Monthly Archives: March 2010

Friday Open Thread

w00t for Friday! How are your NCAA picks doing? I’ll bet none of you picked Murray State. You should know that teams connected to me do well. Pick Murray State (my parents’ alma mater), Kentucky (my home state), Wisconsin (my alma mater) and you’ll do well. I’ve won exactly 0 of brackets I’ve picked in my life so I know what I’m talking about. Enough with the important stuff, let’s open thread.

The anti-incumbent national mood also affects Republicans. John McCain is in trouble in Arizona.

The latest Rasmussen poll has John McCain up over primary challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth by a mere 7 points. As a point of comparison, Rasmussen’s last poll of this race, from two months ago, had McCain holding a 22 point margin.

My, how the mighty have fallen.

Gen. John Sheehan is an asshole:

A retired U.S. general said Thursday that the Dutch policy of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in its military led, in part, to its failure to halt the massacre of Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1995.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, “nations like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Dutch, et cetera, firmly believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries,” John Sheehan, former supreme allied commander – Atlantic, told a Senate hearing on the don’t ask, don’t tell policy under which gays are not allowed to serve in the U.S. military openly.

“As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military,” he said. “That includes the unionization of their militaries. It includes open homosexuality demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.

“That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I’m referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them,” Sheehan said.

“That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.”

The office of the Dutch defense ministry responded, “It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense.”

I’m glad Sheehan is a retired general.

Teabaggers Fail Tax Quiz

Jot down your own answers before clicking the link.
1. How much does the federal government collect in taxes as a % of GDP?
2. How much does the typical family making $50,000 per year pay in federal taxes?
3. Are taxes higher, lower or the same since Barack Obama was inaugurated?
__________________________________________________________

Reality-based conservative Bruce Bartlett worked with former Bush speechwriter David Frum to put together a quiz on taxes that was given to teabaggers at a demonstation on March 16.

The first question that was asked concerned the size of government. Tea Partyers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

…

Tuesday’s Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

How did you do on this one? I was pretty close. I thought it was 18%, which was the number from 2007.

To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710, the median $10,000. In percentage terms this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

Of course, it’s hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

…

According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

Even though the Tea Partyers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it’s possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.

I really didn’t know the answer to this one. I thought under $10,000 but I didn’t realize that many paid a lot less than that.

Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

…

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

I got this one right. I also knew that 90% of taxpayers got a tax cut.

Bartlett has some explanation for the discrepancy. I think the simplest explanation is a combination of conservative misinformation, greed (wanting to pay no taxes) and ignorance (herd mentality).

How did you do on the quiz?

The Bill

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems got the CBO score on healthcare reform back and posted the bill online for 72 hours for review.  The Healthcare and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 is posted here [PDF].  Speaker Pelosi’s website has some good links to summaries, the CBO scoring and other info on the bill.  Take some time to peruse it, it has a pretty good shot at being the law of the land in the coming weeks.

Joe Biden, Comedian

Joe Biden spoke at the Radio and Television Correspondents dinner on Wednesday and got in some pretty good lines.

Here are my personal favorites, courtesy of Unofficial Roast Master and VP Joe Biden

On Liz Cheney: Liz Cheney is questioning whether Tom Brady is a real patriot! What the hell, it was worth a try.

On reporters: You guys know the truth. Sometimes.

On Fox News: There were never any snakes in Ireland. St. Patrick just made that up. Which for the first time is when I realized he is the patron saint of Fox news.

On life in Washington: I actually now have a house in Washington D.C. for the first time. I voted for public housing my whole career I never realized it was this good.

On Rahm: Senior White House Advisor means Rahm.

snip

By the way, Rahm was only pointing his finger.

On Dick Morris: When Dick Morris is quick to point our every time I put my foot in my mouth, well, Dick, at least it’s my foot.

On the Stimulus and Sen. Scott Brown: Republicans keep saying it (the stimulus) hasn’t created a single job. Well tell that to Senator Scott Brown.

By the way, speaking of Scott, it’s kinda ironic, the man who posed with his pants down caught us with our pants off. Funny how that works.

On Sarah Palin and GOP obstruction: In fairness, I think you are a little rough on the Republicans for constantly repeating the mantra The Health Care Bill is 200 and 22 pages long! Well put yourself in their spot. Just ask Sarah, that’s a hell of a lot to write on the palm of your hand!

On Dogs and Democrats: Sasha and Melia weren’t the only ones who to get a dog when they got to Washington. I got one too. His name is Champ. You can see, you can see that he is a Democratic dog, he’s biting the hand that feeds him.

