This one is painful.

From ABC News, the conservative light has dimmed a bit with the death of Robert Novak.

Today’s Daily Kos poll was clearly intended to “prove” that Republican misinformation, rather than opposition to the House bill’s particulars, is what’s behind Obama’s health care failure. The particulars of the poll are biased (how about this question: “Is it fair for the government to ‘compete’ with the private sector even though it has unlimited funds?”), but that’s beside the point.

Plans to reform political third rails indeed often fail out of public ignorance of the specifics of a plan, rather than actual opposition to its measures. It’s one thing to talk about taxes, gay marriage, or immigration, but Social Security and health care are so intimately a part of every American’s life plans that you’d better have a good game plan going in.

In the summer of 2005, George W. Bush did not have a game plan.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll from June 2005, ninety-two percent of the American population thought that Social Security was in trouble — in other words, that it needed reform of some sort.

In the same poll, only a quarter of the population was confident in George W. Bush’s ability to handle the issue.

Forty-five percent of the population, in the same poll, approved of the Bush plan — voluntary investments — when it was described to them in a particular format, and another five percent weren’t sure. Not exactly eight percent, or even twenty-five.

The public’s cognitive dissonance was also on display in the very same poll by both supporting and opposing tax increases on Social Security rates depending upon how it was described to them.

And so, this is how political plans falter: an inability to fight back against people distorting the bill, political ineptitude while selling the plan, and a lack of resolve to put your all into fighting for it.

It’s nothing new, Kos kids. Welcome to politics. Bush failed to sell his eminently reasonable Social Security plan — one that the public may have otherwise gotten behind. And now Obama has failed to sell his eminently unreasonable health care plan — also one that the public may have otherwise gotten behind.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Survey on Health Care Plan

Do you think the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress creates “death panels” which have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a gravely ill or injured person should receive health care based on their “level of productivity in society”?

• Yes 11%
• No 72%
• Not sure 17%

Among Independents

• Yes 8%
• No 76%
• Not sure 16%

Among Republicans

• Yes 26%
• No 43%
• Not sure 31%

Does the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress require elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss “end of life” options including euthanasia?

• Yes 19%
• No 58%
• Not sure 23%

Among Independents

• Yes 17%
• No 61%
• Not sure 22%

Among Republicans

• Yes 37%
• No 31%
• Not sure 32%

Which of the following do you consider to be the most accurate reflection of the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress?

• The government will provide a non-profit health insurance option to compete with private firms 47%
• A government take over the entire health care system 26%
• Not sure 27%

Among Independents

• The government will provide a non-profit health insurance option to compete with private firms 44%
• A government take over the entire health care system 21%
• Not sure 35%

Among Republicans

• The government will provide a non-profit health insurance option to compete with private firms 17%
• A government take over the entire health care system 60%
• Not sure 23%

Is Medicare a government program or not?

• Yes 83%
• No 9%
• Not sure 8%

Survey of 2,400 adults was conducted August 10-13. The margin of error is +/- 2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 31% (D); 25% (I); 22% (R); 5% Other; 17% Non-voters.

H/T: Tommy Boy

Marist 2012 Political Survey

If the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

• Mitt Romney 21%
• Sarah Palin 20%
• Mike Huckabee 19%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
• Bobby Jindal 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Unsure 24%

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 29%
• Sarah Palin 18%
• Mike Huckabee 16%
• Newt Gingrich 12%
• Bobby Jindal 6%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Unsure 18%

Among Women

• Mike Huckabee 22%
• Sarah Palin 21%
• Mitt Romney 14%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Bobby Jindal 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Unsure 30%

Among College Graduates

• Mitt Romney 28%
• Sarah Palin 16%
• Mike Huckabee 13%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Bobby Jindal 6%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Unsure 23%

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

• Barack Obama 56%
• Sarah Palin 33%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 49%
• Sarah Palin 34%

Among College Graduates

• Barack Obama 62%
• Sarah Palin 30%

Among Those Age 18-29

• Barack Obama 69%
• Sarah Palin 27%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 37%
• Unfavorable 43%

Among Independents

• Favorable 36%
• Unfavorable 37%

Among College Graduates

• Favorable 33%
• Unfavorable 56%

Among Those Age 18-29

• Favorable 31%
• Unfavorable 52%

Among Men

• Favorable 43%
• Unfavorable 40%

Among Women

• Favorable 31%
• Unfavorable 46%

Do you think Sarah Palin’s decision to resign as governor of Alaska before her term was up will help or hurt her running for president in 2012?

• Will help 15%
• Will hurt 61%

Among Republicans

• Will help 20%
• Will hurt 51%

Among Independents

• Will help 17%
• Will hurt 61%

Among Those Age 18-29%

• Will help 5%
• Will hurt 81%

Among Men

• Will help 18%
• Will hurt 59%

Among Women

• Will help 13%
• Will hurt 62%

Survey of 854 registered voters was conducted August 3-6. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. For the survey of 310 Republican and GOP-leaning independents, the margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart has asked Charlie Crist to remove his name from consideration for Mel Martinez’s Senate Seat:

“I have informed Governor Charlie Crist this evening that I will not be submitting the Questionnaire for appointment to the Senate he kindly asked me to consider submitting. It was a great honor to be considered by Governor Crist for appointment to the United States Senate. I thank him for his kind gesture of confidence. After giving the Governor’s request serious consideration and deliberation, I have decided to remain in the U.S. House of Representatives fighting for the causes which I deeply believe in,” the statement reads.

There goes Crist’s ideal (as some would argue) scenario – Diaz-Balart taking the Senate seat and enticing Marco Rubio to run for his Congressional seat.

In other news, the Republican Study Committee has created a new video that contrasts President Obama’s touting of his stimulus plan with actual economic results:

I like it, but I wish they would have mentioned the alternate stimulus plan offered by the GOP way back in February – the one Obama’s own economic team stated would create twice as many jobs for half the cost – to push back against the “Party of No” label and fight the media-abetted meme that Republicans fail to offer alternative solutions.

Mitt’s PAC numbers for the month of July are in. They mark a sharp drop in donations from the previous month.

Itemized/UnItemized/Total
June:$190K/$99K/$239K
July: $59K/$66K/$125K

In other words, Free and Strong America PAC in July only took in 52% of what they brought in the previous month.

