PDA

View Full Version : Bye Bayh?



M&K's Retrievers
02-15-2010, 12:11 PM
Is Bayh leaving a sinking ship or getting ready to run against Obama?

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 01:11 PM
Is Bayh leaving a sinking ship or getting ready to run against Obama?
CNN suggests that he may be prepping to run for a second round as Governor. He is reportedly very upset that Republicans killed the deficit reduction bill after initially supporting it.

Buzz
02-15-2010, 01:17 PM
The statement from Bayh:


"Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted ‘no’ for short-term political reasons," he said. "Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs — the public’s top priority — fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right. All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress."

subroc
02-15-2010, 01:26 PM
there was a deficit reduction bill?

huntinman
02-15-2010, 02:25 PM
He's leaving because he knows his state's voters were going to send him home anyway. The former Gov. of the state is killing him in the polls. I heard one of his constituents call him a slut for giving his vote away as opposed to thise in LA. and NE. who prostituted themselves on the health care bill.

dnf777
02-15-2010, 03:36 PM
I can't say I was a big fan of Sen. Bayh, but I heard a good portion of his announcement speech, and whether you like the guy or not, if you're a republican or democrat, his words had a very significant, somber truth to them.

When I tuned in, he was somewhere in the middle of his speech, and I didn't know who it was until the end. I honestly couldn't figure out who it was by the points he made. When I couldn't determine if he was even a republican or democrat by his comments, I knew it must be a near-center moderate, and unfortunately, they are a dying breed in washington.

dnf777
02-15-2010, 03:39 PM
there was a deficit reduction bill?

I missed it too. Is it true republicans killed it?

Hoosier
02-15-2010, 03:47 PM
there was a deficit reduction bill?

I'm sure it would have involved a couple trillion dollars to implement.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 03:52 PM
I missed it too. Is it true republicans killed it?
See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/78069-senate-rejects-fiscal-deficit-reduction-commission. It failed 53-46 with 60 votes needed to overcome a promised filibuster. The bill was developed on a truly bi-partisan basis. It was supported by 37 Democrats and 16 Republicans.

subroc
02-15-2010, 04:02 PM
ohh.. the tax increse bill, not the cut spending bill.

Cody Covey
02-15-2010, 04:14 PM
Now i could be wrong in this assumption but isn't the committee they are proposing exactly what congress is for?

dnf777
02-15-2010, 04:16 PM
See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/78069-senate-rejects-fiscal-deficit-reduction-commission. It failed 53-46 with 60 votes needed to overcome a promised filibuster. The bill was developed on a truly bi-partisan basis. It was supported by 37 Democrats and 16 Republicans.

Thanks. It sounds like it was a vote to create a congressional commission to come up with ways to reduce spending, ergo the deficit. No tax increase per se.

As for it being a "tax increase bill", I assume that since we're still operating under the law of the Constitution, any proposals coming from such a commission would still be subject the the law-making processes of congress and the president, eh?

dnf777
02-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Now i could be wrong in this assumption but isn't the committee they are proposing exactly what congress is for?

Kind of like the 9-11 commission, or the Iraq Study Group?
You could say the same about any study group or commission...or congressional committee or subcommittee for that matter. Or is it just that the "other party" is doing it that it's bad?

Cody Covey
02-15-2010, 04:28 PM
i didn't hear about the bill until reading the article on the hill but this quote by McCain makes it sound like the commission will be there to do all the voting on the bills if i am wrong in this assumption then sorry but i haven't read the bill just the article

“I want a spending commission, and I worry that this commission could have gotten together and agreed to increase taxes,” said McCain. “Spending cuts are what we need. We don’t need to raise taxes."

This sounds to me like they are going to be doing more than proposing bills. Anyone can propose a bill so why would McCain be worried. Scare tactics? possibly i suppose.

What do you mean the other side. It had republicans sponsoring the bill and just as many democrats voting against it as republicans. Doesn't sound like a bill that can really be from THE OTHER SIDE.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 04:34 PM
Now i could be wrong in this assumption but isn't the committee they are proposing exactly what congress is for?


Thanks. It sounds like it was a vote to create a congressional commission to come up with ways to reduce spending, ergo the deficit. No tax increase per se.

As for it being a "tax increase bill", I assume that since we're still operating under the law of the Constitution, any proposals coming from such a commission would still be subject the the law-making processes of congress and the president, eh?
The distinction was that the resultant report would have been treated essentially like a budget reconciliation bill with limited amendments and an up or down vote. The bill would have been the product of the commission and not attributed to sponsorship by either Republicans or Democrats. Thus, it would have limited the opportunity for partisan sound bytes or procedural maneuvers. There are good arguments to be made for or against such an approach. That it was considered at all and supported by the White House is testimony to the level of frustration from both sides of the aisle with the lose-lose results of the current gridlock.

Cody Covey
02-15-2010, 04:41 PM
So if i understand correctly the commission does it study produces a report and then it is voted on by the congress? I honestly don't see a huge problem with that especially since really that would be a WAY more thought out plan (hopefully) then the current way bills are coming out with thousands of pages of crap that no one will ever actually read.

Buzz
02-15-2010, 07:24 PM
I thought you guys followed things closer than that!

That is the problem with only listening to certain news outlets. You only hear what it is that they want you to hear. The reason that I listen to conservative outlets as much as I do the Lib ones...

Obama is considering creating this commission by executive order, since congress can't seem to get it done. I'm not sure if I think it's a good thing or not. Maybe we'll be finding out.

There are actually several things that Republicans are on record for supporting and cosponsoring that they voted against once Obama came out in favor of them. Maybe I need to start a thread on that topic.