Deep Gubernatorial Thought

Last night at a townhall meeting, Governor Markell offered the following thought when defending some of his more unpopular stands (slavery apology, NRA-written gun law):

You don’t elect someone for their proposals, you elect them for their judgment.

How do you feel about this statement?

Thursday’s Evening Read: TMZ Edition

A few weeks ago, the internet was a twitter with GQ’s interview with John Edwards’ girlfriend in Hello, America, My Name is Rielle Hunter.

New York Times’ columnist Gail Collins looks at Sex Scandals to Learn By.

If you thought Tiger Woods’ scandal was something, take a read about England’s John Terry, Last Taboo in English Football: Playing Footsie With Mate’s Mate.

R. I. P. Fess Parker

I’ll never forget that, for my first Halloween, I was dressed as Davy Crockett. That was thanks to Fess Parker’s unforgettable portrayal of the coonskin-capped hero.

Parker did not overstay his welcome in Hollywood, became involved in Republican politics as a close friend of Ronald Reagan’s, and became an excellent winemaker as well.

He passed away today at the age of 85. I cannot overstate his impact on an impressionable young kid like me. Rest in peace, Fess.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAVN_n0PljQ&feature=related[/youtube]

The Wellingtons- “The Ballad of Davy Crockett”

A Letter from Marjorie Margolies

There’s an interesting letter in today’s Washington Post. The letter is from Marjorie Margolies, and it’s addressed, “Dear Wavering House Democrats”. The missive is aimed at the handful of House Dems who may be sitting around, trying to decide whether or not they should vote to pass the health care reform bill. For some (although I honestly don’t understand why), this is a difficult decision — at least on career, if not policy, terms. And Margolies, in case you don’t remember, knows a thing or two about almost exactly this kind of situation.

See, back in 1993 she was a Democratic freshman (freshwoman? That doesn’t sound right. Freshperson?) Representative from a strongly Republican district in Pennsylvania, and she ended up being the deciding vote to help pass President Clinton’s tax-raising, deficit-reducing budget. She was immediately mocked by Republicans and told she would be defeated the next year. Well, she was. Today, her open letter explained that she would do the same thing all over again, and tried to convey to those wavering Democrats why they, too, should make the difficult vote — because it’s the right thing to do.

I feel your pain. Eighteen years ago, I was elected on the coattails of a popular young Democratic president who promised a post-partisan Washington. A year later, with partisan gridlock capturing the Capitol, there was a razor-thin vote on the House floor over legislation that Democrats said would remake the country and Republicans promised would bankrupt it.

I was pressed on all sides: by constituents opposed, my president needing a victory and Republicans promising my demise. I was in the country’s most Republican district represented by a Democrat. I had repeatedly said, “I will not be a ‘read my lips’ candidate,” when asked if I would promise not to raise taxes.

I voted my conscience, and it cost me.

I still remember how, after I voted, Bob Walker jumped up and down on the House floor, yelling “Bye-bye, Marjorie!” I thought, first, that he was probably right. Then, that I would expect better behavior from my kids, much less a member of Congress. And then, that he was a remarkable jumper.

I am your worst-case scenario. And I’d do it all again.

She goes on to make the point that at this point, Democrats are going to be attacked for this bill whether they voted for it or not. Doubly so, I think, if they change a Yes vote to a No. I really hope that a few listen to her plea to look at the bigger picture, and remember why they’re there — to do good for the country. And hey, it didn’t work out too bad for her. Her son Marc is engaged to Chelsea Clinton. I’m not saying anyone should start matching their sons up with Sasha or Malia, but hey, you never know.

Thursday Open Thread

I hope everyone’s not too hung over from last night’s St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. Today we go back to not celebrating Irish heritage. Are you ready for an open thread? Let’s thread.

Heckuva job CNN! CNN has hired Red State‘s Erick Erickson to be their newest contributor to their politics coverage. Erick Erickson has had great insights like the following:

He’s called a Supreme Court justice a “goat-fucking child molester.” Last month, he told “ugly” “feminazis” to “return to their kitchens.” He’s compared an administration official to a Nazi and called First Lady Michelle Obama a “Marxist harpy.”

I guess they miss that Lou Dobbs vibe. This is how CNN is selling their new hire:

In Tuesday’s announcement, CNN political director Sam Feist lauded Erickson as being a voice for small-town values.

“Erick’s a perfect fit for John King, USA, because not only is he an agenda-setter whose words are closely watched in Washington, but as a person who still lives in small-town America, Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach,” Feist said.

