Big Pharma loves Obama Care

by Brian Schwartz | 7:38 pm, March 18, 2010

From Tim Carney’s article in the Washington Examiner, Dems tap drug maker millions for PhRMA-friendly bill:
Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year — that’s nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, America’s [...]

Betsy Markey Caves on Obama Care, Hope She’s Not Counting on Fed Job

by Ben DeGrow | 3:47 pm, March 18, 2010

After losing votes for days, it looks like the Obama administration has made up ground arm-twisting votes for the government takeover of our health care system. The same day as the liberal Denver Post opined strongly against the legislation, the Post’s Michael Riley reports that Colorado Congresswoman Betsy Markey — formerly a No vote — [...]

Rob Corry Discusses Marijuana Policy

by Ari Armstrong | 3:39 pm, March 18, 2010

Attorney Rob Corry discussed marijuana policy on March 17, 2010, at Denver’s Liberty On the Rocks. (The date, St. Patrick’s Day, explains his flair.)In this second video, Corry discusses Colorado legislation, how to present his case to conservatives, t…

Obama Surrenders Gulf Oil To Russia

by Mr. Bob | 3:15 pm, March 18, 2010

#peoplespress #globalwarming #marxism #che #socialist #tcot #teaparty
I now believe Washington liberals, aka marxists in my book want to see the destruction of America as the world leader in finance, medicine, farming, inventions, technology and CHARITY.

America, Obama just flipped you the bird…he does not care what you want…he knows better than you.

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 63 percent support for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Americans understand the fundamental points: The oil is there, and we need it. If we don’t drill it out, we have to buy it from other countries. Last year, the U.S. government even helped Brazil underwrite offshore drilling in the Tupi oil field near Rio de Janeiro. The current price of oil makes drilling economically feasible, so why not let the private sector go ahead and get our oil? READ THE REST

Summary of Why Obama Care is Immoral and Won’t Work

by Jon Caldara | 1:14 pm, March 18, 2010

Our health care policy analyst Brian Schwartz, who writes the fantastic blog Patient Power Now, has compiled a list of reasons why Obama Care is immoral and will not work. Feel free to use any and all of these arguments on anyone you know who buys into all the regulations, taxation, mandates, and larger government [...]

Guns on Campus

by Jon Caldara | 1:08 pm, March 18, 2010

Sorry about the mix up, tomorrow night’s Independent Thinking will be this guns on campus show, not the renewable energy show. Tune in the night of the 26th for the renewable energy show…
On this week’s Independent Thinking, I am joined by Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden and Denver Post Columnist Mike Littwin to discuss [...]

The Internet Made Me Do It!

by Chuck Moe | 12:27 pm, March 18, 2010

Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism recently spoke to the Senate Armed Services Emerging Threats subcommittee. Reid, according to a report by The Hill, said,
“Enabled by 21st-century technology, extremists have optimized the use of Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail chains to spread their virulent messages and reach a global audience of…

John Hickenlooper promises to end Democrats’ ‘crazy’ anti-business branding of Colorado

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:11 am, March 18, 2010

Democrat gubernatorial candidate and Denver mayor, John Hickenlooper, Thursday promised business executives at the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce that if elected governor he would return a pro-business environment to Colorado and work to end the anti-business sentiment voiced by Democrats in the General Assembly.
“The anti-business sentiment is crazy,” Hickenlooper declared. “Bill Owens and I rebranded the state” as pro business. “Now we’re getting a brand that’s anti-business. That’s crazy,” he asserted. He said he would sit down with Democrats and Republicans to come up with ways to help Colorado businesses find new markets.
Pointing to 

Investing in Innovation May Have Greater Reform Potential than Race to the Top

by Eddie | 9:34 am, March 18, 2010

I’ve talked so much about Race to the Top, you might have gotten the idea it’s the only big federal education grant competition taking place right now.
If so, you’d be wrong. While it’s not as big as Race to the Top and that program’s $5 billion potential to leverage reform at the state level, this [...]

Mitt Romney’s Achilles heel

by Rossputin | 5:34 am, March 18, 2010

As Obamacare hurtles toward possible (probable?) passage, national revulsion against the cost, intrusiveness, and impact of government-run health insurance poses a serious threat to the presidential ambitions of Mitt Romney.

Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, was responsible for implementing Commonwealth Care, the closest thing in the nation to Obamacare.

Massachusetts not only has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation, it also has the fastest rising premiums in the nation.  And Boston has, by far, the longest wait in the nation to see a doctor.