Marvin S
02-15-2010, 08:52 PM
There are actually several things that Republicans are on record for supporting and cosponsoring that they voted against once Obama came out in favor of them. Maybe I need to start a thread on that topic.

I'd appreciate it if you would do that, might make for some interesting discussion.:cool:

About 35 years ago I was on a School Board in a very poor district. My interest was in children getting the best education the district could provide. We had a lot of vacant land & the developers were eyeing us.

I proposed that there be a impact fee for all the new children who would be introduced into our already overcrowded schools. It made the paper & the partisan pols ran with it. Extracting $ became an art form practiced by bureaucrats, even with the curbs & conditions our state legislature imposed. So the law of unintended consequences works!;-)

As I'm a vocal critic of the management of our city government I get the occasional call. Recently from a businessman who wants to add a laundromat in a vacant space in his building. He has had previous tenants but the space is a little small for anything significant. For 14 washers & an equivalent number of dryers the traffic, sewer & water impact fees were to total $85,969. This is in a city that should be desperate for business as they have very little. :(

So put your stuff out there, be sure & note why some who favored what was happening changed their mind :). I look forward to your post!

JDogger
02-15-2010, 09:24 PM
I'd appreciate it if you would do that, might make for some interesting discussion.:cool:

!;-)

As I'm a vocal critic of the management of our city government I get the occasional call. Recently from a businessman who wants to add a laundromat in a vacant space in his building. He has had previous tenants but the space is a little small for anything significant. For 14 washers & an equivalent number of dryers the traffic, sewer & water impact fees were to total $85,969. This is in a city that should be desperate for business as they have very little. :( So Marv, have you, in your official capacity, supported him?

So put your stuff out there, be sure & note why some who favored what was happening changed their mind :). I look forward to your post!

Just asking,
JD

Franco
02-16-2010, 10:03 AM
I don't know enough about him to comment but, he is accurate with his evaluation that there are too many "brain dead" politcians in DC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/evan-bayh-presidential-ru_n_463525.html

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2010, 07:09 AM
This thread got off-topic ...

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why Bayh decided not to run.

His timing on his announcement seems to leave the Ds high-and-dry. In fact, because of timing, too late, according to one news report, for the Ds to have anybody on the ballot in the primary ... leaving the door wide open for multiple candidates to seek the party endorsement. Seems like a situation of disarray for the Ds.

Another report mentioned that during his present term he was becoming "isolated" from other Ds in the Senate. That didn't go into detail.

The seeming suddenness of the announcement seems strange. Is there some personal problem for him in his life? Others speculate that he will run for governor, and add that he may have his eye on the D nomination for President. The media seems to think Bayh was a shoe-in for re-election, and his withdrawal opens the door wide for a loss of a Senate seat for the Ds ... one they were undoubtedly counting on to hold onto to.

His announcement certainly did give a gaff to the Rs for the voting against the deficit-review commission; but is he also disappointed with the Ds in the Senate?

dnf777
02-19-2010, 08:17 AM
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why Bayh decided not to run.

Bet you an RC and a moonpie that he appears on the democratic primary race in 2011. (let me hedge a bit, and say maybe as a third party candidate also, but I bet he challenges Obama for 2012)

I can't recall off the top of my head, but has a first term sitting president ever NOT received his party's nomination for re-election that has wanted it?

M&K's Retrievers
02-19-2010, 08:45 AM
Bet you an RC and a moonpie that he appears on the democratic primary race in 2011. (let me hedge a bit, and say maybe as a third party candidate also, but I bet he challenges Obama for 2012)

I can't recall off the top of my head, but has a first term sitting president ever NOT received his party's nomination for re-election that has wanted it?

Well Obama in known for firsts.

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2010, 10:11 AM
Bet you an RC and a moonpie that he appears on the democratic primary race in 2011. (let me hedge a bit, and say maybe as a third party candidate also, but I bet he challenges Obama for 2012)

I can't recall off the top of my head, but has a first term sitting president ever NOT received his party's nomination for re-election that has wanted it?

If he does seek the Pres nomination from the Ds, that would not be a positive thing for the Ds, and would carry, at least indirectly, a statement about O's leadership quality. One might even say that his withdrawal from seeking re-election already makes such a statement, in spite of the fact that he pointed the finger at the Rs in his announcement. That statement would not only reflect on O, but also on his colleagues in the Senate of both parties. If he had some faith in the D leadership in Congress, one would be hard-pressed to leave the fray in supporting them in their goals. (JMO)

If he makes a strong showing in seeking the D nomination, that would be quite divisive for the D party, I would think.

While the media has laid the blame heavily on the Rs for saying "no", it is a poor showing for the Ds that they did not use their heads and seek bi-partisan support more effectively.

I think back to O's early statement about winning the election being his "trump" on those with differing views. It seems like the D Congress believed that to the nth degree ...

Buzz
02-19-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm listening to the book "Game Change" right now.

The book is in audio on my iPod, so I don't have the text to quote from, unfortunately. But in the book, Obama is quoted as hating the senate. He said something the the effect that the senate is full of doddering old men that don't get anything done.

ducknwork
02-19-2010, 10:46 AM
FWIW, I read an article about the Bayh resignation that said he 'flat out' denied that he would run for higher office.

dnf777
02-19-2010, 12:54 PM
Gerry,
I agree that his running would be divisive of the dems. The exodus from congress doesn't speak well for him, but many republicans have retired (or will not see re-e) also.

I cannot agree with you that he, nor the democratic congress have not been bipartisan. He has reached out numerous times, more than Clinton or Bush ever did, and has repeatedly been turned away. The overwhelming hatred of him after just one year, with very little legislation passed to account for it, speaks to the total one-sided, obstructionist attitude of the republicans since losing both houses of congress and the whitehouse. I can't recall ever seeing a losing party so unwilling to work with a new administration.