When the show was announced in November, CNN framed it as a sticking with straight news when the other, more opinionated broadcasts were pulling in higher ratings.

“I think what is troubling in part of our business is you have people on news shows who start the conversation with a bias,” King said at the time. He also said he envisioned his show as an oasis of “insight and context.”

Adding political hack Erick Erickson means they’re free from “bias.” I assume in CNN-land bias = facts. After all, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

Rep. Shadegg (R-AZ) supports single-payer? I’ll believe it when I see it.

“The reality is, this bill is going to reward for-profit insurance companies that have done a disservice,” Shadegg said. “This bill is going to give them exactly what they wanted. The insurance industry, the for-profit insurance industry, wanted an individual mandate and that’s what they’re getting out of this bill. The for-profit insurance industry did not want a public option because they don’t like competition and guess what? They’re getting that.”

When Shuster accused Republicans of supporting insurers, Shadegg balked.

“No we don’t! You guys keep saying that, but I’m not the guy pushing the bill that says we should compel people to buy insurance from the for-profit guys. That’s the Democrats,” he said.

Then, after some back and forth with Shuster: “I would support single-payer.”

“You would support a government-run medical system?” Shuster asked.

“Absolutely,” Shadegg said. “I would support forcing American insurance companies to compete. Right now they have a monopoly.”

There’s a single payer bill in the House right now. Shadegg should sign on as a co-sponsor.

CBO Score Is In

According to Jonathan Cohn at TNR, the CBO score is in, and it looks good.

Democrats in the administration and Congress have agreed on a set of amendments to the Senate health care bill. And, according to House leadership, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is certifying that the amendments will reduce the deficit. That should fulfill the parliamentary requirements of the reconciliation process, satisfy the demands of many nervous Democrats, and clear the way for the House to vote on health care reform.

Overall, according to leadership aides, the underlying Senate health care bill plus the amendments will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years. Democrats are calling it the “biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years”–that is, since the 1993 Clinton budget.

This news should ease the anxiety of reform critics, both in Congress and beyond, who worry that health care reform will bankrupt the government or the country.

Looks like maybe we’re finally moving again. Nancy Pelosi had at one time said she wanted to post the bill 72 hours prior to a vote, but this is not binding.  I think the hope is still to have a vote Saturday, and a bill for the President to sign before he leaves for Indonesia and Australia on Sunday. Hopefully, actually seeing the numbers and getting the CBO’s blessing will alleviate some of the misgivings of the Blue Dogs. We’ll also have to wait and see exactly how these savings were created.

Hopefully Clearing Up a (Talking) Point

I know it’s a slippery slope when you start trying to debunk every inane talking point that comes along, but there was a specific one that I wanted to look into and get the facts on. There’s a certain “saucy” commentor here who keeps making claims along the lines of, “Obama’s going to make poor people pay 8%, or one month’s salary, a year for health insurance they can’t afford. This isn’t covering people, it’s driving them broke.” I’ll admit that I pretty much side-stepped this issue, since I didn’t have the numbers at hand. I knew it probably wasn’t right, but it didn’t sounds as ludicrous as death panels or mandatory sex-changes (remember that one?). Now I think I can counter this claim a bit more authoritatively.

First let me preface this by making clear that I don’t claim to be an expert in health care policy — just a guy who’s read a lot. If anyone wants to challenge (or correct) my facts, please feel free. The first problem is that is as of now, it’s impossible to get exact numbers because the final bill is not written, but we can get pretty close. Now, since, at least at first, the employer-based insurance system will be left alone (booooo!), and anyone who buys insurance through their employer is already receiving a tax subsidy, the additional subsidies will be limited to those purchasing individual coverage on the open market, through the newly-created exchanges.

Here’s a great place to start, and it might answer a lot of questions:

The above chart shows the maximum percentage of income that would have to be paid for coverage by someone in the exchange.  This chart shows a family of four, but the amounts are simply percentages of the federal poverty line, which currently is $22,050 for a family of four ($10,830 for individual, $14,570 for family of two, $18,310 for a family of three). So, to put it in dollar amounts, for an individual making $18,000, the max amount would be in the range of $900, or $37.50 per biweekly paycheck. For a family of four making $35,000, it’s about $1,400, or $53 per check. Not nominal amounts, but not crippling. And remember, that’s a maximum. There certainly might be plans cheaper than that.