Terrible, right? Well no, not really. Here is a chart showing the monthly totals for the last year:

As can readily be seen, contributions vary widely from month to month. What makes it seem even worse for FnSA_PAC is the fact that they have elected to report monthly.  Most other PACs report either quarterly or semi-annually.  Fewer filings tend to filter out these fluctuations.  So while July’s $125K total is the lowest of any month in 2009, it is still more than ten times the truly anemic $12K total received during the month of December last year.

Another number that seems to be of interest to a large number of people is the trend for the unitemized ($200 and under) donations.  These seem to be hanging steady between $50K and $100K.  The only exception was the truly pathetic $3K figure for Dec ’08, which seems to be an outlier all around .

For comparison purposes only, here are the monthly averages of the first half of 2009 for HuckPAC and SarahPAC, taking in account that SarahPAC was only in existence for five months (her mid-year total was divided by five):

Itemized/UnItemized/Total
HuckPAC:$14K/$36K/$50K
SarahPAC: $63K/$84K/$147K

Next month’s report will show if Mitt’s trend continues downward, levels off, or rebounds.  My prediction is that Mitt’s big contibuters (maximum $5000 allowed) are finished for the year, and his trend for the year will now level off to between $125K and $150K a month.

Anybody else care to guess?  Here’s your chance to put your credibility where your mouth is.  I suggest you be as intellectually honest as possible.  You don’t want to be laughed at a month from now, do you?

I have not heard a convincing argument, in terms of defending the earmarking culture as a good thing.  Anonymous staffers for various Republican congressmen will occasionally comment on sites like this and attempt to defend earmarking, but the very fact that it’s done in an anonymous manner says enough; few Republicans will courageously defend the practice.

When I think of the main arguments with regard to the earmark culture — does it improve the nation, is it constitutional, does it actually benefit the GOP electorally, and does it too often lead to corruption — ALL of these questions, in my opinion, point to the immediate need to end the practice.  If I am wrong on one or two points, then I still believe that there is more to say against the earmarking practice than for it.

Last week, the Club for Growth released its annual “RePORK card.” What I take away from it is that the average Republican congressman is quite comfortable in the minority, and there’s not a large amount of concern with what the majority of Republican and unaffiliated voters are saying.

There were 68 amendments, and then percentages from 0-100% were given to every congressman.  Even Ron Paul only earned an 81%.  How did your state’s Republican congressional delegation do?

Here in Kansas, there’s a Republican primary to replace Senator Sam Brownback.  My vote, as of today, is a toss-up.

In poll after poll, Congressman Jerry Moran is beating Congressman Todd Tiahrt by about 4 points.  For various reasons, even though both congressman are socially conservative, Moran has locked up the 40% of GOP primary voters who are self-described moderate and liberal, and I doubt that this center-left constituency will change much in their preferences.  Literally the only way that Tiahrt is going to win the primary is to win a strong majority of self-described conservative Republicans, and he’s not (link to last week’s SurveyUSA poll).

Oh, I almost forgot: Moran has an extra $1 million or so in campaign funds.  Tiahrt isn’t winning the cash-on-hand battle.

Conservative voters take Club for Growth seriously, and one would think that Moran — and, especially, Tiahrt, given his need to over-perform among conservatives — would take these 68 amendments seriously.

The results among Kansas’ four congressmen:

• 2nd District, Republican Lynn Jenkins:  100% rating.  She is the least endangered incumbent.
• 1st District, Republican Jerry Moran:  96%.
• 4rd District, Republican Todd Tiahrt:  29%.
• 3rd District, Democrat Dennis Moore: 0%.  Moore’s is the most likely to switch parties in 2010 (though still unlikely).

Jenkins, the safest Republican, scores the best, and Tiahrt, the Republican facing the biggest electoral challenge in 2010, is content with a failing grade.  There’s no excuse for any of this.

One must ask ask whether Tiahrt — and half his GOP colleagues — more greatly fear John Boehner and DC lobbyists than the voters of their home states.  And with some of them, one wonders what the real goal for 2010 is:  to win as many seats as possible, or to be the next Billy Tauzin and secure a lobbying job.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former board member at Johnson County Community College.  You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

Can’t say I disagree with Huckabee.

“Partitioned Jerusalem: like joint US-Canada control of Detroit?” 

Read the entire report from the CSM.

In the first major Republican challenge to President Obama’s Israel policy, former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee visited a number of controversial Jewish housing projects in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem on Monday.

The former governor of Arkansas – a Southern Baptist minister who was one of the main contenders for the Republican Party’s 2008 nomination for president – took issue with Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze the expansion of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Standing next to a new Israeli housing compound wedged into the Arab neighborhood of Abu Dis and abutting the looming cement security barrier, he compared placing restrictions on where Jews can live to the racial segregation of his childhood in the American South, saying, “I can’t understand it at all.”

Mr. Huckabee, who may well have designs on another presidential run, is in Israel as the guest of The Jerusalem Reclamation Project, run by the settler group Ateret Cohenim. Under the project, the group buys real estate – both land and existing buildings – in Arab areas of Jerusalem where Palestinians hope to make the capital of their future state. A tax-exempt organization that receives most of its revenue from US donors, the group also regularly moves Jews into Arab neighborhoods, which would complicate any effort to partition Jerusalem as part of a peace plan.

The Obama administration recently spoke out against Israel allowing the group to pursue plans to turn an old building known as the Shepherd Hotel, in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, into a 20-unit apartment complex for Israelis. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been at odds with Obama’s position, insisting that he would not accept limits on Israel building anywhere in the city it considers its “eternal and undivided” capital.

Irving Moskowitz, the Jewish-American millionaire who bought the hotel and gave it to the settler group, donated $2,300 – the maximum contribution limit at the time – to Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign, as did Moskowitz’ wife, Cherna, according to the campaign-finance tracking website opensecrets.org. The couple gave a total of $50,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2007.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Chris Cillizza has highlighted some fascinating (and promising, for Republicans) polling regarding the President’s effect on Creigh Deeds’s campaign:

Two-thirds of Virginia voters said that President Obama’s support of Virginia state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) either makes no difference or makes them less likely to back the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, according to a new Washington Post survey.

Thirty four percent of voters said that Obama’s endorsement made them less likely to vote for Deeds, the same number that said the backing of the president made them more likely to back the Democratic state Senator. Three in ten voters said Obama’s support made no difference in their vote.

Inside the numbers, Obama’s backing was a major plus for self-identified Democrats (71 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Deeds) and a major minus for Republicans (59 percent less likely to back an Obama-supported Deeds).