M&K's Retrievers
02-19-2010, 01:28 PM
He has reached out numerous times, more than Clinton or Bush ever did, and has repeatedly been turned away.

Name them please.

YardleyLabs
02-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Congressional Quarterly has ranked 2009 as the most partisan ever in Congressional voting since it began tracking this in 1953 (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095). Whenever there is a partisan split, it is always easy to cast blame, saying that the other side simply refused to budge in the interest of compromise. However, this year I believe there has been no doubt that the impetus is coming from the Republican desire to block all action on principle regardless of the issue or the context. This was clear when 7 Republican Senators that co-sponsored the deficit reduction bill pulled out when the bill was brought to a vote after having already negotiated all the concessions they wanted. The Democrats agreed with the demand that the bill would only pass if 60 Senators voted for it. The bill received a vote of 53-46 after 7 Republican co-sponsors withdrew their support at the last moment to defeat the bill they had already agreed to.

A similar situation developed with the Senate health care bill where negotiations were bi-partisan from the beginning. After obtaining all the concessions they requested, the Republicans withdrew from the negotiation and opposed the bill despite the inclusion of their demands. It even shows in such mundane actions as blocking 70 Obama appointees, with Republican leadership support, to support a demand for special earmarks for Alabama in addition to award of a tanker contract, and the use of advance planning provisions of HR 3200 as a wedge issue when that was a provision previously proposed by and supported by Republicans that was included because of Republican support. Republicans in Congress deserve to be treated with the same cynical disregard for truth and the public good that they have shown. The American public, however, deserves better.

Cody Covey
02-19-2010, 02:15 PM
why is impossible that they simple just don't agree with the radical legislation that this administration is trying to pass? Maybe if they didn't try and shove through as much as they can as fast as they can before they lose any more support they would be more interested in passing things both parties can agree on. Health Care and other huge spending bills are not going to be things that the republicans are going to support, especially not now with the nation as outraged by spending on out of control government as they are now. It would be political suicide.

If i was in congress i would not be voting with the party that won the majorities just because. They would have to present a bill that, as a representative of my state, my constituents would be okay with me voting on. Ramming health care through....according to pretty much every poll is not something that the American people want. Even if the people in Washington do. . .

M&K's Retrievers
02-19-2010, 02:16 PM
Congressional Quarterly has ranked 2009 as the most partisan ever in Congressional voting since it began tracking this in 1953 (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095). Whenever there is a partisan split, it is always easy to cast blame, saying that the other side simply refused to budge in the interest of compromise. However, this year I believe there has been no doubt that the impetus is coming from the Republican desire to block all action on principle regardless of the issue or the context. This was clear when 7 Republican Senators that co-sponsored the deficit reduction bill pulled out when the bill was brought to a vote after having already negotiated all the concessions they wanted. The Democrats agreed with the demand that the bill would only pass if 60 Senators voted for it. The bill received a vote of 53-46 after 7 Republican co-sponsors withdrew their support at the last moment to defeat the bill they had already agreed to.

A similar situation developed with the Senate health care bill where negotiations were bi-partisan from the beginning. After obtaining all the concessions they requested, the Republicans withdrew from the negotiation and opposed the bill despite the inclusion of their demands. It even shows in such mundane actions as blocking 70 Obama appointees, with Republican leadership support, to support a demand for special earmarks for Alabama in addition to award of a tanker contract, and the use of advance planning provisions of HR 3200 as a wedge issue when that was a provision previously proposed by and supported by Republicans that was included because of Republican support. Republicans in Congress deserve to be treated with the same cynical disregard for truth and the public good that they have shown. The American public, however, deserves better.

I was looking for Obama's acts of bi-partianship. Also, where are the great acts of bi-partianship from the Dems? It seems that the only folks who are suposed to be bi-partisian are the Reps.


Goose/Gander regards

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2010, 02:22 PM
From all indications, the health care bill ended up a terrible mess. One can agree to basic concepts & then find the end result is not as anticipated. Wouldn't be the first time that happened with legislation in progress.

As for the health care bill, have no fear, it's not dead yet, according to the Ds who think they can get the House to pass the Senate bill, and get the Senate to agree to add the things the House wants via reconciliation.

NY Times article today mentions that states are cutting their Medicaid because they can't afford it due to the state budget deficits. They are choosing to make the the first cuts in benefits for the elderly, according to the article.

Seems obvious that if unemployment is high, revenue to both States and Fed is reduced. Simultaneously, those unemployed individuals become eligible for more public assistance putting greater drain on those programs.

YardleyLabs
02-19-2010, 02:22 PM
why is impossible that they simple just don't agree with the radical legislation that this administration is trying to pass? Maybe if they didn't try and shove through as much as they can as fast as they can before they lose any more support they would be more interested in passing things both parties can agree on. Health Care and other huge spending bills are not going to be things that the republicans are going to support, especially not now with the nation as outraged by spending on out of control government as they are now. It would be political suicide.

If i was in congress i would not be voting with the party that won the majorities just because. They would have to present a bill that, as a representative of my state, my constituents would be okay with me voting on. Ramming health care through....according to pretty much every poll is not something that the American people want. Even if the people in Washington do. . .
That was why the examples I used were ones where Republicans indicated support before withdrawing and attacking the bills. In the case of the Alabama blackmail attempt, the entire deal was based on a Senator seeking to force earmarks, which the Republican leadership has otherwise condemned. Ultimately, they backed off in part, allowing Shelby to place a hold on only 29 appointments in his efforts to obtain earmarks. Similarly, with the deficit reduction commission, Republicans had been involved in the negotiations from the start and withdrew only when it became apparent that the bill would pass. The people who switched votes at that point were co-sponsors for the bill. That is not principled disagreement, it is obstruction on principle.

dnf777
02-19-2010, 03:58 PM
I was looking for Obama's acts of bi-partianship. Also, where are the great acts of bi-partianship from the Dems? It seems that the only folks who are suposed to be bi-partisian are the Reps.