The plan is costing the state billions of dollars and is more than $100MM overbudget this year because the vast majority of new insured in Massachusetts pay little or nothing for their insurance.  They simply steal money from taxpayers to pay for it.  How does that “health care is a right” feel now?

Now the state is already cutting services and blocking or delaying insurance coverage for many of its residents – especially its poorest – in order to stem the fiscal hemmoraging caused by their version of ObamaCare.  No wonder Massachusetts voters believe by a large ratio that Commonwealth Care has damaged the quality of health care in the state.

Romney offers three main excuses for his support of one of the left’s major goals:  First, that his plan is substantially different from ObamaCare.  Second, that his successor, the soon-to-be-ex-governor Deval Patrick, implemented the plan differently from how Romney would have. Third, that these sorts of plans should be implemented at the state level and there is no appropriate federal role in health insurance.

Let’s discuss:

Romney’s claim that his plan is very different from Obama’s just doesn’t pass the giggle test.  As the Boston Herald notes “(T)he basic elements of Obamacare are all there: an individual mandate that nearly everyone buy insurance; subsidized insurance based on income; a non-insurance “tax” and employer mandates. The Cato Institute calls it a mirror-image of Obamacare.”  (The rather thorough gutting of Commonwealth Care by Cato’s Michael Cannon can be found HERE, including noting that the system costs over $20,000 per year to insure a family of four.)

No doubt that Patrick made the system worse.  But if a doctor intentionally give a patient a bad disease, it’s hard to then place a lot of blame on a different doctor who doesn’t implement the best treatment.  What’s killing the patient is the fact that he was intentionally sickened.  As if to prove the point, the Massachusetts system is frequently called RomneyCare…not PatrickCare.

Where Romney has a grain of truth to his claims is his federalism argument.  He is right that in the spirit of states as laboratories of democracy, almost all legislation (i.e. all that isn’t authorized by the Constitution) should be at the state level.  But he has problems here, too.

First, someone who poisons a state can’t be called a hero for not poisoning the whole country.  Second, the fact of a Republican supporting a “mirror-image of Obamacare” gives cover to liberals who want to push this disaster on the nation; they can say “look how this prominent pro-business Republican thought it was a good idea.” Third, in the vein of “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”, Romney’s argument is simply too subtle to be effective with a population of voters almost none of whom could explain the 9th and 10th Amendments to you.

In a sense, one could say that Romney did the nation a favor by passing Commonwealth Care so that only the people of his state would have to suffer while the rest of us could see socialized medicine’s consequences.  Unfortunately, most of the nation (and certainly most Democrats in Congress) have not paid attention to the RomneyCare woes.  Perhaps Americans aren’t smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others.  After all, if we were, lessons of Canada and Britain would have prevented the implementation of RomneyCare to begin with, not to mention the oncoming freight train of ObamaCare.

All of this is already turning into a major headache for Mitt Romney.  In the last few days, he’s been through some rough questioning by Fox News’ Chris Wallace (start around 1:10 mark in this video – also embedded below – in which Romney neatly makes every excuse), he’s been hit with an extremely critical WSJ opinion piece by the Galen Institute’s Grace-Marie Turner entitled “The Failure of RomneyCare“, and he’s seen his plan blasted by Massachusetts’ State Treasurer, Tim Cahill, as explained in James Antle’s “The Masscare Massacre“.  It’s interesting to note that Cahill, a former Democrat, is running for Governor as an independent – by running against socialized medicine in the most liberal state in the union.  The lesson of Scott Brown’s election isn’t lost on him even as it goes unnoticed or at least ignored by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

In political betting, Romney’s chances of being the Republican nominee for President in 2012 have been fairly steady around 24-25% for several months, with Sarah Palin just barely behind, trading around 23%.  Romney has a substantial advantage among the likely contenders because of his well-known expertise in business and his experience as an executive.  But to the extent that the economy stabilizes and health care increases in prominence as an issue, the public may come to wonder whether a career of many smart decisions is more important than Romney’s apparent failure on the biggest policy question in a generation.

Gallup: Obama job approval negative for first time

by Rossputin | 4:42 am, March 18, 2010

H/T Phil Klein

Yesterday, the Gallup Organization’s daily tracking poll of presidential job approval showed a 47% disapproval to 46% approval for Tuesday, March 16th, representing the first time in that particular series that Obama had a net disapproval.

There has also been a consistent downtrend in the weekly job approval series.