Most interestingly, however, was that just 23 percent of Independents said the support of Obama increased their likelihood of voting for Deeds while 37 percent said it made them less likely to support the Democratic nominee. Nearly four in ten (38 percent) said Obama’s endorsement made no difference in their vote.

As we have written in this space many times, independents formed the backbone of not only Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 — particularly in previously Republican leaning states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — but also of Democratic gains in the House and Senate last November and in 2006.

These numbers suggest that Obama’s hold on independents has faded since last November in Virginia — the inevitable result when campaign promises and governing reality clash.

They also seem to argue in favor of the idea that Virginians — and perhaps Americans more broadly — favor divided government with independent voters swaying in between the Republican and Democratic parties depending on who holds control in Washington.

In other news, the Boston Globe reports that Deval Patrick has reached a new low (even for him) in approval ratings:

The latest quarterly poll from MassInsight, a nonprofit research institute, spells more bad political news for Governor Deval L. Patrick: His job-approval numbers have plunged to levels not seen in decades for a Massachusetts governor.

In a survey of 445 residents, taken last month and released this week, only 19 percent of respondents gave him a positive job rating, while 77 percent rated it fair or poor. One percent said he was doing an excellent job. Those numbers are significantly worse than last month’s Globe poll, which also found him to be struggling politically.

However, the news comes with a caveat:

The good news for Patrick is the poll shows that he runs even with GOP candidate Charles D. Baker and state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, the former Democrat now plotting a potential independent candidacy, in a three-way general election race. Baker gets 19 percent, Patrick 20 percent, and Cahill, 20 percent.

If Cahill doesn’t run — although his associates say he is planning an announcement around Sept 10 — Baker and Patrick run almost even in a two-way race, the Republican getting 35 percent and the governor getting 32 percent. If Christy Mihos were the GOP nominee, the poll indicates, he would get 16 percent, and Patrick and Cahill would get 24 percent each.

I don’t know how on earth (other than the liberal disposition of the Massachusetts electorate) Patrick can fare so well in general election polls, when he generates such miserable approval ratings.

USA Today/Gallup Survey on the Stimulus

Are you worried, or not worried, that money from the economic stimulus plan is being wasted? If you are worried, are you very worried, or only somewhat worried?

• Very worried 46%
• Somewhat worried 32%
• Not worried 20%

Do you think the economic stimulus plan has made the economy better, has had no effect or made it worse?

• Better 41%
• No effect 33%
• Worse 24%

Over the long term, do you think the stimulus will make the economy better, have no effect or make it worse?

• Better 38%
• No effect 22%
• Worse 38%

In the short term, do you think the economic stimulus plan has made your financial situation better, not had an effect, or made your financial situation worse?

• Better 18%
• No effect 68%
• Worse 13%

In the long term, do you think the economic stimulus plan will make your financial situation better, not have an effect, or make your financial situation worse?

• Better 29%
• No effect 36%
• Worse 34%

One year from now, do you think the economy will be:

• No longer in a recession 30%
• Still in a recession 54%
• In an economic depression 14%

Survey of 1,010 adults was conducted August 6-9. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

PUNDITS and politicians who oppose universal healthcare for the nation have a new straw man to kick around – the Massachusetts reform plan that covers more than 97 percent of the state’s residents. In the myth that these critics have manufactured, this state’s plan is bleeding taxpayers dry, creating nothing less than a medical Big Dig.

The facts – according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation – are quite different.

Thus begins the Boston Globe in an excellent editorial in defense of MassCare.   They quote three prominent naysayers:

• Bill O’Reilly: “You don’t have to look any further than the universal healthcare mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.”
• New York Times columnist Ross Douthat: Obama’s health care plan, “looks a lot like the system currently hemorrhaging money in Massachusetts.”
• Tim Pawlenty:”[costs] have been dramatically higher than expected.”

To which The Globe replies:

Whether out of ignorance or convenience, all three bashers have it wrong. Unlike the Big Dig, health reform came in on time and under budget.

I would venture an observation here that if anybody could recognize an out-of-control costly governmental program, it would be the Boston Globe.  They lived through the Big Dig, remember?  They point out that:

• The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report this spring put the cost to the Massachusetts taxpayer at about $88 million a year — less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion.
• More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers’ plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans.  Hardly the Trojan Horse out to destroy private insurance that Obama’s “Public Option” is designed to be.
• In Massachusetts, cost estimates for the reform plan before its passage in 2006 were so low that Romney and the reform law’s Democratic supporters in the Legislature were able to get away without creating a new tax to fund it.

The editorial then takes a swipe at Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress (Yes, this IS the Boston Globe. I had to triple check, myself) by saying, “After the costly Wall Street bailout and the $787 billion stimulus package, that option is not open to President Obama and Congress.”

Finally, it concludes with:

There is one other statistic about the Massachusetts plan that politicians, in particular, should appreciate. According to Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kennedy School of Government, the law’s approval rating in June 2008 was 69 percent. That is a figure officeholders can only dream about.

When the Boston Globe — THE Boston Globe — is praising the efforts of Mitt Romney and taking digs at Obama and the Democrats in Congress, is it too soon to be posting this?:

Rasmussen Illinois Senate 2010 Survey

In thinking about the 2010 Election for the United States Senate, suppose you had a choice between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mark Kirk or Democrat Alexi Giannoulias?

• Mark Kirk 41%
• Alexi Giannoulias 38%
• Other 4%
• Not sure 17%

Okay, what if the Democrats nominate Cheryle Jackson. If the 2010 election for United States Senate were held today would you vote for Republican Mark Kirk or Democrat Cheryle Jackson?

• Mark Kirk 47%
• Cheryle Jackson 30%
• Other 6%
• Not sure 17%

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

• Strongly approve 37%
• Somewhat approve 19%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 34%
• Not sure 2%

How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

• Strongly approve 9%
• Somewhat approve 38%
• Somewhat disapprove 32%
• Strongly disapprove 17%
• Not sure 3%

Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure (Net)

• Mark Kirk 55%/28%/17% (+27%)
• Alexi Giannoulias 51%/33%/17% (+18%)
• Cheryle Jackson 36%/37%/26% (-1%)
• Pat Quinn 53%/43%/4% (+10%)

(more…)

Jay Cost over at RCP has a must read editorial concerning Obama and the Democrats’ overreach. Some highlights:

Bismarck once commented that politics is the art of the possible. So far, the White House has not exhibited a good understanding of exactly what is possible in this political climate. It has been acting as though the President’s election was a major change in the ideological orientation of the country.