Goose/Gander regards

The healthcare bill had over 200 amendments, mostly republican, before it went to the floor. It did not have a public option or medicare buy in at 55. Essentially, the dems rolled over and showed their parts, before ultimately caving in totally. That's not "shoving" anything anywhere.

Like I said before, this is the most obstructionist, partisan minority we've ever had, and it is setting a very bad watermark for acceptable behavior. It seems now, that EVERY piece of legislation is now requiring 60 votes. When was the last time we had a supermajority? How did anything ever get done without one? Sure seems like Bush and his republican majority of 6 years got almost everything accomplished they wanted, even without a supermajority. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good thing.

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2010, 06:07 PM
It seems now, that EVERY piece of legislation is now requiring 60 votes. When was the last time we had a supermajority? How did anything ever get done without one? Sure seems like Bush and his republican majority of 6 years got almost everything accomplished they wanted, even without a supermajority. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good thing.

I think that Bush got a lot of Congressional support from both sides of the aisle because of the solidarity engendered by 9/11. Truly an extraordinary circumstance. I don't think that was seriously degraded until the suspected WMDs were not found in Iraq.

The health care legislation is so mammouth in its long-term implications and costs that it should give one a lot of pause. Part of the problem might have also been that the Ds started out saying they were going to get it done quickly, and such drastic legislation should be done "well", rather than just "quickly".

I don't think that saying "no" can universally be categorized as "good" or "bad". Each instance would have to be considered separately. As we well know, on this forum opinions of which rejections may have been good or which bad will vary :-)

A wise comment I heard not long ago ... a businessman will prioritize needs for his business when he does not have the funds to fulfill all his goals for improvement simultaneously. Our govt seems incapable of doing that. With so many in Congress being career politicians, they have never had to truly resolve the issues of income and expenses the way a businessman does.

Buzz
02-19-2010, 08:22 PM
The health care legislation is so mammouth in its long-term implications and costs that it should give one a lot of pause. Part of the problem might have also been that the Ds started out saying they were going to get it done quickly, and such drastic legislation should be done "well", rather than just "quickly".



The long term implications of the escalation of cost we're seeing should give one a lot a pause too. The reason they set out to get things done quickly was to get it done before things started getting politicized in an election year. Seems like that thinking was correct.

Gerry Clinchy
02-19-2010, 08:50 PM
The long term implications of the escalation of cost we're seeing should give one a lot a pause too.

I admit that Jeff seems to be the only one who has read this bill very thoroughly. However, very little seems to be related toward cost containment. Simply reducing payments to providers does not actually address reduction of costs. I think we've discussed a number of approaches ad infinitum on previous threads.

In Sunday's paper there was a piece on a new device to help spinal cord victims gain mobility. Can actually allow them to walk "artificially" with a brace, computerized commands and a battery pack. Enough to help them get around their own homes. Cost per unit is expected to be $30,000 to $40,000. Technological advances in all phases of medicine have been phenomenal & continue to occur every day.

We certainly do need a variety of approaches to cost containment, but we also have to acknowledge that as new treatments, devices and drugs are developed there will be an increase in costs ... not to mention that if these advances extend lifespan that will mean each person gets more medical care over a longer lifetime.


The reason they set out to get things done quickly was to get it done before things started getting politicized in an election year. Seems like that thinking was correct.

Not all of the politicizing, though, was just by Rs. Lest we forget the deals cut with the drug companies, the unions, and Nebraska's "free ride". I may have missed some. As soon as one starts cutting out large parts of the universality of such a program, the actuarial benefits of universality begin to get chipped away.

The above "deals" and "exemptions" begin to make me think of the Income Tax Code. Nobody actually seems to understand it since it is so complex. Once the bureaucrats get their hands on a health care bill like the one proposed, it should rival the Tax Code in the # of volumes it will be in practice. For decades there has been talk of simplifying the Tax Code & all it does is get more convoluted. It can be worth doing a better job at health care legislation.

Hew
02-20-2010, 05:51 AM
Congressional Quarterly has ranked 2009 as the most partisan ever in Congressional voting since it began tracking this in 1953 (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095). Whenever there is a partisan split, it is always easy to cast blame, saying that the other side simply refused to budge in the interest of compromise. However, this year I believe there has been no doubt that the impetus is coming from the Republican desire to block all action on principle regardless of the issue or the context.
Ah, it's the Republican's fault. Who woulda guessed you'd think that.

From the very article you linked:



Congressional Quarterly measures "party support" as the percentage of the time that lawmakers, on average, vote in agreement with a majority of their party on a partisan vote. In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent — the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same — 91 percent — just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House.

and



Of course, there can be an upside for the party with a strong majority. CQ points out that all the partisanship seemed to pay off for the Democrats — who were victorious on partisan votes 92 percent of the time in the Senate, the highest ever for the majority party — and 94 percent of the time in the House, also the highest percentage ever.


What's hilarious is that Obama and the congressional Democrats got nearly every single piece of significant legislation they wanted passed. And now that health care went up in smoke (only because Democrats in the House were arguing with Democrats in the Senate) the media and Democrat talking point du jour is that the GOP is obstructionist. They're going to keep hammering that talking point so that Obama and Reid can find a way around the legislative process to jam Obamacare down our throats. This is a giant setup to squeeze the square peg of Obamacare down the round hole of budget reconcilliation (which needs only 50 votes in Senate).

Hew
02-20-2010, 05:58 AM
The healthcare bill had over 200 amendments, mostly republican, before it went to the floor.
Common sense time...who is more likely to try to ammend legislation; the party who wrote it or the party who didn't have input? Secondly, the GOP ammendments that were accepted are a small fraction of what they proposed. Thirdly, the vast majority of the GOP ammendments that made it into the legislation were technical and not substantive.

Gerry Clinchy
02-20-2010, 08:07 AM
If the CQ statistics are accurate, then it would appear that partisanship responsibility can be at least equally assessed.

As your mother used to say, "If your friend wants to jump off a bridge, would you go with him?"

I'd want my Congressional representatives to vote against bad legislation even if their own party sponsored it, not just sell their vote for some "brownie points" in the party heirarchy.

Buzz
02-20-2010, 09:23 AM
Not all of the politicizing, though, was just by Rs. Lest we forget the deals cut with the drug companies, the unions, and Nebraska's "free ride". I may have missed some. As soon as one starts cutting out large parts of the universality of such a program, the actuarial benefits of universality begin to get chipped away.

The above "deals" and "exemptions" begin to make me think of the Income Tax Code. Nobody actually seems to understand it since it is so complex. Once the bureaucrats get their hands on a health care bill like the one proposed, it should rival the Tax Code in the # of volumes it will be in practice. For decades there has been talk of simplifying the Tax Code & all it does is get more convoluted. It can be worth doing a better job at health care legislation.

I didn't say that all the politics came from the R side. The Nebraska free ride was reprehensible. I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that it was at least partly responsible for the election in MA. Consider how you might feel, coming from a state that has near universal coverage, and being told that now, not only are you going to pay to help cover everyone in your state, but your tax dollars are also going to go to Nebraska to help them pay for their uninsured. Because they don't want to pay for it themselves.

Democrats committed political suicide.

M&K's Retrievers
02-20-2010, 09:33 AM
.

Democrats committed political suicide.

Yeah, but thet are not dead yet.:(

Gerry Clinchy
02-20-2010, 11:29 AM
I didn't say that all the politics came from the R side.

Agreed. Much of the media, however, seems to lay the blame of non-partisanship on the Rs. Hew's figures presented would indicate that the fault is rather equal.

The Nebraska free ride was reprehensible. I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that it was at least partly responsible for the election in MA.

And I've read that the MA program is already in financial trouble, so that would make it especially hard to swallow.

Consider how you might feel, coming from a state that has near universal coverage, and being told that now, not only are you going to pay to help cover everyone in your state, but your tax dollars are also going to go to Nebraska to help them pay for their uninsured. Because they don't want to pay for it themselves.

Even coming from a state that does not have such universal coverage, it doesn't sit well with me that one state would get a free ride when others pay or it. Especially those states who may have suffered most in the housing/financial crisis.

Can you imagine how the other Senators felt when they learned that NE would get a free ride? Were they thinking that they should have also played hard-to-get with their vote? I would think that even the people in NE of integrity would have been a bit embarrassed by their Senator's action. If the legislation was bad for NE, how many other states would it be bad for? How do their colleagues now feel about those involved in cutting that deal? The Senator from LA must feel they should have held out for more $ for their state :-)


I wonder if NE gets to keep it's sweet deal if the ultimate resolution goes to reconciliation. If not, the NE Senator sold his vote for nothing? Voted for legislation he didn't really like, but gets nothing for his state in return. Did the big guns, Pelosi & Reid, see that coming? Did they believe they wouldn't have to worry about delivering on that? Do we yet truly know what the House would "demand" the Senate deliver in the reconciliation process?

I think it demonstrates how the back-room legislating ends up breeding distrust within a party, and among the Congresspeople of both parties, AND in the voters.

YardleyLabs
02-20-2010, 12:07 PM
In fact, whenever there is a close split, the pressure for party discipline goes up. The real distinction in this Congress is the truly unprecedented use of the filibuster to force every vote to a 60/40 majority. If you look back to prior administrations, there are few instances where filibusters were threatened. While in theory I support the right of the filibuster, I believe that the majority must use its position to raise the political price of such a move. The first step is to require an actual physical filibuster rather than to withdraw siply based on the threat. That means going into 24 hour session and forcing those conducting the filibuster to talk continuously, with a vite the minute they stop. Second, it means using the power of the Presidency to punish those repeatedly responsible for obstruction. That is done by using executive discretion to withhold funding for local projects and to reject requests for Federal appointments. Neither Reid nor Obama has been as willing to use these powers as their predecessors and they are paying the price in failure.

Gerry Clinchy
02-20-2010, 12:40 PM
That is done by using executive discretion to withhold funding for local projects and to reject requests for Federal appointments. Neither Reid nor Obama has been as willing to use these powers as their predecessors and they are paying the price in failure.

Can't help but chuckle ... they found out what they needed to give to NE, LA & others to gain support. Guess they just couldn't figure out what to give the other opponents to buy those votes, too.

I don't necessarily believe this trait of "accommodation" is partisan. I regret not paying more attention to the legislative process sooner in life.

dnf777
02-21-2010, 06:44 AM
Common sense time...who is more likely to try to ammend legislation; the party who wrote it or the party who didn't have input? Secondly, the GOP ammendments that were accepted are a small fraction of what they proposed. Thirdly, the vast majority of the GOP ammendments that made it into the legislation were technical and not substantive.

