Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Paul Ryan’ Category

It isn’t surprising that Sarah Palin predicted that Speaker Ryan would get “Cantored” in Wisconsin’s August primary. I wrote this article to state my opinion that Mrs. Palin has started believing her press clippings a bit too much.

Palin’s track record isn’t exactly filled with success. That’s mostly because she doesn’t do her research and her off-the-cuff statements are positively loony. This past Sunday, Mrs. Palin said that she’d do whatever she could to help Paul Nehlen, the sacrificial lamb that’s about to get trounced. After this tweet, though, I think Ryan can focus his time on important things rather than waste a split second on this annoying little gnat. Check out what Nehlen tweeted:

Nehlen all but officially ended his campaign with that tweet. That he thinks people will feel scandalized that a Catholic sent his kids to a Catholic school tell voters that he’s either stupid or that he’s incredibly desperate. I’m betting it’s the latter.

The truth is that Nehlen should consider it a moral victory if he doesn’t lose by 60 points. Contrary to Mrs. Palin’s prediction, this isn’t a close race. It never was going to be. The Washington Free Beacon’s article highlights what Nehlen was tweeting about:

Breitbart News reached out to the school as a perspective [sic] applicant and obtained a copy of the school’s 2015-2016 registration papers and tuition contract. The document inquires specifically into the applicant’s religious background; in particular, it asks whether the applicant is a parishioner at the associated Catholic parish. The school recruits through the parish by offering a tuition discount to those who have been baptized and are members of the parish.

Then there’s this astonishing admission:

As the registration forms explain, the school exists for the express purpose of helping to foster Catholic children.

Trumpbart has really outdone themselves with this one. If Andrew were alive today, he wouldn’t let his websites be used like this. Period. Finally, there’s this:

While Muslim students could presumably get into Ryan’s school, the school’s reliance on the parish as a recruiting center and the above-cost tuition fees would, by definition, function as a mechanism for screening them out.

There’s no cheap shot that Trumpbart won’t use against their enemies.

Pat Buchanan’s hubris really shined through in this hit piece attacks the Speaker of the House as being a nobody. That’s rich considering the fact that Buchanan once was the Reform Party’s presidential nominee but only after he won a lawsuit to defeat a candidate whose platform was based on Transcendental meditation. Then, after winning the Reform Party’s nomination, Buchanan endorsed George W. Bush.

That’s why it’s rich that Buchanan said “Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin. He has never won a statewide election. As number two on Mitt Romney’s ticket, he got waxed by Joe Biden. He was compromise choice as speaker, only after John Boehner went into in his Brer Rabbit “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah” routine. Who made Ryan the conscience of conservatism? Who made Ryan keeper of the keys of true Republicanism?”

With all due respect to Buchanan, who is he to question Ryan’s credentials? Buchanan is a natural Trump supporter because, like Trump, he’s a international trade defeatist. Unlike economic giants like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Ronald Reagan, who were enthusiastic free trade advocates, Trump and Buchanan think that American workers can’t compete with workers in China, India and South Korea on a level playing field.

Then there’s this:

He is pandering to the Trump-hating Beltway media and claiming the leadership of a Republican establishment routed and repudiated in the primaries, not only by that half of the party that voted for Trump, but also by that huge slice of the party that voted for Ted Cruz.

It’s kinda embarrassing to watch a former presidential candidate resort to name-calling in his attempt to win an argument. What’s worse is that Buchanan actually thinks that Paul Ryan panders to the “Beltway media” on anything.

It’s one thing to disagree with Speaker Ryan’s policies. It’s another to think he’s a natural-born panderer.

Finally, there’s this:

The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans.

The hubris that’s most on display is Buchanan’s. It’s especially on display when he said that “Paul Ryan is the Nelson Rockefeller of his generation.” Buchanan’s always been a bit off but he’s really gone round the bend this time.

The Rockefellers are bigtime environmentalists. Ryan isn’t. The Rockefellers lived in ivory towers far removed from the hoi polloi. Ryan’s lived his entire life in middle class neighborhoods. The Rockefellers got rich by violating this nation’s anti-trust laws.

While it’s true that Trump isn’t an environmentalist, it’s definitely true that he’s lived separated from blue collar people. There’s little question whether Trump would exploit this nation’s anti-trust laws if given the opportunity.

In short, Buchanan’s statements are severely lacking in accuracy.