Gallup’s chart of the series still shows approval ahead of disapproval by 1% as I write this because they chart a 3-day rolling average.  Still, if you’re a Republican or simply someone who opposes Obama’s megalomaniacal drive for a government takeover of everything, the trend is your friend.

I note data in the survey which will no doubt bring out the cries of “racism!” from Obama apologists and sycophants: Support among whites is at a new low of 39% whereas support by non-whites is at 70% (tied for the low).

Critically, support by independents is near a new low at 44%.  (43% was reported once back in September, though that number seemed strangely low at the time.) Another potentially troubling sign for Obama is crashing support among married people – support dropping further and faster than among single people.  As the US Census Department notes, married people are far more likely to vote than single people.  Finally, Obama’s approval level is inversely proportional to the age of the group being asked; he is most approved of by young people and least by old people.  Again, it’s a maxim in politics that one’s likelihood of voting is proportional to one’s age.  Another big problem for The One.

With these trends, it’s no wonder that Barack Obama is rushing as fast as possible to pass his socialist agenda.  With a little more decline in his approval ratings, even Democrats won’t have to fear opposing him.

A Democrat’s case for opposing Obama Care

by Brian Schwartz | 1:01 am, March 18, 2010

Michael Cannon at Cato pulls some choice quotes from David Goldhill’s piece in the Huffington Post, includes a video of Goldhill interviewed by Cato, and links to Goldhills’s eye-opening Atlantic Monthly article.  Check it out at Cato-at-Liberty: David Goldhill: “A Democrat’s Case For ‘No’”.
My short take on Goldhill’s Atlantic Monthly article: His diagnosis of what’s [...]

Taxpayers for Liberty Update: Larimer County’s Sue Rehg Tells Her Story

by Ben DeGrow | 10:11 pm, March 17, 2010

A quick follow-up on the ripple effect that has come after I did a little firsthand reporting on the shadowy third-party group Taxpayers for Liberty (click the link if you need a refresher). I had a friendly phone conversation earlier today with Sue Rehg of Larimer County, whose name initially was listed as the group’s [...]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

by Amy Oliver | 9:42 pm, March 17, 2010

The Good:  Late this afternoon Major Diggs Brown dropped out of 4th CD GOP race and endorsed Cory Gardner.  Diggs is an officer and gentleman — and a statesman.  Just a suggestion, but how about a Draft Diggs campaign to challenge Rep John Kefalas.  Diggs for HD 52?
The Bad:  Denver Post reports “Democratic moderates in [...]

Ken Buck beats Jane Norton by 181 votes, 38.17% to 37.46%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:59 pm, March 17, 2010

Ken Buck and Jane Norton virtually tied in the Republican’s caucus preference poll Tuesday with Buck beating Norton by 181 votes, 9,712 to 9,531 or 38.17% to 37.46%. Tom Wiens finished with 16.5%. A total of 25,444 votes were cast in the seven-candidate race, according to http://www.cologop.org. While Moffat County reported all of its precincts had turned in their vote totals, they don’t show on the state GOP’s spread sheet.

Scott McInnis’ margin of victory over Dan Maes still landslide at 59.2% to 40%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:50 pm, March 17, 2010

With all but Moffat County’s Republican caucus preference caucus vote totals accounted for, Scott McInnis scores a landslide victory over Dan Maes of 15,285 votes to 10,351 or 59.2% to 40%. A total of 25,843 votes were cast in Tuesday’s Republican caucus preference polls. Moffat County is shown as reporting all its precincts’ results, but the results are not on http://www.cologop.org’s spread sheet.

An Open Letter to the House GOP

by Al Maurer | 7:54 pm, March 17, 2010

After a shaky start a year ago, Republicans in both the House and Senate have been steadfast in your opposition to the fundamental transformation of America from a constitutional republic toward a socialist nanny state.
Thank you for listening to and supporting the voices of the American people! Come November, we will not forget and we [...]

"Major Campaign Announcement" Coming From Gardner Campaign

by RMR | 2:29 pm, March 17, 2010

The Cory Gardner for Congress campaign will be making a "major campaign announcement" today at 5 PM.
In light of last night’s straw poll results in CD-4 which indicate that Gardner’s closest competitor, Diggs Brown, will fall far short of obt…

3 Strikes – global warming scare movies are out?

by Mr. Bob | 1:47 pm, March 17, 2010

#climategate #globalwarming #tcot
From Big Hollywood – watermelon politics (green on the outside, red inside) has hopefully worn out its welcome for a while.