Additionally, for anyone making under 133% of poverty ($14,403 for ind., $29,326 for family of four), Medicaid would now be available without the restrictions it has currently. There are other numbers and rules, but its late I gotta draw the line somewhere. Finally, where I think the 8% number might be coming from pertains to those who have coverage available to them through their employer. If you do, and there is no plan available to you that costs less than 8% of your income, you would be exempt from any penalty for violating the individual mandate for coverage. Also, you would be eligible to purchase a low-cost catastrophic coverage plan (low premium, minimal coverage, high deductible) from the exchange. To put that into perspective, I have a family of three, we’re solidly scraping-by middle class (DL doesn’t pay as much as you’d think), we have a decent but not extravagant plan, and we’re paying close to 10% of income. Does it suck? Yeah. But 8% is not unreasonable, and remember you’re getting health insurance. It isn’t just an empty tax or fee.

So, no indigent people purchasing through the exchange will have to pay anywhere near 8% of their income. And those in the employer system might have to pay up to 8% of income to get coverage (but maybe less), or pay an assessment to help defray the cost of their care if they choose not to buy coverage. The assessment would be in the range of about 1% of income or $325, whichever is higher. So yes, you can opt out. Oh, and none of this takes effect until 2014. So to conclude, the individual mandate is necessary in order to make the whole plan work. I’ve given my defense of it here. My last word on all this is that I think the entire concept is based on the notion that most people actually want health coverage. Maybe some don’t or don’t want to pay for it. Those people are in the minority, and frankly, quite foolish. For the rest of us, whatever bill eventually emerges will be a great help for a failing system.

Legislative Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show-Thurs. March 18, 2010

The big news is that John ‘Let’s Arm Everyone’ Atkins had to backtrack on his bill that could’ve, well, armed everyone. Here’s the money quote from Delaware’s Most Embarrassing Legislator:

“We’re either going to come in with a substitute bill or an amendment,” Atkins said. “It was never Sen. Booth’s or my intent to allow guns in day cares and on DART buses and all that,” Atkins said in asking the House Administration Committee to table the legislation.

Which, of course, is exactly what the bill would have done.

Assuming that he’s telling the truth, always at best a 50-50 proposition with Atkins, he is admitting that he had no idea what was in the bill that he had the NRA write on his behalf. Time for the General Assembly to grow a spine and fight back against the bully-boy tactics of Atkins, Booth and the NRA.

Here’s the entire record of yesterday’s session.

The other ‘rilly big news’ is that legislation to ban hand-held cell phone usage while driving has never been closer to fruition. HS 1/HB 229, which has 21 House sponsors, cleared committee yesterday. Based on the committee report, the bill will require some  technical tweaking to clarify DMV’s role, but otherwise will likely be considered by the full House soon.

Other notable bills clearing committees include HS1/HB 247, which would expand the ability of the AG’s office to strengthen consumer protection enforcement; HB 317, which regulates door-to-door salespersons; and HB 137, which requires the Insurance Commissioner to conduct random audits of small business insurance providers.

Today’s Pre-Game Show starts with the Senate agenda, featuring the good, and the bad & the ugly on its two-bill agenda. I’ve commented extensively on both previously. Suffice it to say that it indeed is emblematic of the ‘Delaware Way’ that a special interest bill solely benefiting a relentlessly-loudmouth lobbyist (Yrene Waldron, Executive Director of the Delaware Health Care Facilities Association) will fast-track its way to the Governor’s desk. If ever a bill deserved to be vetoed, this would be a likely candidate.

The House has a much lengthier agenda although it is highly doubtful that the House will work anything close to the entire agenda today.

I like HB 137, and like the fact that the carriers would bear the cost of the audits. The only caveat is the dingbat running the IC’s office. I hope that Rep. Dan Short and the other legislators sponsoring this bill make sure that the IC actually carries out this mandate.

I think Sen. DeLuca’s SB 60 is totally ill-advised and represents yet another legislative incursion into the domain of the judiciary. Were this merely statutory legislation, I believe that this bill would be unconstitutional, which is precisely why this is actually structured as the first leg of a constitutional amendment. (Time for a ‘Teaching Opportunity’! Proposed amendments to the Delaware Constitution must pass in two consecutive sessions of the Delaware General Assembly. Sometimes it’s easier to pass the first leg b/c the legislators know full well that they’ll get another bite of the apple down the road. Still, the House has a chance to stand on principle and consign this latest power grab to the circular file, where it belongs.)

As always, check out the agendas and links. I’m sure that you’ll find items that intrigue you that didn’t really interest me. If so, come on back and comment on ’em.