A lot of liberals certainly saw it as such. All the strained comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt were a tipoff that many were talking themselves into the idea that the 2008 election created an opportunity for a substantial, leftward shift in policy. Yet the election of 2008 was not like the 1932 contest. It wasn’t like 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, or even 1988, either. Obama’s election was narrower than all of these. FDR won 42 of 48 states. Eisenhower won 39, then 41. Johnson won 44 of 50. Nixon won 49. Reagan won 44, then 49. George H.W. Bush won 40. Obama won 28, three fewer than George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 reelection.

This makes a crucial difference when it comes to implementing policy. Our system of government depends not only on how many votes you win, but how broadly distributed those votes are. This prevents one section or faction from railroading another. It is evident in the Electoral College and the House, but above all in the Senate, where 44 senators come from states that voted against Obama last year. That’s a consequence of the fact that Obama’s election – while historic in many respects, and the largest we have seen in 20 years – was still not as broad-based as many would like to believe. Bully for Obama and the Democrats that they have 60 Senators, but the fact remains that thirteen of them come from McCain states, indicating that the liberals don’t get the full run of the show.

Check the rest of it out. Good stuff.

Any guesses on who his partner should be?  Maybe R. Paul?

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Most parents assume that the week that teachers spend inside of schools before the students return is one of production: preparing lesson plans, working with fellow teachers and faculty members to focus on strategy, and other miscellany. They are assuming incorrectly.

If you are not outraged by the following report, then you are not a taxpayer.

My mother and uncle, both of whom work within the school system, told me, grimacingly, that the following activities were partaken in during the preparatory week at North Hagerstown High School.

1) Dozens of teachers and faculty members were brought into the school’s rather large gymnasium and organized into a circle. As an ‘icebreaking’ activity, they were told by the principal, who stood in the middle of the circle, that she would call out random activities and events that staff may have once partaken in. “Have you ever volunteered for something?” is a typical question. If so, the staff member — remember, staff members in their forties, fifties, and sixties — were to run into the middle of the circle, jump up and down five times, and high five their fellow faculty members.

2) The same dozens were brought into the auditorium and watched the film Surf’s Up! in its entirety, while writing down answers to questions about the character traits of the various surfing penguins in the film. Why surfing penguins? Well, because that’s what the film is about. It’s a children’s film. You may be wondering why middle-aged people would be spending ninety minutes on the taxpayer’s dime watching a film about surfing penguins. It’s a valid question. My mother explained the motivation of the principal: this year’s theme, you see, is “riding the wave to success,” and it’s a great film about “not giving up.” And thus, catastrophe was narrowly averted: those teachers who would have otherwise told children to give up were stopped in advance by the surfing penguins.

3) Games were played, including the throwing of rings onto various objects to score points. The points could be exchanged for something or other. The details are insignificant; the fact that this is going on is beyond preposterous. Others included breaking up into groups and separating into sub-groups by questions such as “Are you a non-conformist or a team player?”

Literally thousands of dollars were spent paying these people during these days. And to think that this is an isolated example would be naive.

You might now be wondering: what were the attitudes of the participants? Aren’t these people adults? What do they say?

According to my mother and uncle, who refused to participate in some of the activities and grudgingly made their way through others, they were generally shockingly complacent. It’s a stunning example of groupthink, in fact: almost invariably, the teachers jumped up and down and high-fived each other, watched the penguin film enthusiastically, and played the games without question.

It’s rather pathetic that I have to add this explanation, but: we have a right to know what our government is up to, and we have a right to hold them accountable. We have a right to know how our teachers are spending their time in the weeks leading up to the opening of school. We the taxpayers are responsible for their salaries. If they’re throwing rings around sticks, watching penguin movies, and jumping up and down giving each other high-fives during ice breakers, then that should be out in the open.

Do you really want to know why our education system is in turmoil? Because our nation’s teachers are too busy watching movies about surfing penguins.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.

Part One: The Consultation

You have a life-threatening illness, right? You are over 65 years old, right? I am a doctor and am being paid by the state to give you counseling about your end-of-life decisions. This consultation is entirely voluntary on your part, and is merely to provide you with information to help you decide now how you will want to be treated in advanced stages of your illness. The information concerns living wills, health care proxies, hospice, and pain medication.

Do I have your attention? Then let’s proceed.

1. ‘Living wills.’ You sign a document that declares which treatments you do or do not want applied to you if you have a terminal illness or lapse into a permanent vegetative state. Be assured that your living will would only be used when recovery is impossible. Who will decide that it’s impossible? A couple of (Government paid) doctors would have to certify that you are in this hopeless condition. Trust them.

2. ‘Health care proxy.’ This is for when you cannot speak for yourself – because you become demented, for instance – while your physical condition is not so dire that it would justify immediate action on your living will. You name a person who will make decisions for you about what care you should be given – within the parameters of what the Government would let you have, that is. You will of course name someone you really trust. Someone who loves you. Someone you know will only act as you would want him or her to act. Okay? Good. Just one thing to bear in mind – if the Government considers his or her decision to be not the right one, it can overrule him or her. So you see, you have a sort of upper guardian who will keep an eye out for misunderstandings or misjudgments. It’s a fail-safe arrangement, you might say. Your son or daughter decides as long as he or she chooses sensibly for you. If he or she doesn’t, no worry, the Government will make the right and final decision.

3. ‘Hospice.’ Hospices are comfy places to die. They are very nice death houses. No one will hurry you to shuffle off your mortal coil. (Only you won’t be let in if you’re likely to take an unreasonable stretch of time about what you’re in there for.) Medical staff will be very kind to you. You can sit on a cushion and sew a fine seam, and you may – if your digestion allows it – eat strawberries, sugar-substitute and cream. But remember, dear, you will be there to die.