This weekend, Sarah Palin said that Paul Ryan’s political career was essentially over. Mrs. Palin predicted that Ryan was about to be “Cantored”, a reference to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who was defeated in a GOP primary. At the time, I said that Mrs. Palin had started believing her press clippings a little too much.

While Speaker Ryan didn’t respond Sunday after Mrs. Palin’s interview, that doesn’t mean he didn’t take time to swat her aside later, saying “Look, people in Wisconsin know me well, I really don’t have anything to say only that my focus is on the people of this district and unifying the Republican Party on a core set of principles.”

People do know Speaker Ryan well. In Wisconsin’s First District, which Ryan represents, the latest Marquette University Poll, Speaker Ryan’s approval rating is 76%. As I’ve written consistently, the Marquette University poll is the gold standard in Wisconsin, just like the Des Moines Register Poll is the gold standard in Iowa. Later still, Speaker Ryan took another swipe at Mrs. Palin:

People know me really well in Wisconsin, they know I am going to stand up for my principles that are conservative principles no matter how popular that may be on a given day. They know me personally very well. I don’t really worry too much about outside agitators.

Mrs. Palin is a fading star in the GOP. Though she’s still got a following, that following keeps getting smaller and closer to the political fringe each time they make an appearance. It won’t be long before she’ll be a footnote whose fifteen minutes of fame ran out of the hourglass.

This weekend, Sarah Palin told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Paul Ryan was “soon to be Cantored, as in Eric Cantor.” Predictably, RightWisconsin responded, asking “So how much clout will Caribou Barbie bring to the anti-Ryan crusade? Not much.”

Let’s be blunt about a couple of things. First, Sarah Palin has said so many foolish things that she simply isn’t respected by mainstream Republicans. And when I say mainstream Republicans, I’m not talking about the GOP Establishment. I’m talking about the hard-working GOP activists that volunteer countless hours building the Republican Party only to watch crackpots like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin tear it apart.

Second, Mrs. Palin’s stupidity was highlighted when she predicted Speaker Ryan’s defeat. RightWisconsin noted that “The last Marquette University Law School Poll showed Paul Ryan had a 76 percent approval rating from Wisconsin Republicans.” When Cantor lost his primary, voter discontent was widespread. Voter discontent for Speaker Ryan is virtually nonexistent in Speaker Ryan’s district.

Finally, this is the last impression Mrs. Palin left with Wisconsin Republicans:

It wasn’t a positive impression.

This article features a Trump quote that isn’t attached to reality. Campaigning in Wisconsin earlier this week, Trump said “if we win Wisconsin, it’s going to be pretty much over.” The thing is that Sen. Cruz will win the Wisconsin primary with a fairly solid margin.

Last night, Megyn Kelly asked conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes if the Walker endorsement would help Sen. Cruz. Sykes affirmed that it would, saying that Trump attacking Gov. Walker in a state where he’s still popular “is weapons-grade stupid.” Sykes said that Trump would lose “vote-rich southeastern Wisconsin” and lose it badly because he’s offended too many conservative women. That most likely means Trump will get hurt badly in the Milwaukee suburbs because that’s the source of Gov. Walker’s electoral strength and because Sen. Cruz does better with well-educated voters than with less-educated voters.

Trump simply couldn’t resist criticizing Gov. Walker. Trump’s been critical of Gov. Walker for months. During one of Trump’s rallies, he said “But you had a $2.2 billion budget deficit and the schools were going begging and everything and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes because he was going to run for president.”

Campaigning in Janesville, WI, Trump said “Cruz likes to pretend he’s an outsider and in the meantime he gets all the establishment support, including your governor.” That’s quite the turnaround from what Trump said about Sen. Cruz in January:

“Look, the truth is, he’s a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, ‘Come on, Ted. Let’s go, OK.’ But he’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him,” the real estate mogul said.

Apparently, Trump can’t decide whether Sen. Cruz “gets al the establishment support” or whether everyone hates him because he’s a nasty guy. While speaking out of both sides of his mouth won’t deprive Trump of the nomination by itself, it’s just another thing that’s getting in his way.

Sykes decimated Trump in this interview:

Here’s the pull quote worth noting:

SYKES: Donald Trump, I just don’t think of the term nuanced in terms of Donald Trump. I think he’s a bad mix for Wisconsin.
CHARLES PAYNE: Why is he a bad mix for Wisconsin? Is he not a conservative? Doesn’t he have some of your conservative principles? No?
SYKES: No. He’s not a conservative. He’s a narcissist — He’s a content-free narcissist and he’s an authoritarian who has not even take the time to learn about the issues he’s talking about. I think that, instead of articulating the kind of conservative values, for example the kind that Paul Ryan and Scott Walker have talked about, he’s essentially created a brand, which is Donald Trump and it’s a cult of personality.

