option. Not sure how Snowe would vote for a pure public option, but she will vote against the opt out and prefers the "trigger" option. Other Senators opposed to public option include:
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
• Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
• Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623
• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843
Assuming Lieberman is on board and that Snowe will only support a public option with a trigger, it's going to take a Republican "defecting" to have the bill pass (and that will assume that the Ladrrieu, Nelson, Bayh and Lincoln vote for the bill.
One must wonder is some of these nervous Democrats are willing to risk their job for a bill that received tepid support in the most liberal part of Congress. We'll see.
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
• Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
• Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623
• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843
Assuming Lieberman is on board and that Snowe will only support a public option with a trigger, it's going to take a Republican "defecting" to have the bill pass (and that will assume that the Ladrrieu, Nelson, Bayh and Lincoln vote for the bill.
One must wonder is some of these nervous Democrats are willing to risk their job for a bill that received tepid support in the most liberal part of Congress. We'll see.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Who voted for Obama?
I had a great opportunity yesterday to spend time with a candidate for the U.S. Senate representaing Ohio. I have known Rob Portman for nearly 15 years, and he is a class act. Rob spent a lot of time talking about what he is hearing from Ohioans as he travels around the state. The recurring themes seem concentrated on job security, the economy, and how government regulation and it's impact on job security and the economy. We also discussed the Virginia and New Jersey elections and what impact those elections may or may not have for decisions that will be made by Congress in the near future (Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade). As I have thought for some time, Democrats who carry the water for Obama in Congress need to feel that being associated with him is a poilitcal asset. When they no longer see Obama as an asset, they are more likely to question their votes on legislation, effectively asking themselves "Is voting for this going to help or hurt my chances of getting reelected." I decide to look into who voted for Obama, and how are they feeling right now about their support for him. This is an oversimplification, but this is a rough profile:
- First time voters more likely to vote for Obama (are they now disillusioned by Obamas performance?)
- Younger (18-29) voters were significantly more likely to vote for Obama vs. other age groups (ditto)
- Black and Hispanic/Latino voters were significantly more likely to vote for Obama vs. Whites (are they better off than they were 11 months ago?)
- Females were more likely to vote for Obama, but both were more likely to vote for Obama than McCain (is the Honeymoon over?)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Amendment to House Healthcare Bill - I'm serious
Section 555 - Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit - Seven pages of details of this section. John Dingell has the temerity to add this crap to a bill already full of crap? I guess we shouldn't worry because the Chosen One made this promise:
" ....And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Well now we know what that promise meant - if I am helping Al Gore, the UAW, the SEIU, the Teamsters, My Chicago friends, the trial bar, or my major campaign supporters, the spending is "wise." If it's something about the troops, national security, education reform, it's "unwise."
" ....And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Well now we know what that promise meant - if I am helping Al Gore, the UAW, the SEIU, the Teamsters, My Chicago friends, the trial bar, or my major campaign supporters, the spending is "wise." If it's something about the troops, national security, education reform, it's "unwise."
These times they are a changin'
So, Corzine and Deeds lose, and Harry Reid says "timetable for healthcare refor my slip." I thought Harry had the votes in the Senate, and that Nancy had the votes in the House. Hmmmm. Maybe some of the rats are jumping off of HMS Obama. Obama is also fond of blaming the economy, the deficits, etc. on George Bush. What the voters in NJ and VA said last night was "you own it." Obama is off hiding in an elementary school in Wisconsin today, but he better come back with a new attitude or more Democrats worried about thier relection odds are going to go overboard and swim for land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