4. ‘Pain medication.’ This is what you may have instead of an operation that could save your life. No, sorry, you cannot have the operation. It is expensive and the Government cannot pay for everyone with your illness to have this surgery. Just think: say we pay for it and then you go and die of complications soon afterwards. I mean, you’re old and your powers of recovery are not what they used to be. And even if you did recover, you wouldn’t be much use to Society, now would you? Be reasonable. Be selfless. Be patriotic. The Dear Leader made it perfectly clear that this would be Government policy. He said, ‘Take the pill instead of having the operation’. You remember now? Good. That’s clear then. And by the way, it’s true that there are some drugs that might help you to recover, but they’re also very expensive and as I said we have to think about who can best use their saved life for the good of Society – you who are old, or someone else who is young and vigorous. It stands to reason, doesn’t it, when you think about it? You are – if you don’t mind my putting it this way, just for clarity’s sake – a useless old bag, and somewhere there’s a young person with the same disease as you who can still be, let’s say, a brilliant community organizer if he gets the chance to live. So the drugs are for him, not you, dear. You understand? Fine. That’s settled then.

Oh, no dear! No one’s dictating to you what to do. It’s your choice, absolutely. You don’t have to make a living will, or appoint someone to act as your proxy, or go into a hospice, or take a pill to help your pain. No one’s forcing you. All we’re saying is that we’re not going to pay for you to have surgery or expensive drugs that might cure you. But all the rest is your choice, not ours, not anybody’s but yours. Doesn’t that make you feel that you’re in control dear?

You’re really having the best of all worlds, you know. You have all this choice as a free citizen of this free country. And at the same time you can feel safe, watched over, looked after to the last breath. What more could you ask?

Who are the people who will decide whether you’re too old for the surgery or the drugs? Well, there will be general guidelines, rules.

You say some individuals are stronger and more able to work at a late age than others, so will they have their cases examined individually? Yes. By whom, do you ask? By doctors – at least two doctors who will report to the authorities that you are an exception. Or not. And yes, the authorities will make the final decision.

Yes, the very young who have disabilities and have not yet had much money spent on them would also have to forego the expensive surgery and drugs, but their parents would have the same careful consideration given to their cases by the Government-paid experts as you will have.

You ask, would they not – these doctors, these authorities, these various experts and officials – constitute a panel deciding whether you may or may not have certain life-saving treatments? Yes, in effect. You could put it that way.

Sarah Palin did? Oh, you mustn’t believe Sarah Palin. She went much too far. She actually called it a ‘DEATH PANEL’. That’s entirely wrong. That’s just hysterical. Nutty. Way out. Totally inaccurate and misleading. A wicked distortion. A dangerous lie.

Calm down, please. I’m not prepared to carry on with this argument. It’s got out of hand. You’re crazy. She’s crazy. How can you think that Barack Obama, of all people, would want to set up a ‘death panel’? Perhaps you‘re suffering from incipient dementia, dear. Would you like to have a little chat with another Government-paid doctor about preparing for when it gets worse?

Part Two: A News Item

This week, reacting to the clamor from many angry and confused people, the Senate Finance Committee dropped the idea of including ‘advance care planning consultations’ in its health care bill.

Part Three: A Democrat Meditates

Why did so many react so unreasonably to a provision that was merely designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions? The consultations would have been entirely voluntary and would simply provide information about living wills, health care proxies, hospice, and pain medication. It’s mystifying how such a simple service could be so misinterpreted!

Part Four: The Denial

The Obama administration has been forced to react to a ridiculous rumor launched by Sarah Palin.

It has put this up on its website (excuse the clumsy wording but the clarification had to be posted in a hurry):

It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Part Five: The Climb-down?

Associated Press report August 16, 2009

Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama’s administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of Government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Part Six: Chorus of Old People and Children

Two words have saved us – ‘DEATH PANEL’.
We need no longer fear.
The Government will not insure our care.
It cannot say ‘care granted’ or ‘denied’.
Who’ll live or die it won’t decide.
Thank you, Sarah Palin!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

Charlie Crist is in a pickle. With U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) opting to resign early rather than finish out his term, Governor Crist now has the awkward duty of appointing a new Senator to a seat for which he is himself a candidate in 2010.

More so than any other Senate appointment in recent history, Crist’s choice will be placed under the microscope during the 2010 campaign. It could be a golden opportunity for the Governor, but a bad choice could be easily exploited by Crist’s more conservative primary opponent, Marco Rubio.  Specifically, we can expect the Rubio camp to pounce on the choice of either a hard-core centrist or a Crist loyalist (and to be honest those groups tend to parallel each other).  On the other hand, the right choice could do Crist a lot of good.

Among the names being thrown around are Former Gov. Bob Martinez (no relation to Mel), former State House Speaker Allan Bense, and former Crist campaign manager George LeMeiux. Crist himself has named three people who are on his shortlist: U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, former U.S. Attorney Roberto Matinez (no relation to either Mel or Bob), and former Secretary of State Jim Smith. I will admit to not knowing much about most of these people, most of which seem to be safe choices, but I do think that there is one unlikely standout who would be far and away the best choice: State Representative Anitere Flores.

Flores, a 32 year-old Cuban-American conservative, expressed her interest in the job to Crist last Wednesday - and while I was shocked to hear that a young rising star would be interested in serving one year as a caretaker Senator, the idea of putting her in the Senate struck me as a fantastic idea and the strongest move that Crist could make.

Think about this, by appointing the young spitfire, Crist sends somebody to Washington who will provide a strong, dynamic voice for Florida in Martinez’s absence. He also puts someong in the seat who is clearly not a “caretaker”, but rather launching the career of a woman who would likely remain a strong player in Florida – and potentially come back to unseat Democratic Senator Bill Nelson in 2012. And, of course, there’s the chance to appoint the first Latina ever to serve in the Senate and take a bite out of Rubio’s Cuban-American base in South Florida.

Essentially, this is like the Palin gambit for McCain. Bold-choices pose a few risks, but they offer greater rewards, and Anitere Flores seems to have a great upside. Even I, as an admitted Rubio supporter, would applaud Crist for putting someone of her caliber in the Senate, as he will be making a move that will help the GOP down the road by giving us a young, credible, Latina conservative leader. We know that the Governor is already considering making an unexpected move by asking Lincoln Diaz-Balart to apply - as he is relatively young, Hispanic, and conservative. Diaz-Balart also happens to be Marco Rubio’s congressman and would offer Rubio a chance to run a more winnable race for U.S. House were  his seat to open up. However, I doubt that  Diaz-Balart would accept, given that he already has a long and promising congressional career ahead of him and could likely win a more permanent statewide seat if he wanted.  It would be profoundly stupid for him to give up his seat for just one year in the U.S. Senate.