Ouch. As I watched the interview, I kept waiting for Sykes to stop and say ‘Other than that, though, Trump’s a great guy.’ That line didn’t arrive. Unfortunately for Trump, this line arrived with a punch:

SYKES: I don’t think he’s gonna win in Wisconsin and I think you’re going to see that over the next week, that in fact, in southeastern Wisconsin, which is a very voter-rich area, he’s got an approval rating of about 25% and a disapproval rating of more than 60% because when voters start to pay attention to what he actually represents, it doesn’t resonate with voters.

Mathematically speaking, it’s difficult to picture how a candidate gets trounced in the most voter-rich part of the state, then makes it up in the rest of the state. That’s assuming that Trump is somewhat popular in the rest of Wisconsin.

It’s been reported that Gov. Kasich pulled his ads from Wisconsin. Sykes said that isn’t true, noting that he’s pulled his ads off of southeastern Wisconsin radio stations and putting them up in western Wisconsin.

Whether Trump wins the nomination is still too far out to predict. Still, Trump isn’t close to closing the deal with Republicans. It’s understatement to say he isn’t heading in the right direction.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article by CNN’s Maeve Reston and Stephen Collinson is a worthwhile read. That doesn’t mean they don’t get some important things wrong, though.

It’s apparent that they think anyone calling themselves a TEA Party conservative agrees with Ted Cruz’s strategies 100% of the time. That’s apparent when they said “Despite the constitutional constraints on action in Washington and the presence of a Democratic President with a veto in the White House, they are furious that the GOP has failed to overturn Obamacare.”

Actually, I’m not upset with the GOP Congress for “fail[ing] to overturn Obamacare.” I’m furious with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for not pushing the conservatives’ reform agenda. There’s no excuse for why they haven’t pushed Tom Price’s health care reforms. It’s filled with popular features that are infinitely more popular than the mandates in the ACA. There’s no excuse for not pushing Paul Ryan’s tax simplification legislation. Republicans and Democrats alike support tax simplification. Most importantly, it’s supported enthusiastically by small business entrepreneurs.

There’s no excuse for Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell haven’t pushed cutting government based on the GAO’s reports of duplicative programs. I’d love hearing Democrats defend programmatic duplication that runs into the tens of billions of dollars. (That isn’t a typo. It’s billions with a B.)

Finally, and I’m especially passionate about this, there’s no justification for not pushing Ron Johnson’s regulation reform. Sen. Johnson’s reforms aim to neuter something he calls “weaponized government.” When the EPA insists that a couple in Idaho can’t build their dream home on land they purchased because there’s a low spot somewhere on the property, that’s weaponized government. There’s nothing about that that lives up to “of, by and for the people.”

Though I’m upset with CNN, that’s nothing compared with how pissed off I am with Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell.

Jim Geraghty’s evaluation of the GOP presidential candidates is fascinating. Rather than starting with the top tier candidates, let’s start by hearing what he said about the MSM’s top tier:

Jeb Bush: Sure, he’ll have the money, and he’ll have the name. But let’s not even get into the immigration, Common Core, business ties or family dynasty issues yet. Republican primary voters, particularly conservative ones, think that the Obama presidency is the worst calamity to hit America in their lifetimes, and fear it is doing permanent damage to the national values, identity, and standing in the world. GOP primary voters are going to want a fighter, and do they think Jeb Bush has been leading the fight against Obama?

Mitt Romney: When people tell Mitt Romney, “Governor, I really wish you had won in 2012,” they’re not saying, “Governor, I think you would have been one of the greatest presidents in our lifetimes.” They’re saying, “Governor, Obama is really, really, really terrible, and electing you would have spared the country a lot of pain.” He’s a good man, but a lot of Republicans are ready to move on to new options. Plus, you know… Gruber.

Chris Christie: If Bush and Romney are both in, you have to wonder how many big donors stick by him. He did better in his Iowa appearance than some might have expected, and he’s undoubtedly going to be a dominant figure in the debates. But he’s positioned himself in opposition to the rest of the party way too often, and you can’t win the GOP nomination from the Jon Huntsman slot, as the Republican nominee most acceptable to the Acela class that can’t stand Republicans.

Rand Paul: He’ll have his dad’s network, and he’s way more compelling than his father was. But there’s a ceiling to Libertarian-minded candidates in the modern Republican Party, and it’s going to be tougher to sell quasi-isolationist non-interventionism as the world blows up and grows even more dangerous in Obama’s final two years in office.

This isn’t 2008 or 2012, when the GOP didn’t field a bunch of top tier candidates like they’re fielding this year. In 2012, Paul Ryan would’ve swamped the field, including Mitt. This year, Paul Ryan would have a respectable following but he wouldn’t be seen as the prohibitive favorite.

Jeb Bush has irritated conservatives far too often to win the nomination. Sen. McCain got away with that in 2008 because he ran against a field of weaklings. Jeb won’t get away with that this time because he’s running against a virtual team of Olympic weightlifters. Mitt’s time came and went. Whether he officially runs is almost irrelevant at this point. That’s because he’s overmatched.

First Tier:

Scott Walker: He’s serious and accomplished enough for the “Establishment,” and indisputably conservative enough for the grassroots. The Left threw everything it had at this guy and he’s still going strong. Despite the questions about his charisma, he’s getting rave reviews for his passion in his appearance this weekend.

Marco Rubio: He’s arguably the best communicator in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party desperately needs a good communicator as its nominee.

With rave reviews from Charles Krauthammer and James Pethokoukis, he could end up being the conservative pundits’ favorite choice. Yes, there’s still irritation about the gang of “Gang of Eight” and anti-Senator skepticism to overcome, but he’s speaking about the broad, unifying national theme of American exceptionalism since 2010. Obviously, he offers a fantastic contrast with Hillary.

Rick Perry: The former governor of Texas is likely to be the only re-running candidate who improves upon his past performance. He still has a sterling economic record to point to, he’s been going toe-to-toe with the Obama administration consistently, he’s got enough charm to work on Jimmy Kimmel. This time, he won’t be coming off back surgery, he won’t start late and we’ll see just how much the hipster glasses help.

Bobby Jindal: Yes, he needs to speak slower. Yes, it’s not clear that a style that works in Louisiana will work on the national stage. But he’s a bit like Walker in that he’s amassed an indisputably conservative record while getting things done in two terms. There’s probably not another contender who knows more detail about more policies, and he’s guided his state through some severe challenges – post-Katrina rebuilding, a pair of serious hurricanes, the Deepwater Horizon and the drilling moratorium. What’s more, he’s been fighting the administration on issues like school choice for years and he moves fast when an opportunity opens like the House GOP botching a late-term abortion bill.

After Gov. Walker’s performance at Saturday’s Freedom Summit, he’ll be one of the most formidable candidates on either side of the aisle. While Hillary has her supporters, she doesn’t have supporters that’d run through brick walls to help her win. Gov. Walker’s supporters are passionate and they’re willing to do anything to help him win. (You don’t win 3 elections in 4 years by having supporters who are indifferent.)

As for Marco Rubio, there’s no question that his participation in the Gang of Eight immigration bill will hurt him with primary voters. Still, there’s no denying that he’s a powerful communicator with a compelling personal story that shouts ‘I’m living the American dream.’

Rick Perry is being written off by the MSM. That’s a mistake. They’ve focused too much on Perry’s oops moment during the 2012 and not enough on what he’s done on securing Texas’ border during the flood of unattended children. He’s a much more serious candidate this time.

At this point, I’d argue that Republicans are likely to win the White House. People are sick of President Obama and they just aren’t excited about Hillary. She’s been on the national scene for a quarter century. It’s impossible to sell yourself as a fresh face with Hillary’s resume.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Throughout Sean Hannity’s interview with Paul Ryan, it was painfully obvious that Mr. Hannity didn’t grasp the concept that divided government means one or both sides hate the deals they strike. Here’s the video of Hannity’s interview:

Throughout the interview, Hannity kept complaining that conservatives don’t like this deal much. Througout the interview, Chairman Ryan told Hannity that the budget would’ve looked much different had Patty Murray agreed to his budget and President Obama had signed it into law.

It’s unrealistic to think that President Obama would even momentarily contemplate signing such a budget. It’s absurd to think that Harry Reid would let Chairman Ryan’s budget to get a hearing, much less a vote in the Senate. That wasn’t going to happen.

What conservatives have to remember is that winning elections is the only way that the Ryan balanced budget proposal has a chance of becoming law. While Hannity and others kept insisting that Chairman Ryan had forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse, Hannity didn’t understand that Ryan technically had the power of the purse but he didn’t have the power of the purse without there being a steep political price to be paid.

People like Hannity have forgotten that the balanced budgets of the 1990s didn’t happen because John Kasich, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton instantly had a come-to-Jesus moment and they all lived happily ever after. Conservative incrementalism is the only reason we had 4 straight balanced budgets.

It’s important to remember that there’s a huge difference between President Clinton and President Obama. President Clinton had run something before getting elected. He knew the value of being practical when it was required. President Obama never ran anything as challenging as a lemonade stand. He grew up in a radicalized world. President Obama never thought that compromise was a worthwhile thing. He still doesn’t.

Let’s stipulate that the Ryan-Murray plan isn’t a great deal because it isn’t. It’s important for whining conservatives like Hannity to understand that, though it isn’t agreat deal, it’s the best deal available. It’s equally important that consertvatives like Mr. Hannity and others to understand that this deal has significant benefits.

First, there won’t be another shutdown, which means the spotlight stays of the disaster of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. That’s a huge win for Republicans. If that’s all that the Republicans got out of this, that’d be enough to chalk this up as GOP victory.

Second, there’s agreement in this legislation that opens up more oil and natural gas exploration. That’s a significant win for the GOP. Most importantly, it’s a major victory for the American people in the form of stabilized home heating bills and gas prices at the pump.

Third, it’s a win for Republicans because Democrats won’t get traction when they accuse Republicans of not having the ability to govern. Instead, Chairman Ryan has stopped the Obama form of governing. That form of governing meant jumping from one crisis and/or deadline to another. That method of operation gave President Obama a major advantage in negotiations because he had the bully pulpit and Republicans had a gun pointed at their head.

People like Erick Erickson need to get their facts straight. He didn’t get his facts straight in this post:

Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.

According to Chairman Ryan, Erickson isn’t close to being right. The offsets in “autopilot spending”, aka entitlements, start immediately. In exchange for some ‘sequestration relief’, Chairman Ryan won some minor changes in entitlement spending.

The Erick Ericksons of the world will never be satisfied with anything other than total, immediate victory. If Republicans want to rebuild credibility in their brand, however, it’s important that they show apolitical people that they can be principled without being obnoxious.

Chairman Ryan’s budget provides that platform for Republicans.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite the Democrats’ spin otherwise, the looming government shutdown will be their fault. Tonight, Republicans voted to keep the government open while attaching a provision that would delay the start of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Here’s the White House’s response:

The White House on Saturday said President Obama would veto the House GOP’s latest stopgap spending measure.

It said Obama would veto the bill because of the inclusion of language delaying ObamaCare and eliminating a medical device tax, while faulting the House for not moving a simple funding measure approved by the Senate on Friday.

“Rather than taking up that legislation, the House proposes amendments that advance a narrow ideological agenda and threaten the nation’s economy,” the White House budget office said in a statement. “By including extraneous measures that have no place in a government funding bill and that the president and Senate already made clear are unacceptable, House Republicans are pushing the government toward shutdown,” it said. “If the president was presented with H.J. Res 59, as amended by these amendments, he would veto the bill.”

Putting things into a bill at the last minute has been happening for decades. In most instances, however, the changes are additional pork used to buy votes that ensure passage of the bill. This time, the change to the Senate bill would delay the negative impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the PPACA.

The administration immediately attempted to paint Republicans as extremists:

Before the veto threat, White House press secretary Jay Carney called the GOP measure “reckless and irresponsible.” Any Republican who votes for the bill is “voting for a shutdown,” he said in a statement.

It isn’t amazing that the administration is attempting to portray Republicans as extremists. What’s amazing, though, is the fact that the media isn’t questioning the White House. They aren’t even pretending to be mildly interested in reporting facts.

Unlike the formerly mainstream media, I’ll put forward some verifiable facts. If Senate Democrats defeat the bill passed tonight by the House of Representatives:

  • they will have voted to not fund the government’s operation.
  • they will have voted for giving corporations a huge break while forcing families to suffer the consequences of the PPACA
  • they will have voted for hurting families while getting an exception for themselves and their staff.

It’s impossible to take Jay Carney seriously, especially considering his repeated indefensible statements. Here’s his latest spin:

In his statement, Carney criticized Republicans for repeatedly trying to attack the healthcare law, noting they have held more than 40 votes to defund, delay or repeal it.

“The president has shown that he is willing to improve the health care law and meet Republicans more than halfway to deal with our fiscal challenges, but he will not do so under threats of a government shutdown that will hurt our economy,” he said.

That’s BS. If President Obama was “willing to improve the health care law”, he’d push for something that didn’t use the government to force families into buying something they don’t want to buy. If President Obama truly was willing to meet Republicans half way on health care reform, he wouldn’t have shoved the PPACA down families’ throats. If President Obama was truly willing to meet Republcans half way, he wouldn’t have ignored the American people’s vociferous cries to stop the insanity of passing the ACA.

There’s no polite way of putting this so I’ll just say it. Mr. Carney is a liar. Mr. Carney insists that President Obama “has shown that he’s willing to improve the health care law.” I’m calling Mr. Carney’s bluff. I won’t believe him until he cites examples of President Obama did that. What specific provisions has he used that the Republicans proposed? We know that Republicans proposed tons of alternatives during the Health Summit. Here’s one of their proposals:

10:07– Sen. Coburn is now talking about lawsuit abuse reform and defensive medicine costs. Eliminating lawsuit abuse and defensive medicine costs would save almost $850,000,000,000 annually.

That went in one of President Obama’s ears and out the other. Nothing in the ACA addresses reducing defensive medicine costs.

10:42– Paul Ryan is responding to Rob Andrews on the issue of federal regulations. Andrews says that the federal government needs to regulate health care mandates. Ryan nailed Andrews, saying that organizations like NFIB will do a good job of negotiating health care policies for their members. Ryan then says that governors will do a good job regulating health insurance, too.

When I wrote this post, I cited Lamar Alexander’s statement:

Today, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month, a 190 percent increase. Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month, a 97 percent increase. Even with a tax subsidy, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today.
Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy. In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.

When the federal government dictates what health insurance policies have to cover, families’ affordable choices shrink.

Again, President Obama is about getting everything his way. Mr. Carney’s lies aren’t persuasive.

When Democrats vote to defeat the House CR, they’ll have their fingerprints all over the looming government shutdown.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to John Hinderaker’s post about the fight over the PPACA, I can now see the GOP winning this fight. Here’s what John said that makes sense:

The Senate will pass a continuing resolution that includes Obamacare. At that point, after a little grandstanding, the Republican House will graciously accept the Senate resolution in order to avoid a shutdown. The effect is that Democrats in both the House and the Senate have been forced to go on record in favor of Obamacare.

The Republican leadership thinks this is a desirable goal. Why? For at least two reasons. First, some Congressional Democrats were not in office when the ACA passed, and haven’t yet cast a vote on it. Second, it was one thing to vote for Obamacare when no one had read the bill, and hardly anyone understood what its effects would be. Now, most people understand that Obamacare is a job-killer, a choice-destroyer, and an administrative horror. So there is, I think, something gained when Democrats are compelled to hold their noses and vote for the noxious law one more time.

John understands that the PPACA won’t disappear until there’s a Republican in the White House and Republicans control the House and Senate. Still, forcing people to vote for the PPACA is taking its toll on Democrats:

UPDATE: Traditionally, voters have trusted Republicans more on “hard” issues–national security, taxes, the economy–and Democrats more on “soft” issues–education, the environment and health care. So it is noteworthy that, despite ceaseless attacks in the Democratic press, Scott Rasmussen finds that voters trust Republicans over Democrats on health care by 43%-42%. That’s a tie, of course, but it must reflect the public’s dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Republicans can push their advantage by continuing to pound away at Obamacare, as the House leadership is now doing.

Despite Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s protestations, people hate the PPACA. They like some of the bill’s provisions but they hate most of it. They certainly hate the bill’s tax increases. They hate the employer and individual mandates. They don’t trust the exchanges. In other words, while people like provisions like keeping young people on their parents’ policy until they’re 26 and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, they’re disgusted with the biggest provisions of the PPACA.

When the PPACA is repealed, Repbulicans should resurrect the Patients Choice Act. The key components of the PCA focus on greater consumer choice, fewer mandates and a strengthened doctor-patient relationship. The IPAB would disappear. Ditto with the tax increaases and the 20,000 pages of regulations (thus far).

In short, the PCA, not to be confused with PPACA, would be popular because people instinctively prefer more options than less and less government interference over excessive government interference. That’s what the PCA would deliver.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,