…two things happened last year that shot an arrow in the heart of the beast; one of the worst winters on record and Climategate. And the hits keep on coming. Now it turns out that NASA, who claimed for years that their data proves Global Warming is real, was actually just using CRU data all along. And the CRU couldn’t back up any of its data. In fact, they “lost the records” when they were forced to produce them. Oops!
…The climate scam is worth trillions of dollars and who knows how many millions, if not billions have been spent to win over the public. Too bad the public is losing interest fast. People are increasingly saying it’s all made up or at best, exaggerated
READ THE ARTICLE HERE

Reagan on Amercan Exceptionalism

by Mr. Bob | 12:01 pm, March 17, 2010

Prophetic words – hat tip Atlas Shrugs

Thoughts on Colorado’s caucus results

by Rossputin | 11:57 am, March 17, 2010

A reader asked my take on last night’s Colorado caucus results, so I decided to just post my response here:

They don’t mean a lot, but…

Governor: McInnis 60% – Maes 39% was about as I expected because the Tea Party types don’t trust McInnis.  I’d expect McInnis to do better later esp. because Maes won’t raise nearly enough money.

Senate:  Buck 38% – Norton 38% – Wiens 16% – Tidwell 6%. Just slightly better for Ken Buck than I would have thought.  A lot will come down to whether Buck can raise money.  If his fundraising doesn’t improve from last quarter, he’s in a lot of trouble.  Norton can raise much more money and I think that will be a factor but she needs to solidify a perception that she’s not a female John McCain.  Wiens should get out but won’t because he has a big ego.  None of the others matter.

As far as money goes, it’s interesting that Norton has raised a lot more than Buck and that she spent nearly a quarter million dollars on ads going into the caucus but still reached a statistical tie with Buck.  That said, you can’t forget that the type of voter who goes to the caucus is not the same as the average voter, even the average primary election voter.

I note that Michael Bennet is saying “The real loser last night was Jane Norton”. Put that together with a juvenille anti-Norton web site put together by the far-left Progress Now and it gives one a distinct sense that the Democrats fear running against Norton more than they fear running against Buck. Whether “electability” will become a major factor for either side remains to be seen. But like it or not, the name of the game is who can raise enough money to win. If both Buck and Norton can raise enough to win, then the issue goes away on the GOP side.  In terms of fundraising, it remains to be seen whether Buck can get close to Norton just as it remains to be seen whether Andrew Romanoff can get close to Michael Bennet.

Dems:  Romanoff 51% – Bennet 42%, not a big surprise. Essentially the same comment as Buck/Norton.  It’s going to be hard for Romanoff to raise even 1/4 of what Bennet raises.  There’s a pretty good chance that Bennet wins the assembly and primary.  But I love a good fight on the Dem side.  Make them wound each other and make them spend money.

You can see it coming already:  In e-mails I receiving during the few minutes of writing this note, Romanoff claims he has “Caucus Momentum” while Bennet says Romanoff “barely reached 50% in the most favorable political environment possible, dealing a serious blow to his candidacy.”

And just as the Democrats seem to think Norton will be the nominee, the Colorado GOP continues to pound Michael Bennet, with a note today basically saying that Bennet is lying when he claims to have “been in Washington only a year” (because Bennet was raised there and did some work for the Clinton Administration there.)  In other words, the parties know that the caucuses are of relatively minor importance in determining the nominee.

We’ll probably see much the same rhetoric on the GOP side unless Buck’s fundraising is so bad that he drops out, which I don’t see happening, especially if the caucus results cause some fence-sitting donors to write him some big checks.  If one of the candidates who can’t win does any real damage to one of the candidates who can win, especially with essentially false or irrelevant attacks, voters should consider whether that attacker should ever be supported in any future race.

To be clear, a serious horse race can be a good thing.  It can bring out the best in candidates.  And the GOP desperately needs people to understand that it has candidates who won’t just go to DC and behave as Republicans have behaved in recent years, i.e. during all of George W. Bush’s presidency.  So a “fair fight” primary could really give both Republican and independent voters something to vote for rather than just hoping that people will get out to vote against Democrats.  Voters will go out to vote against Democrats this time, but it’s a bad long term strategic foundation on which to build a majority.

On the Democratic side, while it might seem that Bennet is as leftist as a Senator could be, Romanoff will run to Bennet’s left.  This means that while Romanoff might rile up the left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party (not least unions) and its caucus- and assembly-attending activists, he will take positions on issues and force Bennet to take positions on issues which will be very unpopular with the broader electorate in November.

