It’s common for each new president to claim they can “change the tone in Washington,” but I’m starting to wonder if anyone can really do that. The tone in Congress continues to remain poisonous, and policy debates always seem to degenerate into personal attacks, name-calling, and ridiculous accusation.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are innocent of this. Here’s Republican Trent Franks:
A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can’t do that right, then he has no place in any station of government, and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., warned Americans that “Republicans want you to die quickly” during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.
Folks, this is really not helpful. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, obviously have major differences of opinion on policy, but that doesn’t make the other side evil. How can a policymaker who thinks that his colleagues are “enemies of humanity” possibly ever work for the common good with representatives from the other party?
We need a major paradigm shift, and I’m starting to despair that we’re ever going to get it.
Okay, the analogy has its flaws. But Jonathan Rauch’s column at National Journal is a funny look at just how ridiculous our health care system has become. Could you imagine what it would be like if any other industry worked like the health industry? Rauch tries to imagine it:
“I don’t suppose I could fill out these forms online?”
“No, sir. The forms are only about 30 pages, though. Did you have that fax number, please?”
“I don’t have a fax machine. No one faxes anymore. Just e-mail me the forms.”
“I’m sorry, sir, we don’t use e-mail to transmit records and other personal or secure documents. We keep our records on paper.”
By a large margin, Minnesotans do not want Tim Pawlenty to run for president, according to the latest Minnesota Poll from the Star Tribune:
The poll shows that only 30 percent of adults want to see the two-term governor make a try for the White House three years from now, while 55 percent do not.
Pawlenty is still quite popular. So why do so few Minnesotans want to see him run for president? Minnesota has yet to produce a sitting president, and I would think Minnesotans would want to see a fellow Minnesotan in the White House.
The poll doesn’t go into any more detail, so we can’t be sure of why so few people want to see Pawlenty run. If I had to guess, though, I would say it’s because the Governor is already embarrassing himself and our state. In just a few short months, he has flip-flopped and pandered like a true pro. He has shown that he doesn’t have any true convictions, and that he’ll say or do absolutely anything that will get him elected.
Soaring health-care costs — and draconian cuts in state programs — are going to hurt Hennepin County taxpayers, even as county administrators cut other expenses to try to minimize the increase in taxes. The Star Tribune reports:
For next year’s budget, Johnson is proposing no increase in departmental spending. The 3 percent hike would partly cover the amount the county must absorb to treat the poor and uninsured at Hennepin County Medical Center, an expense that’s expected to rise due to Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto last spring of the state’s health care program for impoverished adults.
Most departments would see a dip in spending, Lawless said. The contingency budget, to cover unanticipated needs, would be smaller. And 160 positions would be eliminated, many through attrition, he said.
Despite cutting spending for other departments and reducing the rainy-day fund, a 3-percent hike will only partly cover the cost of running HCMC after Tim Pawlenty cut General Assistance Medical Care. The increase in taxes county residents will experience — as well as the cuts in services — will all go towards paying for health care. How much do we have to pay in taxes before we realize that it would be cheaper in the long run to provide health insurance for all, instead of paying for emergency care?
The Washington Post ran an excellent article yesterday exploring our government’s failure to regulate subprime lending, which eventually led to a soaring foreclosure rate and plummeting property values. It turns out that consumer finance agencies, which were at the forefront of the increase in subprime mortgages, could only be regulated by one agency: the Fed. The Fed, however, actually made a conscious decision not to regulate them:
Acting on a recommendation from four Fed staffers including representatives of the Philadelphia, St. Louis and Kansas City regional reserve banks, the Fed’s Board of Governors unanimously decided to formalize a long-standing practice, “to not conduct consumer compliance examinations of, nor to investigate consumer complaints regarding, nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies.”
…
The Fed Board decided that even when a nonbank was purchased by a bank holding company, the Fed still lacked authority to police its operations.
…
After the Fed’s decision, several of the largest bank holding companies added finance arms, expanding into the regulatory vacuum.
It’s perversely fitting that the Fed was the agency that refused to regulate subprime lenders. The Fed is supposed to be responsible for maintaining a healthy economy, but instead its failure to regulate helped to suck us into a housing bubble, the collapse of which triggered this recession. Alan Greenspan, as the Fed Chairman at the time, strenuously denied that there was a housing bubble for years.
It was the Fed’s lack of action on several fronts that allowed the housing bubble to build up steam, and thus allowed the housing crisis years later. Subprime lending was not all abusive, and for some consumers it opened up opportunities for home ownership. Without oversight, though, subprime loans were taken too far, to the point where they undercut the health of our entire financial system. Just think how much economic damage could have been spared with a bit of oversight.
It’s exceedingly rare that politicians get to use that classic retort, “your mom.” But Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) got in a jab against Jon Kyl (R-AZ) earlier today. Kyl was arguing against mandating the minimum coverage insurance plans provide, and set up a straw man argument suggesting that men would be required to carry maternity coverage. Stabenow archly pointed out that, while men obviously do not need maternity coverage, it’s absolutely crucial that it be covered for women.
KYL: I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.
STABENOW: If I could just interject once with my colleague — I think your mom probably did.
Yesterday, I wrote about GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert’s radical proposals, which he tried to hide behind several layers of buzzwords. What I didn’t expect, though, was that even fellow conservatives think he’s gone too far.
Fellow candidate Pat Anderson thinks his proposal to strip welfare benefits from those he deems not to have been Minnesota residents for long enough is unconstitutional. I would agree with that. Of course, Anderson can’t allow Seifert to appear more conservative than she is, so she simultaneously calls Seifert too liberal on a completely different issue.
Anderson hasn’t posted the full press release to her website, but here’s a portion (via Mary Lahammer):
Gubernatorial Candidate Pat Anderson disputes
Rep. Marty Seifert’s “Leadership Plan”
Seifert incorrectly states education vouchers are unconstitutional
while proposing unconstitutional welfare reform
American businesses pay the lion’s share of health care costs for the vast majority of insured workers. So it makes sense that business leaders would be particularly concerned about the rising cost of health care. That’s why the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs of leading American companies, sees health reform as urgent:
A new report released today by Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies, finds that annual per employee health care costs will triple to nearly $29,000 over the next decade without significant marketplace reforms that reduce costs, expand coverage and improve delivery. These runaway costs, combined with a $56 billion cost shift to payors from uncompensated care, are threatening the employer-based system that currently provides coverage for the majority of Americans and their families.
…
“The costs of the U.S. health care system have put America’s companies and workers at a significant competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace,” said [Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chairman of Business Roundtable]. “Failure to implement reforms that address inefficiencies will erode U.S. economic competitiveness at a time when our nation can least afford it.”
There’s no doubt that the soaring costs of health care are putting our businesses at a major disadvantage. Of course, that’s a better argument for universal health care than for a simple public option, but at this point we’ll have to take what we can get.
At least, I agree with the 2002 version of Tim Pawlenty. The 2009 version of Pawlenty has done 7 years of damage to our state by cutting Local Government Aid, which is exactly what 2002 Tim Pawlenty decried during the campaign:
Once again, I need to stress that Tim Pawlenty is not, and never has been, fiscally responsible. He’s just engaged in smoke and mirrors. Even 2002 Pawlenty agrees — the Tim Pawlenty we have today has done a disservice to our state.
At a press conference yesterday, GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert introduced his “Leadership Plan for Minnesota.” You can see the “plan” here, but I wouldn’t waste your time — it has absolutely no details, and it’s full of conservative weasel words.
I could quote Seifert’s plan, but it can’t be taken at face value, anyway. Instead, I thought I’d translate the conservative code words and give you and idea of Seifert’s real plan:
Slash regulations and oversight of businesses, even after deregulation led to a massive economic crisis.
Following in Tim Pawlenty’s footsteps, throw even more low- and middle-income families off of public health care plans.
Reduce funding for public schools.
End state investment in infrastructure, continuing the decay of our roads and bridges.
Intrude in local control over law enforcement.
Throw Minnesotans off welfare and reduce benefits.
Use state resources to conduct a witchhunt against DFL “enemies.”
Brief Comment Outage Starting Now: Bear with us a moment while I tinker. I’m toying with the idea of moving our comment system over to IntenseDebate and that will require about an hour of down time for our comments starting now (11 am). I know you can comment right now, but I would hold off until the transition is complete (or aborted) to ensure that your thoughts don’t get lost in translation.
(0)
I’ve been advocating that if the Democrats can’t get any Republican cooperation, they should pass health care reform through budget reconciliation, which would allow the bill to pass the Senate with only 51 votes. Unsurprisingly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell disagrees:
“If that option were chosen, there would be a severe, negative, and I think appropriate reaction from the American people.”
“If you thought the American people were upset in August, you haven’t seen how upset they will be if this device is chosen.”
First of all, I disagree with McConnell. Polls have shown the American people are sick of Republican obstruction, and I think they would give Democrats the benefit of the doubt for having tried to build bipartisan support.
But maybe Democrats should take McConnell’s advice. Just in case Republican obstruction hasn’t been clear enough, I’m starting to think they should highlight it. Instead of reconciliation, let’s allow the Republicans to filibuster. But I’m not talking about just making a single vote and then giving up. If the Republicans really want to obstruct this bill, let them work for it. Let them really, truly filibuster — Democrats should force Republicans into a traditional filibuster where they need to keep talking for as long as they want to stall the bill.
McConnell thinks the American people will be upset if the Democrats enact reform without Republicans, but his Republicans refuse to cooperate in the slightest way. So let’s make it really clear just which party is standing in the way of progress.
I thought by now, the world would be crashing down around us as “traditional marriage” fell apart. You know, because gay marriage is supposed to destroy marriage as we know it and drag our country into a moral cesspool.
But according to a recent poll in Iowa, which recently legalized gay marriage, the vast, vast majority of Iowans say there’s been no impact:
The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.
Not much of a calamity, is it?
That makes me wonder what basis there could be for continuing to deny equal rights for gay couples. We should always err on the side of expanding rights as much as possible, especially when expanding rights for one group does not harm others. I think the Iowa poll shows clearly that expanding rights to gay couples doesn’t do the slightest bit of harm to “traditional marriage.”
People Are Shouting
RSS