Doing away with the public option????
No medicare buy-in at 55??????

that's like cutting somone's head off, and saying it wasn't "substantial"! (conservative talk show hosts and fox newsanchors not included)

Hew, they totally gutted the bill, with the help of a few blue dogs.

Hew
02-21-2010, 07:12 AM
Doing away with the public option????
No medicare buy-in at 55??????

that's like cutting somone's head off, and saying it wasn't "substantial"! (conservative talk show hosts and fox newsanchors not included)

Hew, they totally gutted the bill, with the help of a few blue dogs.
Good luck finding approved Republican ammendments killing the public option or no medicare buy-in. I know it's easier to pretend that a super-minority in the Senate ran circles around the super-majority, but that notion is laughable to anyone who isn't a Kossack or Olberman fan. Perhaps this article will shed some insight on the Senate skunkworks re: the public option and all that GOP input :rolleyes: (my comments will be in RED):


<H1>Senate debates health care, rejects GOP amendment

STORY HIGHLIGHTS


Republicans fail to eliminate $42.1 billion in proposed cuts to home health care

John Kerry's amendment to health care bill to protect home health benefits passes 96-0
Group of Democrats meet seeking a compromise on the contentious public option Gee, why would the Democrats be meeting with each other...shouldn't they be meeting with the super-minority GOP :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

On Sunday, President Obama will go to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Democrats Hmmm....Obama's gonna meet with only the Dems?!?! What a noob...he apparently doesn't know that the power in the Senate resides with the Super-minority Republicans.

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans failed Saturday to eliminate $42.1 billion in cuts to Medicare home health care service in the health care bill.


The 53-41 vote shot down a motion offered by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, that would have sent Majority Leader Harry Reid's sweeping $848 billion reform plan back to committee with instructions to remove all home health care cuts.
Johanns objected to the cuts, saying that the services "help some of the most vulnerable Americans."
Democrats say the bill instills needed reforms to ensure the long-term solvency of the government-run Medicare health program for senior citizens.
In response, Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, offered Saturday an amendment to protect home health benefits.
The Senate passed the amendment 96-0, on the sixth day of Senate debate on Reid's 2,074-page bill.

But while the debate continued on the Senate floor, other work was going on behind closed doors, as a group of nearly a dozen liberal and moderate Democrats met to try to hash out a compromise on one of the most contentious issues in the bill -- the public option. What? Public option being debated w/o Republicans? That's bizarre.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also participated in the talks this afternoon.
"There are all kind of discussions on the table about public option and other things," Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told CNN.
"It's pretty clear where the great majority of Congress is and where the great majority of the country is on this bill. And I just want to see the president speaking out and talking to those members that are a little less enthusiastic to support it," he said.
"We're talking about different things. ... I don't even know if I would call it a compromise; I would call it a proposal that involves a lot of different moving parts," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.
Two senators whose votes are key to passing a bill said they have yet to see a compromise they can support on the the public option.
"There are a lot of discussions going on and I'm going to work hard to see if there isn't somewhere to be in terms of a compromise, but I haven't seen it yet," Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, said Friday.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, was less open to compromise on Friday, saying he won't be satisfied until the public option is stripped entirely from the health care bill."I think the better political compromise is to get the public option out of there and do the rest that's good," said Lieberman. Like Lincoln, he supports much of the Democrats' enormous health care bill.
Lincoln and Lieberman, along with Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, oppose a public option, but they are four votes Democratic leaders are likely to need to get the 60 votes required to pass a health care bill.
They could afford to lose one of those votes if they succeed in luring Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who also has been open to compromise.
Landrieu said that she thought meetings such as Saturday's were "extremely helpful."
"When you scale everything back, there is room for common ground here," she said.
On Sunday, President Obama will go to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Democrats as the health care debate rages, a White House official and a senior Democratic source told CNN.
The meeting is set for 2 p.m.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a more than $1 trillion health care bill this month.
If the Senate also manages to pass a bill, a congressional conference committee will then need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

</H1>The only mention of a Republican in that entire article was the one the Dems thought they could buy off. Go sell crazy (and/or HuffPo crap) somewhere else...we're all full up here. ;)

Buzz
02-21-2010, 08:42 AM
Good luck finding approved Republican ammendments killing the public option or no medicare buy-in. I know it's easier to pretend that a super-minority in the Senate ran circles around the super-majority, but that notion is laughable to anyone who isn't a Kossack or Olberman fan. Perhaps this article will shed some insight on the Senate skunkworks re: the public option and all that GOP input :rolleyes: (my comments will be in RED):

[B]</H1>The only mention of a Republican in that entire article was the one the Dems thought they could buy off. Go sell crazy (and/or HuffPo crap) somewhere else...we're all full up here. ;)

There is no reason negotiate with a crowd that is so clearly hell bent on killing the whole bill, no matter what. When you realize that you are not going to get a single vote from the R's, no matter what, you are wasting your time including them in any discussions. Republicans excluded themselves, pure and simple.

By excluding themselves, they handed extraordinary power to a few "conservative" Democrats to negotiate sweetheart deals for their state, holding the bill hostage by threatening to join with the Republicans. In other words, they handed Democrats the rope that they needed to hang themselves.

It was all a political game. I'm sure the Republican caucus feels that it could not have worked out better for them.