Therefore, I think that if the Dems and the GOP both have hard-fought primaries, the net effect is probably a positive for Republicans.  Then we just have to hope that Republicans are worth a damn.  The good news is that Colorado Republicans, from State Senators like Josh Penry and Greg Brophy, to Congressman Mike Coffman have shown themselves to be principled conservatives and excellent representatives of what the GOP should be – even when I disagree with them on individual issues.

I think Colorado is soon to go from a bluish-purple to a purplish-red…

Harvard’s Paul Peterson Hits the Nail on the Value of Charters and Competition

by Eddie | 10:16 am, March 17, 2010

I’ve got spring fever and want to run outside and play in the almost-70 degree weather! So rather than one of my famous commentaries, today I’ll just point you to a great Wall Street Journal column by Harvard’s education policy guru Professor Paul Peterson on charter schools and competition (H/T Jay Greene). Here’s a couple [...]

Colorado caucus preference polls show Tea Party, 9.12 group voters don’t vote “straight tickets”

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:38 am, March 17, 2010

It is hard to tell how much influence candidates forums and events sponsored by the Tea Party, 9.12 project, R Block, Liberty on the Rocks, Americans for Prosperity and Republican county parties and clubs had on Tuesday’s caucus preference polls. One thing seems clear. There still is no consensus in any of  those groups about who they want to be the GOP’s gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidates in the November elections. Voters draw on numerous information sources and come to their own conclusions. The media don’t control them. Bloggers certainly don’t. And meeting organizers don’t try to. What’s great is that so many people and organizations have been working hard to give voters a chance to see and hear the candidates so that they can make informed decisions when they cast their votes.

GP’s will stop practicing if Obamacare passes

by Mr. Bob | 9:32 am, March 17, 2010

#tcot #oamacare #teaparty #peoplespress
from HotAirblog
The New England Journal of Medicine, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, polled health-care providers to determine their reaction to ObamaCare, and discovered that it has many doctors looking for the exits. Almost half of all general-practice doctors would feel compelled to leave medicine altogether if it passes:

46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
36% of physicians would not recommend medicine as a career, regardless of health reform. 27% would recommend medicine as a career but not if health reform passes.

62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation

READ THE REST

Who will win Ken Buck versus Jane Norton primary?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:59 am, March 17, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports polls and Tuesday’s caucus preference polls make it pretty clear that the Republican U.S. Senate Aug. 10 primary contest will be between Ken Buck and Jane Norton. Who will win? It’s too early to predict, but there are several ways to look at the contest.
Rasmussen’s polls have consistently shown Norton as the stronger candidate against 

Dennis Kucinich switches to yes on Obamacare

by Rossputin | 8:29 am, March 17, 2010

In some very bad news for America, we are learning that President Obama has successfully pushed socialist congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to vote “Yes” on ObamaCare.  Kucinich had said he was against the bill because it did not contain a “public option”.

The question is whether this will push other liberals who have been holding out to support the bill.  It remains to be seen, but this certainly makes passage seem more likely.

The only upside is the likely bloodbath for Dems in November.  Most “Blue Dog” and so-called “moderate” Democrats are in a very tough position right now because if they vote against ObamaCare and it fails, they will be savaged by unions, by Nancy Pelosi, and by the Obama Administration’s Chicago thug politics.  And if they vote for it, their political careers are probably over in November.  There are no good choices for a Democrat who doesn’t like ObamaCare.

This serves to remind us that elections have consequences and that people who voted for Obama because he offered a blank slate of hope and change based on no actual experience and a record of being a huge-government radical leftist “community organizer” deserve everything that happens to them.  Unfortunately, the rest of us will suffer for their gullibility.

If this passes, the Republicans will make Obama’s life as difficult as possible for the next three years while waging a non-stop campaign to repeal the measure.  Repeal will be impossible while Obama is president, but it would be amazing political theater if even one house of Congress voted for repeal in the next session.  Then, if we get a Republican president in 2012 (or technically in 2013), repeal might actually be possible though the difficulty of overturning the whole thing after it’s been in place for a few years can’t be overstated.  Indeed, that’s precisely what the Democrats are betting on.

