08.19.10
Extreme?
The NRSC points out the fallacy of rhetoric coming from the Democrats and the MSM:
03.25.10
Fact & Fallacy – The Hyde Amendment
Recent developments make it clear that the public at large and many members of Congress and their staff members do not have a clear understanding of what the Hyde Amendment is and what it has the power to enforce. Even doing research to support my comments was challenging, because much of what is written and available online is done from the perspective of the author or the author’s political leanings and not strictly accurate.
DEFINITION: The Hyde Amendment is a rider to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services (HHS)/Education appropriations bill which prevents Medicaid and any other programs under these departments from funding abortions, except in limited cases. It is named after Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL) who, as a freshman legislator, first offered the amendment.
The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1976 and has been reauthorized each year since, the latest being in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.
FALLACY:
- Hyde is settled law.
- Hyde would be in force regardless of any other bill enacted by the Congress such as the health care legislation.
There are also a lot of political and emotional statements that fall under the heading of fallacy, but let’s leave them out of it and stick to truth.
FACT:
- The Hyde Amendment is a rider to an appropriations bill.
- The Hyde Amendment is not a stand alone law.
- Since statements 1 and 2 are correct, the Hyde Amendment does not govern other laws passed by Congress unless it is specifically referenced in such laws.
- Since statements 1 and 2 are correct, the legislation passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.3962) was amended by H.AMDT.509, the Stupak Amendment to codify the Hyde Amendment as part of the bill.
- This language was rejected by the Senate and not included in H.R. 3590, the bill approved by the Senate on December 24, 2009, by the House on March 21, 2010 and signed by the President on March 23, 2010.
Some sources to check:
Memorandum from National Right to Life – While this was written with reference to H.R. 3200, the bill originally introduced in the House of Representatives in July 2009, it still offers an accurate analysis of the scope of the Hyde Amendment.
National Committee for a Human Life Amendment – an excellent overview of the Hyde Amendment … its history, changes, challenges and Supreme Court ruling.
One of the claims most often heard is that the Hyde Amendment denies needed treatment to the poor and is therefore discriminatory. Surprisingly a 1992 poll of people making $15,000 or less found that they opposed abortion by a ratio of 2 to 1. Given recent surveys that a majority now believe that abortion destroys life, I suspect this ratio would be higher if a survey were taken today.
Planned Parenthood, through their research arm have long promoted the concept that there is a cost benefit to providing abortion services in that it costs less than providing maternity benefits and subsequent child welfare services. How grotesque is that?
Another argument often heard is that women who are denied abortion services through Medicaid will go to illegal abortion providers; however, I found no statistical evidence to support that.
Has the Hyde Amendment been beneficial? I suppose that depends on your point of view. Prior to Hyde, the federal Medicaid program paid for about 300,000 abortions annually. In fiscal year 2004, that number was 159.
03.23.10
So much for the representative republic …
The House of Representatives passed, over the objections of a majority of the American public, what they call Health Care Reform. Of course, they have promoted this under so many titles that may not be the title du jour. I have read the bill, which puts me ahead of most of those voting for it. People who live in the rarefied air of government and most of whom have never held a real job, should be willing to listen to those who have and who can assess how this legislation will impact their businesses and their employees. Not this Congress, however.
On the eve of passage the Rasmussen Report found the following:
- Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed and 45% Strongly Oppose it
- 50% of all voters say they’re less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.
- Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that if the plan passes, the cost of health care will go up. Only 17% believe the plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing the cost of care.
- At the same time, most voters (54%) believe that passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
- Eighty-one percent (81%) believe the health care plan will cost more than projected.
- Most voters (56%) oppose reducing Medicare spending and also oppose an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans.
- Fifty-seven percent (57%) also believe that passage of the plan will hurt the U.S. economy.
“The disconnect between sustained public opposition to the health care plan and the belief it may pass may be one reason that just 21% of voters believe the federal government has the consent of the governed.”
I will be working hard to help those members of Congress who visited this travesty on the American public get out and scramble for jobs like the rest of us. It should be edifying for them.
03.18.10
Live Blogging an Art
I’ve often been frustrated by the character of live blogs … the lack of construction of sentences, the use of strange abbreviations, etc. Having tried it for myself, I can testify that live blogging is hard. It is definitely an art form. If I were doing it again, I would not try to capture the words unless there were no live stream. Instead I would focus on how those words were received and compare them with the responses of others on the panel.
Now to get another chance to do it!
Clueless in Cleveland
JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS: ‘What would the bill do for Natoma?”
OBAMA: “Well, what would have happened is Natoma would have been able to be part of this exchange, this marketplace, that gave her a choice of plans just like members of Congress have, but because she’d be part of a million people who are in a pool, her rates would be lower.”
WRONG ANSWER, Mr. President! The truth is that it would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because it won’t go into effect until 2014 even if passed. How about a little truth with the pathos?
03.09.10
The Haircut
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a police officer came in for a haircut and, when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The officer was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
A Congressman came in for a haircut and, when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I can not accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
So funny I had to post it … originally appeared at humor@patriotpost.us
02.13.10
The Big Picture
I have thought long and hard about the bills being considered by Congress. They seem to want to ram huge spending bills through without looking at the big picture.
Yes, we have need to address health care costs. But the first step to doing that is to examine factors that contribute to the costs. Congress seems bent on mandating huge changes that will be detrimental to our health care delivery system without addressing the issues that need consideration.
Yes, we have a need to replace lost jobs, but Congress doesn’t seem interested in why we are losing so many jobs. What factors are causing jobs to go out of the country and what makes it so difficult for people to find jobs in the same or other industries?
What about costs of education? And the quality of our schools? How are these issues affecting our economy? How do we improve the performance of teachers and students in what seems to be a failing system? How can we provide access to better schools for students in failing ones?
What is the effect of illegal immigration on the job market? On health care costs? On education? On other public services? On crime?
We need to know the answers to these questions before we can approach legislation. Sure, everyone has an opinion, but what are the facts? Here in Minnesota, studies have been done on the cost to schools, hospitals and public services related to illegal immigration. Yet the problem goes deeper than just those individuals. Often they do not pay taxes, so the state gets a double whammy … lost tax revenue as well as the cost of providing services. Clearly there is much to think about before we go legislating. Since Congress and the President seem so fond of commissions, how about one to study these issues and make some recommendations? We are running out of time.
02.12.10
Interesting …
I heard about a report detailing population trends in Minnesota and their effect on state and local tax revenues. It was interesting reading. The Tax Migration Study from the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota details significant out-migration of high wage earners and the reasons they left the state. It also includes information on where they move to. What was significant about the study was that we not only lost tax revenue, but the purchasing power represented by these people and its impact on the economy.
Some of the reasons people leave cannot be changed. No matter what Al Gore says, Minnesota is not going to be a tropical paradise any time soon. And it just costs more to build and operate homes in our climate.
Another factor was population density. Minnesota has only 62.2 people per square mile, a factor which many would applaud. Yet people leaving the state chose to move to area with 275% higher population density.
The study concludes that “Minnesota should work toward reducing the state and local tax burden via reductions in the income tax which would encourage both people and income to stay in Minnesota or move into the state.” Sounds like reasonable advice, but getting our legislature to agree may be difficult, to say the least. Current estimates show that Minnesota has a $1.6 billion shortfall for the current biennium, 70% of which is due to lower individual income tax collections.
02.04.10
Minnesota CD 8
I haven’t made up my mind and am still researching candidates, but I think this is the one I will support for the nomination to oppose Jim Oberstar.
12.31.09
Happy New Year
I was going to write about many things, but got sidetracked by an article that ran this week in Denmark … EDITORIAL: Obama greater than Jesus
The more I thought about how I wanted to address this, the more I knew that nothing I could say would be better than the Word of the Lord, so here it is:
If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
11.19.09
An Open Letter to Minnesota’s Senators
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
The Honorable Al Franken
Senators:
I write you today on a matter of high concern to all citizens. As numerous public opinion polls and the great number of protests across the nation show, we do not support the actions of the Congress regarding health care. While no one would deny that reducing the cost of health care and making sure that people have access to quality care are important objectives, we strongly object to the way Congress has framed this issue.
There are many points in the proposed legislation to address, but first I want to address your obligation to us … the people you are supposed to represent. We didn’t send you to Congress to be our caretakers. We didn’t send you to do our thinking for us. We sent you to represent us. By definition, a representative is an agent of the one(s) sending them and has an obligation to faithfully present their point of view. For some time, Congress has failed to be representative of the people.
You, Senators, are in an enviable position. You have the opportunity to provide a shining example for your colleagues. You do not need to base your vote on getting a share of the money raised by the Democratic Campaign Committee for election. You are immune from the arm twisting that will be used against members standing for election in 2010. Further, neither of you can be threatened with losing committee chairmanships dependent on your vote. You should be under obligation only to the people who elected you. The question is: how will you respond to that?
I have read the text of HR 3200 and HR 3962 as well as that of the previously submitted Senate bill. I am now working my way through the Reid bill, although it is challenging and I do not expect to get through even 25% of it before your expected vote on Saturday. My first question to you is this: how can you maintain the public trust if you continue to vote on bills that you do not read? This legislation will make a seismic change in the way health care is delivered and paid for. It will put the federal government squarely between people and their health care providers. How can you possibly consider voting for any action on it until you have read it?
My first concern is the dishonesty of this legislation. Rather than introducing a bill and letting it go through the normal processes, the Senate leadership has produced this legislation as an amendment to a bill previously passed in the House. This is a clearly an end run around the legislative process. It may be business as usual in the Congress, but is it in the interests of the people?
While we are talking about dishonesty, let’s focus on another issue. Many provisions of this bill do not go into effect until 2013 … after your next election, Senator Klobuchar, after a presidential election and two rounds of House elections. Those provisions that go into effect immediately serve to glamorize the bill … making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. It will allow politicians to use it as a credential while seeking re-election without the people experiencing what has been visited upon them. You owe us better than that.
The President and leaders of the House and Senate have been telling us for months about the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud in the Medicare system. So how have they determined to rectify that situation? By cutting benefits and using that money to pay for other aspects of their health care plan. How about doing an audit and discovering where the money is being wasted and making needed changes? How about discovering who is defrauding Medicare and going after them for restitution? If you truly know that hundreds of billions of dollars are being lost to fraud and waste, isn’t it part of the obligation you own your constituents to put a stop to it?
Secondly, let’s consider the cost of this legislation. Depending on who you believe, we have a projected cost in the neighborhood of One Trillion Dollars. Yes, I know that the CBO score is more like $849 billion and they claim a deficit reduction of $130 billion over the first ten years of the program. But let’s talk truth … that is an accounting fallacy because the bill provides to ten years of revenue stream against 5 to 6 years of cost. Further, it does not include the “doctor fix”. If we compare estimated costs for other spending programs against actual (Medicare, for example), it is entirely reasonable to expect the real cost of this bill to be Five to Seven Trillion Dollars, which would all serve to increase the deficit.
Simply put, we cannot afford this legislation. At a time when revenues are down and probably will be for the next two years at least, the federal government should be practicing a little fiscal belt tightening, not spending money we don’t have.
Thirdly, there are serious concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation. Congress has chosen to ignore these issues and has devoted untold hours to legislation that is not wanted by the people, which we cannot pay for and that may in fact not even be legal. Your saying it is doesn’t make it so, and your ignoring the issue doesn’t make it go away.
There are many, many things wrong with the approach to medical care defined in this bill. We are a nation of individuals and the one size fits all approach doesn’t work. In this case, a bloated giant of a bill that creates numerous new taxes, new agencies and new mandates will probably make the health care situation worse rather than better. We would do better to take some time to determine the most pressing needs and deal with them separately. A government takeover of health care serves no one.
At a time when we are struggling to pay our bills and put food on the table and when we don’t know from one day to the next whether we will even have a job, shouldn’t your focus be on what you can do to encourage job creation and buttress the economy? Here are some suggestions that might make all the difference in our struggling job market:
- Extend the current individual tax cuts through 2012
- Reduce the corporate income tax
- Reduce or eliminate the capitol gains tax.
- Offer investment incentives for small business.
- Offer incentives for job creation by small business
- STOP wasteful government spending … no more money to TARP, the Stimulus or other porkulus projects.
Senators, I urge you to consider the needs of your constituents and devote your energies to programs that will serve our needs. Please vote no on Senator Reid’s proposed legislation. Perhaps if you come up with effective solutions such as some of the ones suggested above, we will be able to pay for a health care bill in the future. But that time is not now.
11.11.09
HR 3962 – How Minnesota Reps Voted
Here’s how our Minnesota Representatives voted on HR 3962 – the Pelosi Health Industry Grab
Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1] – YES
Rep. John Kline [R-MN2] – NO
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R-MN3] – NO
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN4] – YES
Rep. Keith Ellison [D-MN5] – YES
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6] – NO
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN7] – NO
Rep. James Oberstar [D-MN8] -YES
Thanks to Collin Peterson of the 7th Minnesota Congressional District for standing up to Pelosi and voting for the interests of his district.
I’m disappointed in most of them, especially the rep for my area who indicated he would vote NO up to the time of the vote and then voted the party line. I am sure he will claim to have gotten some concession for his vote (as he has done in the past). It is not an argument that resonates with me. I always thought the word “representative” meant agent of the people. With the majority of the people being against this bill, his vote is a repudiation of his responsibility to us. What part of selling your vote is representative for the people of our district? Will you then pay us to vote for you? 
The only good news is that it’s not over yet. The Senate has to vote on a bill and then that bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill. Then both will have to approve the new bill. Lots of opportunity to make our voices heard. As you might guess, I am not sitting silently on the sidelines.
10.19.09
Never would have believed …
Yes, I am shocked to find that I agree with Karl Rove. What is this world coming to?
10.05.09
Reading List
I haven’t shared my reading list for some time and thought I would do that before dipping into things political. There are some housekeeping items on this list … books I started and have nearly finished before moving to new things prematurely. I have made a resolution to clean up my half read list. I am also reading some very interesting books for a study our womens group – The Band of Sisters – is doing on the life and ministry of Jesus. And then there is my personal study of Colossians ….
So, the list:
- God in the Dock – C. S. Lewis (only 40 pages to go)
- The Search for the Twelve Apostles – William S. McBirnie (80 to go)
- Teaching for Changed Lives – Howard Hendricks
- The Church in Many Houses – Steve Cordle
- The Hole in our Gospel – Richard Sterns
- The Untold Story of the New Testament Church – Frank Viola
- Jesus Acording to Scripture – Darrell Bock
- Jesus and the Gospels – Craig Blomberg
- Four Portraits, One Jesus – Mark Strauss
I put aside the Viola book after reading about half and finding several areas that do not agree with my understanding of theology. But I am nothing if not thorough and I will read it to the end so that my critique will be based on what is there rather than what might be there.
I have a book review long overdue for The Hole in Our Gospel. I normally read through the books I review pretty quickly, but this one has taken some time because it has impacted me personally, which I suspect is just what Stern intended. It has been painful at times to read his commentary and know that what he says about himself applies to me as well. But I have an obligation to review, and review I will.
That’s my list … plenty to keep me busy as winter settles in, and it seems it will do so early this year.