Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc

[jryan]

You should really read this incredibly well-sourced article from the conservative Wall Street Journal on that matter:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

 

Unfortunately I'm guessing you didn't read it when I originally linked it and now it's blocked by their paywall.

 

The article is behind a pay wall.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here is the same article on WSJ absent the pay wall:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

 

I'm really not sure what it is that you are arguing when you off that as your evidence. All it is saying was that the Republicans were frozen out of negotiations, and that the Democrats arrived at their current bill through wholly partisan negotiations.

 

This has nothing to do with whether the bill resembles Massachusetts' health care reform plan.. which is does. Both plans are predicated on mandatory health care purchase by the individual and government subsidies to those who can't afford the insurance.

 

But it does do a great job at showing how partisan and opaque the Democrats actually were during the whole process. They just arrived at a bill on their own that is demonstrably ineffective at accomplishing any of it's goals long term and mostly ineffective in the short term as well.

[bascule]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

 

I'm really not sure what it is that you are arguing when you off that as your evidence. All it is saying was that the Republicans were frozen out of negotiations, and that the Democrats arrived at their current bill through wholly partisan negotiations.

 

This has nothing to do with whether the bill resembles Massachusetts' health care reform plan.. which it does

 

Read harder... the Democrats appropriated ideas from the Massachusetts legislation, but the Republicans claim they didn't.

 

A few dozen more examples of Democrats appropriating Republican ideas and the Republicans washing their hands of them can be found on my original link:

 

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php?ref=recdc

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend this isn't happening. Democrats are enacting Republican ideas into law, and Republicans oppose it.

[jryan]

Read harder... the Democrats appropriated ideas from the Massachusetts legislation, but the Republicans claim they didn't.

 

Why would I care about this again? I'm not a water carrier for the Republican party. If they are claiming that the Obama bill isn't based on the failed Massachusetts bill then they are wrong.

 

Hell, the Republicans are better served distancing themselves from Massachusetts and Romney.

 

A few dozen more examples of Democrats appropriating Republican ideas and the Republicans washing their hands of them can be found on my original link:

 

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php?ref=recdc

 

This article is not all that valuable. Note the level they have to scrape to get an imposing list.

 

"Some Republicans were against the foot on desk while BUSH DID IT!".. not to mention that bit of evidence is so bottom of the barrel that it is third-hand and even second hand fails to reference who the email was even from. Not knowing who said it, I would have to wonder how accurate the report is that Unknown-possible-republican#1 didn't say the same thing about Bush... or Ford. So yeah... your source is rather prone to wild accusation.. this doesn't bode well...

 

Or the difference between "unlawful enemy combatants" and the use of the term "prisoner of war" by one Republican (Sessions) in one statement in one hearing. Any samurai would covet a blade that cuts so fine. By such a statndard I suppose HAHA Obama thinks their are 57 states in the Union and the Health care Bill will save 3000% on Employer health expenses.

 

Numerous Buchanan quotes as if he is somehow even considered main stream Republican anymore. Anyway, as I argued in the thread on hypocrisy, defining someone as a hypocrite does not invalidate the rules they failed to follow. Obama can tell people not to smoke while continuing to smoke and I would not claim that smoking is therefor good because Obama is a hypocrite... but so many people make the same bizarre leap with other acts of hypocrisy.

 

Let's see.. I only have so much time for these, but they're fun to read...

 

Immigration reform... well, that's a funny choice to bring up since the first immigration reform was shot down by Democrats in the 110th congress 38-9, and buy Republicans 26-20. So no, the Republicans were against Immigration reform then and now. But left out was also a key ingredient... what's the current proposal versus the previous proposal? Why are Democrats so fired up about reform now when they weren't then? Does your TPM blogger bother asking that questions... let me check.. hmmm.. no. Shocker!

 

Steele complaining that GITMO isn't close... this is misinformation by the TPM blogger, and his link. Steele was bringing up GITMO as an example of Obama's naivete with regard to GITMO and asking why, if Obama was so fired up to close GITMO , why he hasn't closed it yet. It's certainly a fair question. Obama heavily misjudged the need and purpose for GITMO, and is now learning that all the campaign rhetoric in the world doesn't change the realities once you are in charge. Selective bolding of the Steele quote doesn't change the meaning.

 

The Mirandizing of the Show Bomber -vs- The Mirandizing of the Underwear Bomber.... I don't/didn't think either should have been Mirandized as both were enemy saboteurs. But the lack of an outcry against Bush would be hypocritical, sure. As is the time given to respond (three days versus six according to HuffPo).

 

Etc. etc.

 

That thing is padded to all hell with it's own layers of hypocrisy and the occaissional knock against Bush that I agree with.

 

I suppose I could show the Democrats railing against Buchanan... and then loving him when he was opposed to the war in Iraq and opposed to support for Israel. Oh, they're so hypocritical!

 

Anyway, read through that page yourself some day. I don't have time to comment on all of it... but it has more filler than a 10¢ hotdog.

 

And it isn't even MOSTLY about Republican policy being later opposed by Republicans. I have already said time and time again that in the case of this health care bill the Republicans have a model they can point to and say "See, it doesn't work". You are arguing that the Republican experience is trumped by... what exactly?

 

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend this isn't happening. Democrats are enacting Republican ideas into law, and Republicans oppose it.

 

Because the "Republican" plan in question was tried on a much smaller scale and failed to achieve it's goals. Why are you finding this so hard to understand?

[bascule]

Why would I care about this again? I'm not a water carrier for the Republican party.

 

It's the topic of this thread. It's specifically on the Democrat and Republican parties. Nobody is forcing you to post.

 

If they are claiming that the Obama bill isn't based on the failed Massachusetts bill then they are wrong.

 

Hell, the Republicans are better served distancing themselves from Massachusetts and Romney.

 

Furthermore, the now much maligned individual mandate was originally a Republican idea:

 

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

 

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

 

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

 

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

 

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

 

This article is not all that valuable. Note the level they have to scrape to get an imposing list.

 

[...]

 

That thing is padded to all hell with it's own layers of hypocrisy and the occaissional knock against Bush that I agree with.

 

Anyway' date=' read through that page yourself some day. I don't have time to comment on all of it... but it has more filler than a 10¢ hotdog.[/quote']

 

Fine, let's read through some choice tidbits... here's another paywall, but I will quote the relevant text:

 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43322-1.html

 

Given the divisions within the GOP Conference -- and the fact that Republicans have largely backed most of the bill's provisions in the past -- leadership aides told lobbyists that the GOP plans to

attack Reid's bill over process, rather than policy.

 

More than 100 lobbyists representing the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable and other associations attended the meeting with staff from the offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune (S.D.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Grassley.

 

"The feeling is they aren't going to say anything in opposition to the bill, except to say it's incomplete," a lobbyist who attended the meeting said. "They are not opposed to the bill, they just believe their rights as the minority have been abridged."

 

Why are Republicans whining about the deficit but voting against PAYGO after they were originally for it?

Why are Republicans whining about the deficit while at the same time voting against attempts to improve it through bipartisan commissions? Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) had this to say about Republican opposition to bipartisan commissions on deficit reduction:

 

"The issue that I'm raising with Republicans is if you are not for this commission, then what are you for?"

 

Can you rationalize that for us without resorting to doublethink, jryan?

[swansont]

You may recall, during the 'Jobs Bill' debate here, when one Republican (Bunning) filibustered, it was known a cloture vote would shut him off, instantly.....

 

I debunked that in the thread where you first said it, and I'll do it again. It's wrong.

 

After a cloture petition is filed there is a full one-day delay before you can do anything, and after that, there may be up to 30 hours of debate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

 

And there could have been the need to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, and another to invoke cloture on the bill itself.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/bunnings-blockade-ends/36967/

 

Not even close to "instantly"

[jryan]

That's the second time you've made a claim like this, and the second time you have not supported your "fact" with anything.

 

If you look at this spending chart, you might think that Mass. adopted their healthcare plan in 2003, but it was actually 2006. I don't see any indication that things are proceeding any worse under the new plan.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1993_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=10-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=MA&color=c&local=s

 

Welfare and education, etc. have upward trends, too. Massachusetts' population is increasing (and getting older, I suspect). If costs are up across the board, how is it that health care is targeted as the financial ruin of the state?

 

Well, first, the population of Massachusetts has increased about 50,000 a year for the three years since their health program began (or 0.7% annually), the public outlays for the health program more than doubled between 2007 and 2009 ($630 million in 2007 to $1.3 billion in 2009 or 53% annually).

 

Texas, on the other hand has had sky rocketing population numbers, yet they remain one of the lowest per-capita debt states in the union.

 

Sure, you can argue that the bulk of all the other excessive spending that Massachusetts does is equally contributing to their fiscal woes, but it is hard to ignore the fact that Massachusetts, in 2008 as an example, had a $1.4 billion deficit while their new health care program was costing them about $900 million while failing to provide better care and costing the average person in Massachusetts more money and failing to control health care cost.

 

All of this was well known long before the national plan was a gleam in Harry Reid's eye.

 

Massachusetts is expected to run a $2.75 billion dollar deficit in 2010 while the cost of the Massachusetts Health Care program will be topping $4 billion as well (which is a combination of the $1.2 billion in direct expenses and the $3 billion increase in Medicaid since inception.. see "failing to control health cost" link above).

 

There is no doubt from the numbers that Massachusetts would have been in MUCH better standing financially had it never passed their Health reform plan.

[swansont]

Well, first, the population of Massachusetts has increased about 50,000 a year for the three years since their health program began (or 0.7% annually), the public outlays for the health program more than doubled between 2007 and 2009 ($630 million in 2007 to $1.3 billion in 2009 or 53% annually).

 

Texas, on the other hand has had sky rocketing population numbers, yet they remain one of the lowest per-capita debt states in the union.

 

Sure, you can argue that the bulk of all the other excessive spending that Massachusetts does is equally contributing to their fiscal woes, but it is hard to ignore the fact that Massachusetts, in 2008 as an example, had a $1.4 billion deficit while their new health care program was costing them about $900 million while failing to provide better care and costing the average person in Massachusetts more money and failing to control health care cost.

 

All of this was well known long before the national plan was a gleam in Harry Reid's eye.

 

Massachusetts is expected to run a $2.75 billion dollar deficit in 2010 while the cost of the Massachusetts Health Care program will be topping $4 billion as well (which is a combination of the $1.2 billion in direct expenses and the $3 billion increase in Medicaid since inception.. see "failing to control health cost" link above).

 

There is no doubt from the numbers that Massachusetts would have been in MUCH better standing financially had it never passed their Health reform plan.

 

IOW, if we eliminated the ~$3 billion of debt incurred in the last 3 years by the healthcare system change, it would "only" be about $69 billion, and they would still be the most debt-ridden state in the Union on a per-capita basis. Put another way, healthcare debt from this system accounts for less than 5% of their total debt. Healthcare is but a minor reason for Massachusetts' current financial condition.

[jryan]

IOW, if we eliminated the ~$3 billion of debt incurred in the last 3 years by the healthcare system change, it would "only" be about $69 billion, and they would still be the most debt-ridden state in the Union on a per-capita basis. Put another way, healthcare debt from this system accounts for less than 5% of their total debt. Healthcare is but a minor reason for Massachusetts' current financial condition.

 

 

IOW, the Health Care program is the difference between deficit spending and paying down their debt.

 

Also, since when is a 5% growth in total debt annually a minor concern?

Edited April 1, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

IOW, the Health Care program is the difference between deficit spending and paying down their debt.

 

Also, since when is a 5% growth in total debt annually a minor concern?

 

How did 5% become 5% annually? The program has been running for 3 years; the last year's addition was less than 2%. I didn't say it was a minor concern. I was objecting to your sensationalist implication that the health care reform is responsible for the dire financial situation Massachusetts is in. The numbers don't support that.

 

Lots of programs are the difference between deficit spending and paying down the debt. Mass. spends about $70 billion a year.

[jryan]

How did 5% become 5% annually? The program has been running for 3 years; the last year's addition was less than 2%. I didn't say it was a minor concern. I was objecting to your sensationalist implication that the health care reform is responsible for the dire financial situation Massachusetts is in. The numbers don't support that.

 

And I am pointing out that without the health care reform Massachusetts would have a balanced budget, or a surplus.

 

Rereading your post I have to then disagree with your assesment of $3 billion over 3 years. That number is incorrect. The program offloads a good deal of it's cost onto state Medicaid, which went from $6 billion annually in 2005 to $9 billion annually in 2009.. you can't blame that on a 0.7% population growth rate. So the total cost starts at $4.2 billion annually, without counting the tax implications

 

Lots of programs are the difference between deficit spending and paying down the debt. Mass. spends about $70 billion a year.

 

Where did you get those numbers from? I see in the Massachusetts Budget office that the total state budget is $31.9 billion, with health care expenses totaling $12.8 billion (the largest department in the state by far.. eating 40% of the states budget all on it's own). From that I can determine that the $4.2 billion in added cost from state health care reform is 13% of the total state budget today.

[swansont]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1993_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=MA&color=c&local=s

 

I'm not sure why the numbers are different.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Rereading your post I have to then disagree with your assesment of $3 billion over 3 years. That number is incorrect. The program offloads a good deal of it's cost onto state Medicaid, which went from $6 billion annually in 2005 to $9 billion annually in 2009.. you can't blame that on a 0.7% population growth rate. So the total cost starts at $4.2 billion annually, without counting the tax implications

 

Are you counting the federal reimbursement for the program? There's something in one of your links that says that they get reimbursed half of the amount they spend.

[jryan]

Are you counting the federal reimbursement for the program? There's something in one of your links that says that they get reimbursed half of the amount they spend.

 

That's a good question, but from my days in social work I can say that Medicaid reimbursement only covered that portion of the medicaid spending that was within federal guidelines. I would make an educated guess that that portion of the added medicaid expense that arose from federally qualified recipients (through outreach programs, etc.) would be reimbursed at 50%, but recipients that only qualify under state rules would not be.

 

Many states make their own Medicaid rules that add more eligibility (like California's MediCal) because they are allowed to by law and it saves them the cost of creating a whole new bureaucracy to meet some state level campaign promise.

 

I see in the state budget site that they expect an additional $600 million in Federal reimbursement for Medicaid in 2011 from the Health Care reform bill. But then that is just taking poor state planning in their health reform and dumping it on the federal deficit spending for he national program... which has been my point all along. We as a nation are essentially just going to foot the bill for Massachusetts' bad plan, and now 49 more Massachusetts Health Care plans.