Tom Wiens looks like big loser in Republican Senate primary; he only got 35% of Douglas County votes

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:24 am, March 17, 2010

Tom Wiens needs to get smart about how he invests his fortune. In Tuesday’s Republican caucus preference poll for U.S. Senate, Wiens lost his home Douglas County 35.9% to a combined 60.1% for Ken Buck (27.4%) and Jane Norton (32.7%). That’s a landslide rejection of Wiens anyway you look at it. Time for him to buy another ranch or start a new business that he knows how to run. Wiens has some political talents, but he’s in the wrong race at the wrong time. While the caucus preference polls don’t mean much, it’s pretty clear that Douglas county Republican activists who know Wiens well have sent him and the GOP a message.
Norton won her home county, Mesa, with 64% of the vote. Buck won his home county, Weld, with 75.8% of the vote. And gubernatorial candidate former U.S. Rep. and Colorado House Majority Leader Scott McInnis won his home county of Mesa with 77% of the vote. Indeed, in McInnis’ landslide win over Dan Maes, it looks like he also won his old third Congressional District by a big margin. The activists who know McInnis best like and respect him.

Obama’s Colorado machine needs to recall its Michael Bennet model

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:11 am, March 17, 2010

The biggest loser in Tuesday’s caucus preference polls was President Obama’s Colorado machine, which swept him to victory here in 2008 and was expected to make appointed Senator Michael Bennet the run away winner.
Oops, the Obama Machine’s brakes malfunctioned. Democrat activists stepped on the brakes and they worked.
Romanoff beat Bennet in the preference polls 50.9% to 41.7%.
But note that 7.4% of the passionate Democrat activists who participated in their party’s preference polls couldn’t choose either candidate. Either they don’t like Romanoff or Bennet or they like them both.
The question for the Democrats: Will big money contributors start funding Romanoff’s campaign and give him a chance to beat Bennet in the August 10 primary? Or will they realize that he is so far to the left and so minor league that they’ll stick with the Obama’s Machine’s out-of-tune Bennet? I’m betting the latter.
The Obama Machine needs to recall its Michael Bennet Model and fix its brakes. The Machine probably will win the Democrats’ primary, but it probably will have a tough time beating Jane Norton in November. I think it would have an easier time beating Ken Buck.

Please Brer Barack, don’t throw me into that briar patch!

by Rossputin | 5:23 am, March 17, 2010

A UK Telegraph report yesterday suggests what everybody already knew would be part of the box of clubs used to bludgeon Democrat congressmen into voting for ObamaCare: “Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats.”

But if I were a wavering Democrat, it would probably mean that I live in a district which is not solidly Democrat or in which a majority of the citizens were clearly against Obamacare.  Therefore, I would see a visit from Obama as at least partially a liability.

Three Democrat candidates (one for Senate, two for House) in Missouri recently skipped an Obama event in their state.  The only big name politician who attended was Senator Claire McCaskill – who is not up for reelection for 4 more years.  Other Democrats are also trying to find subtle ways to tell Obama “thanks, but no thanks.“  It’s laughable to read about a Democrat candidate saying he doesn’t want Obama to come campaign for him because Obama’s schedule is fairly full.  They know toxic when they see it…and Obama has gone from being gold to being kryptonite.

So, when Barack Obama threatens to withhold a campaign visit from “moderate” Democrats, their reaction is probably one of relief rather than wondering whether that threat should be enough to cause them to vote for a government takeover of the American health care system.

Please B’rer Obama, don’t throw me into that briar patch!

 

In case you haven’t seen it: Paul Ryan’s dissection of Obamacare

by Rossputin | 5:12 am, March 17, 2010

Most readers of these pages will have paid attention to Paul Ryan’s stunning performance at Obama’s health care “summit” on February 25th.  But as we near the end-game of the politics of passing or avoiding the destructive aims of the Socialists known as the leadership of the Democratic Party, Ryan’s words bear re-reading and sharing with others.  For those of you who want to watch Ryan instead of reading his words, you can watch the video at the end of this transcript.

The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama’s Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform. You’re right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That’s $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents’ generation, our generation, our kids’ generation. Medicaid’s growing at 21 percent each year. It’s suffocating states’ budgets. It’s adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for . . .

Now, you’re right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can’t score your bill, because it doesn’t have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from your chief actuary—I think it’s very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors.

Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion.

[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That’s the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20 percent of Medicare’s providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can’t say that you’re using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That’s double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don’t think we should cut doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We’ve stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit . . . that provision was taken out, and it’s been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn’t add up.

. . . I’ll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we’re bending it up. He’s claiming that we’re going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it’s really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

. . . [W]e’ve been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it’s basically this. We don’t think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we’ve offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It’s got to get fixed.

It’s bankrupting families. It’s bankrupting our government. It’s hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.

But we don’t think that this is the . . . the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I’ll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I’ve got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you’re not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that’s basically the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers