March on brave Republicans! March on!
As Republicans in the U.S. House get set to repeal the health care reform law, amid phony claims that they are merely doing what the American people want them to do, and after Missouri House Republicans last week wasted legislative time and money urging Governor Nixon and his Attorney General to join the sue-Obama crowd, here is the latest polling on the issue, from AP/GfK:
Meanwhile, we eagerly await the “jobs, jobs, jobs” legislation that Republicans promised us, nevermind the Republican plan to insure more than 30 million people without costing anyone anything.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ January 17, 2011duane,
Com’on.
I have written before on this but will repeat it. Republicans in the House are going to hold a full house vote to repeal ACA. That is as much of a done deal as passage of ACA was in a Democrat House and none of us will change it.
But ACA will NOT be repealed, pure and simple.
Now can we agree that ACA needs to be changed and move to how and where in our debate? Or do you really think we should leave it alone and move on to something else?
I just posted an MKL critique. That ought to stir the liberal left in rebuttal.
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 17, 2011Anson,
I will go over and read your MLK “critique,” as you called it.
But for the life of me I don’t understand how you–you who scream night and day about the deficit–excuse the waste of time that is the ACA repeal theater. And besides that, it ADDS to the deficit by 230 Billion Buckos. What about that? And besides that, it does NOTHING in terms of telling us how the GOP is going to go about doing the things the ACA does without costing more money.
And yes the ACA needs to be changed. Public option, anyone?
Duane
LikeLike
Jim Hight
/ January 17, 2011The Republicans are not fulfilling the will of the American people, only the will of corporate America and the top one percent of the population who bought the 2010 elections for them. Another example is the tax cut for the upper 5% of wage earners. Over 60% of the American people (and the statistic was taken from one of your postings) favored the wealthiest of Americans paying an additional three percent, but the Republicans held the entire government hostage until their financiers and handlers were able to keep their three percent.
The American people, except for those in areas like this one, will realize that the tea party and Republican party represent business alone. They voted against removing a tax break for businesses who move their operations overseas, although this alone is the reason for the high unemployment rate in this country. If Levi Strauss, Sunbeam, Nike, and many others had operations in this country, then the unemployment rate would be considerably less than ten percent.
We saw the election of individuals who believe that trickle down economics work. It does not, as the financial meltdown of 2007 proves. I believe we will see a total change in the House of Representatives and Senate in 2012. When 95 percent of the country realize that the top five percent is living well and getting all the advantages, they will vote those out who made it possible–both Democrats and Republicans. All I can say is that it is about time.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 17, 2011Jim,
The “will of the people” is a fickle thing. The economy needs to improve much more in order to increase significantly the chances of what you are hoping for. We do, however, have demographics on our side in the next election. In presidential elections, young folks tend to vote in twice the numbers of mid-terms, and a strong majority of young folks vote Democratic.
I also wish the southwest Missouri Democratic faithful would find a way to improve our electoral chances, at least in terms of helping statewide and national candidates. I’m afraid it is a lost cause for many local offices, at least in the near future. But I think Democratic honchos need to keep at it very hard, recruiting excellent candidates and hitting up area Democrats for dough to fund the campaigns of those candidates. I suspect you guys have a hard time raising money because of the perceived futility, but somehow we have to get passed that. Democrats won’t make any progress locally until we seriously challenge county races and work up from there, I suspect.
As for trickle-down economics, you are, of course, correct. And Democrats can point to recent history to demonstrate that it has been tried and found wanting. Unfortunately, the agreement Obama made with Republicans temporarily validated at least part of the trickle-down silliness. Hopefully, as the 2012 campaign approaches, Obama and the Democrats will return to their 2008 campaign critiques of Republican economics.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ January 17, 2011Duane,
Benen has a good take on the House Republican majority’s “problems” concerning ACA repeal.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027566.php
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 17, 2011Juan,
You anticipated my plans for excerpting Krugman, so I will do so now through Benen’s column. First, I like Benen’s opening paragraph:
And now, Krugman’s fabulous analogy to the goofy Republican analysis and critique of the CBO’s numbers on the ACA:
I wish I were a prize-winning economist so I could think of clever analogies like that.
Duane
LikeLike
hlgaskins
/ January 17, 2011I’ve read some of the recent polls on repealing Health Care and what is clearly demonstrated is that the numbers of those in favor of repealing having been incrementally decreasing for some time now. For now I think that most polls in favor of repealing versus those who are against repealing are about evenly divided. I hope the left is paying attention to this trend, because if it continues in its current direction and by all accounts there’s no reason why it shouldn’t, then the left would do well to stand on their principles and defend their position.
As signs of the economy growing, albeit anemically, begin to fill the air waves people are starting to relax a little. Especially since the predominant consensus thus far has been that of a decreasing economy. If I had three suggestions for the Democrats to begin undermining the Republican spin machine it would be:
1. Stay on message and keep the recent CBO report indicating that repealing Health Care would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and keep that information solidly rooted in the public mind all the way through 2010. Remind the public that the so-called “party of fiscal responsibility,” isn’t really all that fiscally responsible if they believe that repealing Health Care is good idea. Remember the Bush years! This will help counter the public’s short term memory.
2. Continuously begin filling the airwaves with direct demands that the Republicans stop their Rhetoric on how they intend to improve things until they’ve clearly and comprehensively revealed exactly how they’re going to do it. Use short phrases such as irresponsible politics, purposely misinforming the public, killing Social Security and Medicare, which is the most fiscally sound health care plan that we have to date.
3. My final suggestion would be to try and change the tone in politics a little by reminding the public that the recent shootings in Arizona were likely the result of the current poisonous atmosphere in politics. Find examples of how such acts were implied by FOX, Rush Limbaugh, and members of the Tea Party without directly placing blame on elected Republican officials. It is however in my view safe to mention that neither did these same elected Republican officials distance themselves from the corrosive rhetoric.
There are of course many more things that can be done to block the current Republican agenda, but if we add too many ideas to the debate the pubic won’t be able to recall them. The great Republican fear is that overtime the vast majority of American’s will begin to accept, appreciate, and even support the Health Care Plan. All that the Democrats really need to do now to seriously ‘tip the scales’ in their direction is bring the Progressives’ on-board who want it gone because they feel that the bill didn’t far enough by not including a single payer option. After all one can only climb to the top of a staircase one step at a time.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 17, 2011HLG,
I can agree with your suggestions (1) and (2) for sure. The trend is, as more people focus on the details, toward greater comfort with the new law and Democrats have been pretty good about making that point, as far as I can see. Some Dems have suggested some changes are possible, like the 1099 nonsense, which makes them sound reasonable.
And forcing Republicans to say exactly how they plan to insure the uninsured and bend the cost curve of health care spending is exactly the right politics.
Your (3) I have problems with, however. The evidence is still coming in as to the motivation (s) of the assassin and it is premature for the left or right to come to definite conclusions. And if the Democrats tried to make the case that the Tucson massacre was related to politics on the Right, it would likely come off sounding self-serving and overly political, which would turn off voters. I’m of the opinion of allowing people to draw their own conclusions on this matter, unless more evidence emerges that has a direct connection to the right-wing.
But I do agree with your “keep it simple” approach. Most people only pay passing attention to politics and will tune out any comprehensive explanation of what is happening.
Duane
LikeLike
hlgaskins
/ January 17, 2011Duane
I realize that my third suggestion is difficult to layout as fact which is why I used words such as likely and implied while stating that no direct blame can be placed on Republican officials. There is plenty of suggestive rhetoric on the right that could have easily whether intentionally sent such as message to a potentially unstable individual.
For instance Sarah Palin’s electoral map used cross hairs or an image that is seen through the scope of a rifle over the names of Democratic targets including Gabrielle Gifford. And Before the midterm elections, Giffords said on MSNBC, “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is, the way she has it depicted it has the cross-hairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/pic-rush-limbaughs-bullet-hole-71536
In 2009 Rush Limbaugh was heard stating “that the man who murdered a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, yesterday in Washington, DC, is “a leftist”. Limbaugh vehemently professed the belief that James Von Brunn held views he had acquired as a result of exposure to propaganda “of the left” and people like those “around Obama”. “
Or this:
“host David Gregory played a brief clip of Limbaugh’s monologue — a sentence in which Limbaugh said, “There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy” — and then asked guest David Brooks to comment. “I hadn’t seen the Rush Limbaugh thing,” Brooks said. “That is insane. What he’s saying is insane.”
Or this:
“If something terrible happens at any of these townhall meetings” and more in this video with Hannity on YouTube.
Or this regarding the shootings in Alabama.
Here O’Reilly is the voice of reason but I’m not pointing in his direction since he’s always been careful about crossing to far over the line but Beck on the other hand…….
BECK: “They’re Shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people not turn into that guy.?”
BECK: And every time they do speak out, they’re shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?
O’REILLY: Well, look, nobody, even if they’re frustrated, is going to hurt another human being unless they’re mentally ill. I think.
BECK: I think pushed to the wall, you don’t think people get pushed to the wall?
O’REILLY: Nah, I don’t believe in this snap thing. I think that that kind of violence is inside you and it’s a personality disorder.
There are countless other examples but there wouldn’t be enough space in this blog to begin posting them.
Does any of this definitively suggest that anyone on the right is advocating violence? That depends on who’s listening, but if you review my statement in my previous post you will note that I only mentioned Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and FOX news. I did however qualify my statement with “examples of how such acts were implied by FOX, Rush Limbaugh, and members of the Tea Party without directly placing blame on elected Republican officials” or even them.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 19, 2011HLG,
I appreciate your distinction between direct and indirect blame.
For almost two years, I have been chronicling the nonsense, some of it inflammatory, coming from the Right. I like your examples, but I have to take issue with this:
O’Reilly is one of the biggest offenders of what you are generally suggesting, in my opinion. His conduct regarding George Tiller and his use of “babykiller” language (repeatedly) is as close to culpability for what happened to Tiller as I think it’s possible for a television commentator to get, without a direct call for someone to commit murder.
That having been said, I just want all of us to be careful about assigning direct blame to writers and broadcasters for the actions of others. There is, I believe, a troubling problem on the Right with its cultural stance toward Obama in particular and liberals in general. That stance manifests itself in often fiery and demeaning words and in stupid conspiracies. While one commentator or politician may not inspire any one individual to take their rhetoric seriously enough to commit a crime (although that has happened over the last few years in Pennsylvania and California), it is possible to conceive of a phalanx of such right-wing commentators and politicians contributing to a culture that can nurture such criminals, which can lead to an Oklahoma City-like ordeal.
As you suggest, these folks may not intend to nurture these criminals, but the cumulative effect of their words provides indirect aid and comfort to them. By the way, I’m talking about things like “Second Amendment remedies,” and other suggestions that violence is an alternative to civilized disagreement.
Duane
LikeLike
Jane Reaction
/ January 17, 2011Damn facts!
Jane hates to be the bearer of truth about the ACA, but almost all of the provisions don’t kick in for another four years.
From what I can tell, the provision to keep students on existing family policies until age 26 is the only one in effect other than the one that says insurers must spend no less than 80% of premiums on actual healthcare instead of salaries and bonuses. How’s that for radical leftwing ideas?
Coverage of pre-existing conditions and the coverage of some 32 million families without any health insurance at all, don’t start until 2014. And the eventual closing of the ‘donut-hole’? 2020!!
It is more political grandstanding by the GOP, who in this case are driven by the biggest foes of decent care for all Americans- the hospitals.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 17, 2011Jane,
Thanks for making that point. To save others trouble, here is Wikipedia’s list of those provisions that are already in effect at this time:
Effective at enactment
Effective June 21, 2010
Effective July 1, 2010
Effective September 23, 2010
Effective by January 1, 2011
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 18, 2011Two simple points.
HLG, you suggest “the recent shootings in Arizona were likely the result of the current poisonous atmosphere in politics”
I thought we were debating ACA? And the left certainly tried very hard in the first few days after the Arizona tragedy to do exactly what you suggest. And it has blown up in their face. Keep beating that drum and 2012 will be a shoe-in for even someone like Palin, God Forbid.
Second, Duane, my eyes glazed over with your above list. I simply ask, what is your point?
If it is to suggest that ACA as is should be “left standing” as is, with no attempts to change it, well keep on promoting that a refer to the above comment to HGL.
Americans don’t want outright repeal, even I don’t think that is a good idea. But change NOW the many “messes” embedded in ACA, absolutely.
I would much prefer what exactly those changes should be rather than arguing the pro or cons of repeal. It had devolved last night on Greta to one Rep calling ACA a “malignant tumor” and a response from a Dem that “Americans will die” if repeal takes place.
Com’on.
And we will soon hear the same crap over debt limit. If it is raised we will collectively fall over a cliff immediately and if not raised much higher Americans will die.
As far as ACA goes how about this. You write a blog about the changes you see needed NOW in ACA and I will critique just those changes. I do the same thing and you critique me.
Now you get to go first.
Anson
PS: Jane, you amaze me. You actually put together four paragraphs instead of a couple of sentences of pure drivel, vitrolic drivel in fact. But then you said “..the biggest foes of decent care for all Americans- the hospitals.”
OMG. I thought hospital were simply trying to stay in business to provide care for Americans. Guess I’m wrong about that as well!!!
Das Boot
LikeLike
hlgaskins
/ January 18, 2011“HLG, you suggest “the recent shootings in Arizona were likely the result of the current poisonous atmosphere in politics”
I thought we were debating ACA?”
Read my first post and you’ll note that I was responding to the original debate. To me it was patently clear that Democrats retain enough seats to prevent the blind repeal of something simply because it was legislated by a different party. To that end I was suggesting how that might happen.
“Americans don’t want outright repeal, even I don’t think that is a good idea. But change NOW the many “messes” embedded in ACA, absolutely.”
I actually downloaded the entire plan and went through it all before reading comments made by others. We could spend a week sifting through its pages and debating the merits of each point, and we still wouldn’t have a full understanding of what will or will not work until those points are put to the test. I do however think that any initial plan can be improved but first we have to try it and then make corrections as the need arises.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 18, 2011HLG,
You wrote, “first we have to try it and then make corrections as the need arises.”
That is exactly right and it is exactly what Democrats have argued all along. No piece of large legislation is perfect, especially one as complicated as this one.
Good point.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 19, 2011Well great,
It seems that we agree that changes must be made.
Now we can stick to when and how?
And HGL you are absolutely correct in that reading the current 2800 pages is an effort in futility if taken as a whole. Greta, a lawyer said she HAS read the whole thing and has no idea how ANYONE can make enough sense out of it to write implementing regulations!!
You should have seen her Dem guest (the one saying Americans will die if the bill is repealed) stutter over that point. And Greta was not being “mean” or “in his face”.
NO ONE with any sense can make any SENSE out of the 2800 page monster. And I don’t think anyone should be blamed for such inability. It was the people that APPROVED such a monster that bare that blame.
But I won’t even go back “there” to trumpet that blame. Nov 2010 did that.
Now let’s FIX the monster, quickly.
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 19, 2011Anson,
I find it amazing that people on your side claim that the ACA will kill jobs and turn us into a socialist cauldron, yet you all say the bill is unintelligible. Hmmm. How does that work?
Logic is a scarce commodity on your side, isn’t it?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 19, 2011I will also add that now that the bill has been passed (ACA as it now stands) we CANNOT even now figure out what is in it as Sweet Nancy said we would.
Anson
LikeLike