Hew
02-21-2010, 10:55 AM
When you realize that you are not going to get a single vote from the R's, no matter what, you are wasting your time including them in any discussions.
Exactly. Thank you. We're a dynamic duo, Buzz. ;):D After we've finished getting DNF to stop parrotting the Kos Kool Aid that the GOP practically wrote the health care bill and/or that it was written with them in mind we can then move on to the Yardley's notions that it the GOP that is singlehandedly responsible for alll partisanship in Washington. :-P

dnf777
02-22-2010, 07:33 AM
Exactly. Thank you. We're a dynamic duo, Buzz. ;):D After we've finished getting DNF to stop parrotting the Kos Kool Aid that the GOP practically wrote the health care bill and/or that it was written with them in mind we can then move on to the Yardley's notions that it the GOP that is singlehandedly responsible for alll partisanship in Washington. :-P

Funny Hew, I don't even know what Kos is...I suspect from your comments its a liberal web site? But back to original thought....Do you refute the truth that the republicans had over 200 amendments put onto the health bill? Do you refute that the public option was dropped? Do you refute that the medicare buy-in option at 55 was dropped?

Lets have a truth check here for just a moment! No kos, olbie, beck, palin or rush for just a moment.

ducknwork
02-22-2010, 09:03 AM
Funny Hew, I don't even know what Kos is...I suspect from your comments its a liberal web site?

Interesting. So you don't even know whatever he is talking about? (me neither) But you think that every one of us 'right wingers' is a Beck or Palin or Rush disciple? I would venture to say that is how you feel as often as you accuse us of watching them...

huntinman
02-22-2010, 09:11 AM
How can anyone who follows politics from any viewpoint not know what the Daily Kos is? I have never been on the sight, but have been aware of it for years from hearing about it on the mainstream media.

dnf777
02-22-2010, 09:37 AM
Interesting. So you don't even know whatever he is talking about? (me neither) But you think that every one of us 'right wingers' is a Beck or Palin or Rush disciple? I would venture to say that is how you feel as often as you accuse us of watching them...

Is that like all democrats are gay-lesbian communist anti-gun vegans? Not quite. And no, I realize there are many republicans who think for themselves...but like the more central democrats, they're not the ones making headlines.

But in defense of my comment, look at the number of links posted on this forum to Ann coulter and the likes. One could easily get the impression that they are the conservative spiritual leaders.

I found in interesting that Ron Paul won the straw poll, but when the results were announced, he was booed!?

My apologies to those "non-rush-disciples" out there! But be careful admitting that, you may find yourself taken off the Christmas card list!

dnf777
02-22-2010, 09:39 AM
How can anyone who follows politics from any viewpoint not know what the Daily Kos is? I have never been on the sight, but have been aware of it for years from hearing about it on the mainstream media.

I read lots of papers....and magazines....gee....anyone that's put in front of me.....you know......gosh......Hey, I'm a victim of a "gotchya post"!! :p

Buzz
02-22-2010, 09:42 AM
I read Kos and redstate. The Free Republic is spooky...

www.dailykos.com

www.redstate.com

Hew
02-22-2010, 02:41 PM
Funny Hew, I don't even know what Kos is...I suspect from your comments its a liberal web site? As Bill Cosby would say, "riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggght." :D:D:D But back to original thought....Do you refute the truth that the republicans had over 200 amendments put onto the health bill? Perhaps you missed the part where I said that the vast majority of the accepted ammedments were technical in nature; not substantive. Do you refute that the public option was dropped? Apparently you didn't even bother to read the CNN article I pasted that pimp slaps your point. Do you refute that the medicare buy-in option at 55 was dropped? Well who can argue with that brilliant logic straight out of a Monty Python skit? Wood floats and Repulicans float. They must both be witches.

You haven't proven (or even attempted to prove) where either the public option or the buy in was dropped: a) to appease Republicans, b) as a result of a GOP ammendment, or c) to win GOP votes.

Lets have a truth check here for just a moment! LMAO. Now that's rich. No kos, olbie, beck, palin or rush for just a moment.


..................

dnf777
02-22-2010, 04:10 PM
You haven't proven (or even attempted to prove) where either the public option or the buy in was dropped: a) to appease Republicans, b) as a result of a GOP ammendment, or c) to win GOP votes.

Not my job. If you're too blinded to see that, there's no sense arguing!
And you can use the Patriot Act to check my URL history....I've never been to Kos or KOS or whatever. Just never had the need or desire.

Hew
02-22-2010, 04:24 PM
Not my job. If you're too blinded to see that, there's no sense arguing!
Wise decision on you part to quit while you were behind as you were never going to find an accepted Republican ammendment to drop the public option or the buy-in.

huntinman
02-22-2010, 04:47 PM
[B]
And you can use the Patriot Act to check my URL history....I've never been to Kos or KOS or whatever. Just never had the need or desire.

You said earlier that you didn't know what Kos was, now you say you never had the need or desire to go to it. Which is it?

Gerry Clinchy
02-22-2010, 05:11 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/health/policy/22health.html?th&emc=th

Today the White House will release its version of health care reform. I'm guessing it's less than 2000 pages.

Thursday the President meets with R leaders to discuss health care.


The president’s legislation aims to bridge differences between the bills adopted by the House and Senate late last year, and to frame his debate with Republicans over health policy at a televised meeting on Thursday.

Golly ... if he knew how to fix this why didn't he speak up sooner?

Meanwhile CA just had 39% increase in health insurance premiums, so the Pres says that they'll have to set up an approval commission for rate increases.



The White House has held details of Mr. Obama’s bill extremely tight, leaving even top Democrats in Congress anxiously awaiting the text to be released Monday. But administration officials said it would incorporate legislation proposed last week by Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/dianne_feinstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of California, in response to the Anthem increases. Officials said it would “help make sure that people are not unfairly subject to arbitrary premium hikes.”

Anthem, California’s largest for-profit insurer, has announced premium increases for nearly 700,000 customers, citing the soaring costs of medical care and the effects of a weak economy in which many younger and healthier people are dropping insurance. But the increases, far outpacing the rate of medical inflation, led to outrage among officials in Sacramento and Washington.



The bill would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, made up of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market.


Hmm ... the govt won't be doing the insuring; just telling the private companies what they are allowed to charge. Think that some of those companies might just decide to get out of the health insurance business?


The Obama administration has sought to portray the situation as a warning of what could happen to many more Americans if Congress does not act to overhaul the health system.

My guess is that if the govt were running the insurance and faced the same actuarial facts of increasing costs & decreasing participation of younger, healthier insureds, they'd also incur a deficit. Then Congress would simply raise taxes on the rest of the population to cover that deficit.

It stands to reason that the economy would force larger numbers of people into the category that required govt subsidy of their health insurance premiums. This would also screw up the arithmetic of a program that, in theory, would have been self-sustaining. Betcha.

Buzz
02-22-2010, 07:05 PM
My guess is that if the govt were running the insurance and faced the same actuarial facts of increasing costs & decreasing participation of younger, healthier insureds, they'd also incur a deficit. Then Congress would simply raise taxes on the rest of the population to cover that deficit.




How's that been working out with other deficits that have been incurred in the last, say 9-10 years?

Gerry Clinchy
02-22-2010, 07:29 PM
How's that been working out with other deficits that have been incurred in the last, say 9-10 years?

I think the problem is that as soon as Congress begins to get an increase in revenue that might be used to reduce any deficit, they get giddy and find new ways to spend what they think is a windfall that will go on indefinitely.

Whether it's a Pres or Congress, govt, in general, seems unable to embrace the concept of planning for a "rainy day" ; or saving a surplus for pre-funding some program that may be needed in the future ... like fixing our roads or bridges as they got older?

dnf777
02-22-2010, 08:25 PM
I think the problem is that as soon as Congress begins to get an increase in revenue that might be used to reduce any deficit, they get giddy and find new ways to spend what they think is a windfall that will go on indefinitely.

Whether it's a Pres or Congress, govt, in general, seems unable to embrace the concept of planning for a "rainy day" ; or saving a surplus for pre-funding some program that may be needed in the future ... like fixing our roads or bridges as they got older?

Between Clinton and the republican congress he had at the time, they figured that out. Bush would have none of that, though, and here we are.

Meethinks this is a moot argument for the moment though, as I don't see any increase in revenues anytime soon. Even with a tax increase, there's so many right now that aren't paying ANY tax because they're unemployed! We're in deep. Deeper than many realize.

Gerry Clinchy
02-22-2010, 09:00 PM
Meethinks this is a moot argument for the moment though, as I don't see any increase in revenues anytime soon. Even with a tax increase, there's so many right now that aren't paying ANY tax because they're unemployed! We're in deep. Deeper than many realize.

Surely agree with that, Dave.

Was reading some stuff on the Pres's health care proposal. Remember the program that was supposed to come in under $1 trillion? The latest is that the amount is up to around $2.5 trillion. Supposedly NE loses its sweet deal, but all the States are offered more Fed assistance for the additional Medicaid costs they will incur. They adopt R ideas for working on waste, fraud, & abuse. Still no mention of tort reform :-)

I have some URLs is anyone is interested.

Not sure one can justify sucking more money out of the economy at this point (remember the paying is supposed to start before things get rolling on these bills) ... would that be counter-productive to anything done to generate jobs?

Gerry Clinchy
02-23-2010, 07:28 AM
This is from TIME Magazine, not usually suspected of being right-leaning ...


* Imposes higher fees on individuals and employers who go without insurance The plan would strengthen the individual mandate by adopting the House's higher penalties for those who opt not to buy insurance. There are still hardship exemptions and exemptions for those with income below the tax filing threshold. The fee on employers who don't offer coverage would be $2,000 per worker, with firms with 50 or fewer employees exempted from this requirement. There is also a $40 billion infusion of tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer coverage beginning in 2010.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/details-of-obamas-health-care-plan/#ixzz0gMbvlY7K (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/details-of-obamas-health-care-plan/#ixzz0gMbvlY7K)


50 X $2000 = $100,000. That sure does provide some incentive to avoid the fine.

Are there really companies that employ more than 50 people that don't offer some kind of health insurance? The catch, here, may be that the employer will be required to provide a minimum, basic plan (as dictated by the govt) and that the employer will be required to pay at least a certain %-age of the employee's cost.

If I were an employer, I might be tempted to keep my workforce at 49, and use a temp to fill in when needed. I believe I previously heard that the min. # of employees would be 30, but can't remember whose plan that was!

What is the fee on individuals? Better be more than the $750 discussed at one point, as that would not be high enough to get young, healthier people enrolled. They'd simply pay a reasonable fee that was much less than the cost of the health insurance.


* Closes the doughnut hole The plan would close the Medicare drug benefit “doughnut hole” completely by 2020. This would be paid for by an addition $10 billion in fees from drug companies.


If I were a drug company, I might be thinking of raising my prices while I had the chance. Or will the govt put an "authority" in charge of regulating how much drug companies can charge for their product ... as with the board for regulating health insurance rates?

Seems kind of ironic as PA just deregulated electric rates, and rates went up 30%. With electric rates higher for drug companies, doctors and hospitals as well ... are we just redistributing the $ away from medical care providers to the electric companies? It really hasn't generated any "competition" for rates since any competitor coming into PA is only offering a 10% below local company as incentive to switch. There is no incentive to reduce the rate lower (even if they could) since they only have to come in lower than the local provider. It's not like being able to go to comparison shop other things (like clothing) and accept a lower quality to get a lower price.