Anitere Flores, however, has everything to gain from the increased exposure and offers just as many positives as Diaz-Balart (probably more). Furthermore, she showed a lot of chutzpah by putting her name forward, and I would expect that sort of courage to make her a vocal and dynmaic Senator, not a backbencher to warm the seat until Crist arrives. She may not have been on the Governor’s original shortlist, but if she’s interested, I think she should shoot to the top tier of contenders. The woman simply has no downside and sending her to the U.S. Senate would be great for Florida, great for the national GOP, great for Charlie Crist, and great for a woman who could instantly become a national republican leader on Hispanic issues.

VIVA  ANITERE!

Drudge’s big red link gives us this article: “White House Appears Ready to Drop Public Option.”

President Barack Obama’s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal.

…

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the showdown.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Obama’s top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

“What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

This, of course, is the crux of the bill: what we’re so concerned about. The backdoor to single-payer.

If this is true, it’s an astounding victory for Republicans, even if we don’t block the bill entirely. To sap up Obama’s political capital without him even winning a government option is just astounding. What a horrific political play over the past months on Obama’s part.

Washington Post Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) If the election were being held today and the candidates were Creigh Deeds, the Democrat and Bob McDonnell, the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Bob McDonnell 47%
• Creigh Deeds 40%

Among Likely Voters

• Bob McDonnell 54%
• Creigh Deeds 39%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling the economy and jobs – Deeds or McDonnell?

• Bob McDonnell 40%
• Creigh Deeds 38%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling taxes – Deeds or McDonnell?

• Bob McDonnell 42%
• Creigh Deeds 35%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling gun control – Deeds or McDonnell?

• Bob McDonnell 38%
• Creigh Deeds 31%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling transportation issues – Deeds or McDonnell?

• Creigh Deeds 35%
• Bob McDonnell 34%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling the abortion issue – Deeds or McDonnell?

• Creigh Deeds 34%
• Bob McDonnell 34%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?

• Legal in all cases 17%
• Legal in most cases 38%
• Illegal in most cases 26%
• Illegal in all cases 15%

(IF REGISTERED VOTER) As you may know, President Obama has endorsed Creigh Deeds for governor. Does that make you more likely or less likely to support Deeds?

• More likely 34%
• Less likely 34%
• No difference 30%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Tim Kaine is handling his job as governor?

• Approve 56%
• Disapprove 36%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Mark Warner is handling his job as senator?

• Approve 67%
• Disapprove 23%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Jim Webb is handling his job as senator?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 29%

(more…)

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) Netroots Nation 2009 Straw Poll

Of the main contenders for the 2012 Republican nomination for President, please indicate who, in your opinion, would be the easiest to beat.

• Sarah Palin 36%
• Rick Santorum 20%
• Bobby Jindal 12%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Rudy Giuliani 5%
• Jeb Bush 4%
• Jon Kyl 3%
• Mike Huckabee 2%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Mitt Romney 1%

Please indicate if you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Strongly approve 51%
• Somewhat approve 44%
• Somewhat disapprove 3%
• Strongly disapprove 2%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Barack Obama 85% / 2% (+83%)
• Jon Stewart 82% / 2% (+80%)
• Stephen Colbert 76% / 2% (+74%)
• Joe Sestak 46% / 8% (+38%)
• Arlen Specter 15% / 44% (-29%)
• Sarah Palin 1% / 88% (-87%)
• Rush Limbaugh 0% / 88% (-88%)

Please read the pairs of statements below and for each indicate if the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

• I will support a health care reform bill even without a public option as long as it expands affordable coverage to all Americans and prevents insurance companies from denying coverage. 26%
• A public option is the only way to truly hold insurance companies accountable and bring down costs and I will not support a health care reform bill without it. 53%

• I support the House compromise on the energy bill because it’s an important first step to capping carbon emissions and averting a climate crisis. 46%
• I oppose the House compromise on the energy bill because it creates too many loopholes for fossil fuel interests and doesn’t do enough to address the climate crisis. 27%

• I’d support legislation that makes it easier for workers to organize, even without so-called “card check” provisions, because the other measures take important steps in protecting workers. 45%
• I can’t support legislation to make it easier for workers to organize without the so-called “card check” provisions that will ensure workers can organize without intimidation or harassment. 28%

• The best way to move a progressive agenda forward is for progressives to generally support Obama on his key initiatives, taking on his enemies and coordinating messages against Republicans and the corporate special interests standing in the way of reform. 41%
• The best way to move a progressive agenda forward is for progressives to criticize President Obama when necessary and take on the Democrats, as well as Republicans and the corporate special interests, when they also stand in the way of reform. 35%

(more…)

“The officers thanked him for his cooperation. ‘He couldn’t have been any nicer to them.’”

NPR’s Frank James (right):

Henry Louis Gates Jr. take note. Even Bob Dylan can get queried by cops like a man who’s up to no good.

One of the most famous musicians and songwriters of all time happened to be in Long Branch, N.J., a stop on a tour he’s doing with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp.

He was ambling down a residential street, like a rolling stone perhaps, just checking out the houses and trying to pass the time before the show, when someone dropped a dime on him, saying he looked shady.

A police officer arrived on the scene. A cop who didn’t know Bob Dylan from Dylan Thomas.

The AP:

Dylan was in Long Branch, about a two-hour drive south of New York City, on July 23 as part of a tour with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp that was to play at a baseball stadium in nearby Lakewood.

A 24-year-old police officer apparently was unaware of who Dylan is and asked him for identification, Long Branch business administrator Howard Woolley said Friday.

“I don’t think she was familiar with his entire body of work,” Woolley said.

The incident began at 5 p.m. when a resident said a man was wandering around a low-income, predominantly minority neighborhood several blocks from the oceanfront looking at houses.

The police officer drove up to Dylan, who was wearing a blue jacket, and asked him his name. According to Woolley, the following exchange ensued:

“What is your name, sir?” the officer asked.

“Bob Dylan,” Dylan said.

“OK, what are you doing here?” the officer asked.

“I’m on tour,” the singer replied.

…

The officers asked Dylan, 68, to accompany them back to the Ocean Place Resort and Spa, where the performers were staying. Once there, tour staff vouched for Dylan.

The officers thanked him for his cooperation.

“He couldn’t have been any nicer to them,” Woolley added.

NPR’s James:

First, you have to give Dylan credit. Here’s one of the wealthy gods of the music and entertainment world and before a show he’s walking through a low-income, minority neighborhood, apparently just checking it out. He could’ve done a tour from the back seat of a limo.

CNN left out the fact that this was a minority-majority neighborhood:

According to Long Branch Police Department Sgt. Michael Ahart, Dylan had been peering into a window of a house that was for sale, which prompted a neighbor to call the police on July 23.

One of two responding officers, Officer Kristie Buble, 24, approached Dylan and asked him for his name.

“She recognized the name, she just really didn’t believe it was Bob Dylan,” Ahart told CNN. “He was soaking wet because it was raining and he was wearing a hood.”

…

“Dylan was really cool about the whole incident,” Ahart said. He said he asked the singer why he had been walking in the rain and was told, “I just felt like going for a walk.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former board member at Johnson County Community College.  You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

So apparently Pres. Obama fancies himself the victim of the media’s wrath:

“I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially when tempers flare,” Obama said, at his own event with 1,300 people in an airport hangar.

“TV loves a ruckus,” said Obama and then joked: “you’ve got to be careful about those cable networks.“

Yep, because CNN and MSNBC really want to jeopardize Obama’s agenda by focusing on the health care protests.  Of course, Obama thinks that Fox News “unfairly” covers him.  I mean, come on, why would a media outlet even think about questioning the President and pointing out his failings?  The naysayers should just “get out of the way” and let him “clean up the mess”!

Final note: if you read on in the cited article, Obama incorporated a favorite tactic of his and villified insurance companies for “holding us hostage” by actually pricing policies according to risk (those heartless capitalists!).  Of course, in the President’s mind, profits are evil.

Quinnipiac New York Gubernatorial Survey

(IF REGISTERED DEMOCRAT) If the 2010 Democratic primary for Governor were being held today and the candidates were David Paterson and Andrew Cuomo, for whom would you vote?

• Andrew Cuomo 61% (57%)
• David Paterson 15% (20%)

If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were David Paterson the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Rudy Giuliani 53% (52%)
• David Paterson 33% (34%)

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 60% (57%)
• David Paterson 21% (25%)

If the 2010 election for governor were being held today and the candidates were Andrew Cuomo the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Andrew Cuomo 48% (51%)
• Rudy Giuliani 39% (39%)

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 43% (40%)
• Andrew Cuomo 43% (45%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 52% (63%) / 12% (15%) [+40%]
• Rudy Giuliani 53% (55%) / 33% (36%) [+20%]
• David Paterson 26% (28%) / 53% (54%) [-27%]

Among Independents

• Andrew Cuomo 45% (63%) / 14% (16%) [+31%]
• Rudy Giuliani 58% (56%) / 31% (34%) [+27%]
• David Paterson 21% (22%) / 59% (57%) [-38%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 30% (28%)
• Disapprove 59% (61%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Andrew Cuomo is handling his job as State Attorney General?

• Approve 74% (73%)
• Disapprove 10% (12%)

Looking ahead to the 2010 election for governor, do you feel that David Paterson deserves to be elected to a full 4-year term, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be elected to a full 4-year term?

• Yes/Deserves 20% (22%)
• No/Does not 67% (64%)

(IF REGISTERED DEMOCRAT) Some people say that a Democratic primary for governor would be divisive and help the Republicans in the general election for governor. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 38%
• Disagree 52%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Kirsten Gillibrand is handling her job as United States Senator?

• Approve 33% (37%)
• Disapprove 19% (15%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Charles Schumer is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 58% (63%)
• Disapprove 27% (23%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 60% (67%)
• Disapprove 35% (26%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 58%
• Disapprove 38%

Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped the economy, hurt the economy, or haven’t made a difference?

• Helped 47%
• Hurt 19%
• No difference 30%

Looking forward, do you think President Obama’s policies will help the economy, will hurt the economy, or won’t make a difference?

• Will help 55%
• Will hurt 29%
• No difference 12%

Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or haven’t made a difference?

• Helped 19%
• Hurt 18%
• No difference 63%

Among Independents

• Helped 12%
• Hurt 22%
• No difference 65%

Looking forward, do you think President Obama’s policies will help your personal financial situation, will hurt your personal financial situation, or won’t make a difference?

• Will help 37%
• Will hurt 32%
• No difference 28%

Among Independents

• Will help 27%
• Will hurt 41%
• No difference 27%

Among Men

• Will help 36%
• Will hurt 37%
• No difference 24%

Among Women

• Will help 38%
• Will hurt 26%
• No difference 31%

Among Whites

• Will help 28%
• Will hurt 39%
• No difference 29%

Among Blacks

• Will help 81%
• Will hurt 0%
• No difference 17%

Survey of 1,667 registered voters was conducted August 10-13. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. Of those voters, the poll questioned 708 registered Democrats and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points in the Democratic primary question. Results from the poll conducted June 16-21 are in parentheses.

Minnesota GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty took an aggressive line against President Barack Obama’s proposed health care overhaul Friday and insisted that a rejection of the Democratic plan could usher in a Republican resurgence.

“It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change, he is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican,” Pawlenty said during a speech to the second annual GOPAC conference in Chicago.

“He went around the country last fall promising ‘change we can believe in,’ but now we see it’s about changing what we believe in,” said Pawlenty, an anticipated 2012 Republican presidential contender. “We need to be calling out the flaws and misguided decisions of the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration.”

Pawlenty characterized Obama as an “extreme left liberal” proposing a health care plan “that we don’t recognize as supporters of the free market.”

“Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?” asked Pawlenty.

The Minnesota Republican threw a number of red-meat lines to the audience of GOP state legislators, including a slam directed at MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews.

“The only thing growing faster than the federal deficit and debt is Chris Matthews’ man crush on Obama,” Pawlenty joked.

Read the entire Politico article, here:

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

I was reading the New York Times today and I came across an interesting Op-Ed. Liberal columnist Bob Herbert wrote about Community Health Centers.

Even though he liberally quoted from Socialist Senator (really) Bernie Sanders in the article I think Community Health Centers are an idea worth exploring.

Basically Community Health Centers receive some funding through the government but they charge for services on a sliding scale based on income. These centers are headed up by boards that must include patients.

In 2001 Community Health Centers served about 10 million people at a cost of 1.16 billion dollars.

Bush supported Community Health Centers and began a push to expand them soon after taking office.

By 2006 these centers served 15 million people at a cost of only 1.99 billion.

Today these centers serve 20 million people. 40% of them are uninsured, 90% earn less than twice the poverty level, and 70% are minorities.

Thank you President Bush for providing health care to millions of the uninsured at little cost to the rest of us.

That’s staggeringly cheap for the government. What’s amazing is that these centers tend to provide decent quality without undermining private business.

Because they charge on a sliding income scale these centers largely (90%) appeal to patients who can’t afford doctors. Few people earning above twice the poverty level use these facilities because they’re charged the full price for treatment.

These centers efficiently do much of what Democrats say their insurance reforms will do.

These Centers get patients regular doctor’s visits and head off future problems. They reduce the cost of healthcare while leaving incentives for patients not to abuse them (sliding fee scale). These Centers offer quality care to the uninsured.

Perhaps instead of risky and expensive insurance reform schemes we ought to look into expanding Community Health Centers (even quadrupling them would be a pittance although they would then reach 70% of the uninsured with affordable healthcare).

Then we could focus on the catastrophic side where many people are overwhelmed by expensive medical conditions or serious accidents.

H/T: Silvio Canto, Jr.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

—-

Part 3 of one of the great conservative speeches on individualism.   

From socialist supplicant to conservative contributor.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Government option is a death panel

The elderly town hall mobs have forced the removal end of life counseling provisions from the sight unseen Senate bill said to be similar to those passed by a House committee before the August recess:

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.

Death panel problem solved? Not!

Counselling designed to persuade the ill to give up and voluntarily die in a hospice precedes a decision by the government option administrators to approve or disapprove life-saving or physical disability-correcting treatment.

If the patient agrees to eschew life enhancing procedures in favor of zoning out on morphine for the sake of deficit reduction, then the death panel takes a holiday.

But whether there exists a provision of the government option insurance policy requiring or authorizing end of life counselling by a doctor for fee reimbursement or gratis, in no way eliminates the existence of a death panel.

There is no government option absent a death panel.

Patients with private insurance must obtain approval for payment for life extending or enhancing treatment. If denied pre-approval, they can sue and/or pay for the treatment themselves. Insurance companies are loathe to deny coverage given their competition.

The government option replacement of private insurance would substitute a government panel of bureaucrats for insurance company underwriters, with the differences between them and private insurers being that the government would have no competitors and, under the House bill patients denied coverage would be prohibited to pay for such treatment out of their own pockets.

It is obvious to anyone with any understanding of economics that the public option or a co-op would drive private insurers out of business as employers opted for the cheaper government option vs. an 8% tax penalty coercion.

President Obama was accused of cognitive dissonance this past week with his attempted assurances that this would not happen since UPS and FedEx survive the Post Office. But what went uncommented upon was the fact that the private carriers are prohibited from making regular home delivery of letters unless they charge twice the fee charged by the Postal Service. Hence, all but pure idiots or those that must insure next day delivery use FedEx or UPS for regular letter mailings.

All insurance requires a “death panel”. Competition and the free market ensures more rational and compassionate decisions than impersonal government bureaucrats with a monopoly.

Government as the insurer inherently requires a decision maker concerning requests for reimbursement for requested treatment. The decider is a government panel with DISCRETION that answers to no one.

It is great that the end of life provisions were found out. What they revealed was an underlying evil of government power in so vital an area of life and death. It reveals the insidious incentive of a government desiring to “cut costs” to seek out the only area where costs can be cut, i.e. heroic efforts to save lives.

These end of life provisions were also made more vivid by President Obama’s cold Town Hall rejection of the suggestion by the daughter of a non-terminal 100 year-old mother that government panels consider her subjective will to live in a request for a pacemaker to extend her life. Obama said only objective considerations should save her from the preferred morphine zone out. This Obama statement was made weeks before unruly mobs of seniors dared raise their voices at congressional town halls.

Keith Ellison (D-MN) told his Town Hall voters that they needed to get over the “guilt trap” regarding saving their parents’ lives, much like those about to be raped should “lay back and enjoy it.”

Therefore, if we want to celebrate the threat from death panels, we will have to wait a bit longer. And while waiting, don’t be fooled that even the elimination of a government option, nor even the elimination of a co-op alternative removes the threat.

No!

A bill could establish no government insurer and still pass regulations applicable to private insurers that would essentially turn them into death panels as well.

It appears that while abortion was above Obama’s pay grade that he is paid quite enough to snuff out born alive infants that survive abortions; the severely disabled up to and including those named Shiavo; pacemakers for those over the age of 99; and even hip replacements for his oof life counsellingwn grandmother.

He said that he would gladly pay for his grandma’s hip but that he didn’t think taxpayers should have since she died soon thereafter. Obama forgot to mention that unlike him and members of Congress and Union members, it would be illegal for us mere citizens to pay for such treatment if the death panel says so.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Some musings from the past week:

• Commenter Illinoisguy brought up an excellent point this week when talking about the little things in the healthcare bill.  He’s absolutely right that we can’t focus just on this or that piece, we need to go after the concept of the gov’t becoming a player in healthcare.  Making it about this or that section of the bill, as opposed to the bill overall, will get a few items cut, but the bill passed.  As the effect on healthcare would be devastating, let’s kill the entire bill.
• This clip can go completely without comment…

…But it won’t.  I caught Rep Lee’s explanation for taking a call at the town hall from an interview with Greta.  She says she was getting information from a hotline established by the WH to answer healthcare questions.  If true, this isn’t really that bad.  That she didn’t tell the person asking the question “Look, I’m getting an answer to a prior question.  Please give me a moment so I can devote my attention to your question once I have that answer” makes me (a) doubt her answer, and (b) still makes her rude.  It’s also not the only time I’ve noticed her wander off in the middle of a question, as she did it to her plant at another town hall meeting.  From about 0:20 to 1:04, she’s at or near the podium, flipping through papers.  I REALLY hope she makes it to the general, because there are some GREAT commercials that could be run about her.  Thanks for finding that clip, Kristofer!

• There’s been a lot of talk about “death panels” recently.  I think it’s questionable that volutary end-of-life counselling qualifies, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be necessary under this bill.  As passing a national plan (insurance or single payer) will double or triple the stress on an already stressed healthcare system (when something becomes ”free” or “cheap,” people will use it more; it’s human nature) and not increase doctors (if doctors aren’t paid more and/or have an easier time becoming doctors, you won’t get more), you have to ration services, and you’ll have to have panels formed to figure out how to do it.  You will take a personal decision (“It’s time to take grandma off life support”) and make it a gov’t decision (“Uncle Sam says grandma’s life support costs too much, so pull the plug.”).  I’m not ok with that.

Anyway, end of my ramblings.