Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

It’s apparent that Democrats are overplaying the CBO’s report on repealing the ACA. It’s apparent after reading this Washington Post article.

That’s apparent based on the opening paragraph of their article, which says “At least 18 million people would lose health insurance in the first year if Republicans move ahead with plans to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan, estimates a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

The first telling part is when CBO says 18,000,000 “people would lose health insurance in the first year if Republicans move ahead with plans to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan.” That sentence alone nullifies the importance of the CBO’s analysis. That’s because Republicans have consistently said that they’d pass the repeal and replace in the same piece of legislation. They’ve also promised to not let anyone get left hanging while transitioning from Obamacare to the new and improved health care system.

This doom and gloom is helping Democrats overplay their hand:

The number of people without insurance would grow to about 32 million within the first decade if congressional Republicans follow a 2015 plan to repeal the health-care law without an alternative, the new report says. It also estimates that health insurance premiums for people buying individual non-group coverage would double within a decade, further complicating GOP promises that people will not lose coverage under their plan.

It’s clear that the new plan to replace the ACA will be significantly different than anything that’s been used before. Further, Democrats are setting themselves up for failure. The only way that the Democrats’ strategy will work is if Republicans totally drop the ball. The chances of that happening with President Trump, Vice President Pence, HHS Secretary Price, Speaker Ryan and Sen. John Barrasso leading the push is virtually nonexistent.

Rest assured that President Trump’s first State of the Union Address will include details of what the replace plan will include. I’d expect that legislation will have been submitted by then. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the legislation will gotten its first hearings by then. Once President Trump blasts this information out to the nation, the Democrats’ handwringing and demagoguery will put them in God’s little acre — between a rock and a hard place.

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

One of the great things about President-Elect Trump’s cabinet picks is that it’s forcing Democrats to defend the indefensible. Contained in this article is something that’s totally black-white.

The opening paragraph states “Betsy DeVos, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, stood firm about her long held beliefs that parents, not the government, should be able to choose where to send children to school, pledging Tuesday to push voucher programs should she be confirmed to lead the nation’s education system.”

Only a union member would disagree with that statement. Parents should have the right to pick the schools their children attend. As for those defending the failed status quo in education, which is what the Democrats are doing, check out Randi Weingarten’s statement about Mrs. DeVos. I don’t think that unhinged is a strong enough word. Weingarten said “She has no connections to public schools,” Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federal of Teachers, told CNN on Tuesday. “What she wants to do is actually drain the public system of dollars it desperately needs.”

Al Franken’s round of questioning was what you’d expect from a political hack like him. This video showed that he was a political hack with a pre-orchestrated script to follow:

Then there’s this:

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, questioned whether DeVos has the “breadth and depth” of knowledge to serve as education secretary. Franken started his turn at questioning by asking DeVos whether she believes in judging children on growth or proficiency. DeVos stumbled on the question and seemingly didn’t know that this was a debate within the education community. “It surprises me that you don’t know this issue,” Franken said, later adding that he is, in fact, “not that surprised that you don’t know this issue.”

Franken then turned to DeVos’ donation to Focus on the Family, an organization that believes conversion therapy for LGBT. Franken directly asked DeVos whether she “still believes” in conversion therapy. “I have never believed in that,” DeVos said, adding, “I fully embrace equality.”

Let’s inventory Franken’s questioning. First, he insisted that the expert wasn’t an expert because she didn’t give into his liberal groupthink. Next, he insults Mrs. DeVos for not being qualified. Finally, Sen. Franken assumed that Mrs. DeVos believed something because she’s a devout Christian.

That’s fair game with Democrats like Sen. Franken. It’s considered bigotry amongst civilized, thoughtful people. Apparently, Sen. Franken isn’t a civilized, thoughtful person. Sen. Franken, like other Democrats, are guilt-by-association people. Check this article out:

DeVos’s stance on LGBT rights is not known—she has declined to comment ahead of the confirmation hearings—but there are, to put it mildly, reasons for concern.

The DeVos family has been the primary funder of some of the most anti-LGBT organizations in the country, to the tune of more than $200 million. Her father-in-law, Richard DeVos, was one of the first mega-funders of the Christian right in the 1970s, and his foundation is now a fixture at The Gathering, the Woodstock of Christian right funders, and a major funder of Focus on the Family. The DeVos Center for Religion and Society at the Heritage Foundation has promoted a quasi-theocratic worldview. And Betsy DeVos’s father, Edgar Prince, was a founder of the Family Research Council.

That’s right. Admit that they don’t know her position on something. Then, in the next breath, attack her because she’s related. Don’t find out for yourself. Just make unsubstantiated assumptions.

This article highlights Sen. Warren’s shameless interrogation of Dr. Ben Carson during his confirmation hearing. Dr. Carson is President-Elect Trump’s pick to be the HUD secretary. Sen. Warren apparently thought that her responsibility was to play gotcha games with Dr. Carson or to use the confirmation hearing to smear President-Elect Trump.

Sen. Warren asked Dr. Carson “If you are confirmed to lead HUD, you will be responsible for issuing billions of dollars in grants and loans to help develop housing and provide a lot of housing-related services. Now, housing development is an area in which President-elect Trump and his family have significant business interests. Can you assure me that not a single taxpayer dollar that you give out will financially benefit the president-elect or his family?” Carson said he would “absolutely not play favors for anyone” because he is “driven by a sense of morals and values.”

Not willing to accept Dr. Carson’s reply, Sen. Warren pressed on, asking “Can you just assure us that not one dollar will go to benefit either the president-elect or his family?” Again, Dr. Carson replied that “It will not be my intention to do anything to benefit any American.” He quickly realized the gaffe and fixed the answer in his subsequent statement, “It’s for all Americans, everything that we do.”
“I will manage things in a way that benefits the American people,” he further clarified. “That is going to be the goal.”

Still unsatisfied, Sen. Warren then said “The reason you can’t assure us of that is because the president-elect is hiding his family’s business interests from you, from me, from the rest of America. And this just highlights the absurdity and the danger of the president-elect’s refusal to put his assets in a true blind trust.”

This is sour grapes on Sen. Warren’s behalf. The American people weren’t surprised by the fact that President-Elect Trump is wealthy. They understood that it’d be impossible for him to put his assets in a blind trust the way less wealthy presidents could. It isn’t that they’re giving him a blank check to do whatever he wants. It’s that they’re willing to give him time to earn their trust. After watching this video, it’s pretty apparent that Sen. Warren is considering a presidential run in 2020:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t surprising that the AP is reporting that Keith Ellison will miss Friday’s inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump. That’s as surprising as reports that Donald Trump is rich.

What makes this information newsworthy, in my opinion, is Rep. Ellison’s statement on why he isn’t attending. The AP quotes him as saying “I will not celebrate a man who preaches a politics of division and hate.”

Presumably, that’s said after offering the ‘I supported Louis Farrakhan’ exemption. This article hits Ellison right between the eyes, saying “In Ellison’s attempt to distance himself from past actions and move up in the Democratic Party he has said that he has ‘long denounced’ Farrakhan and called him ‘a hater,’ but Muhammad said that this is not the Ellison that he knew. Muhammad said that he met with Ellison personally during his years of association with the Nation of Islam and that there was ‘no question’ that Ellison, who at the time went by Keith Ellison-Muhammad, supported Farrakhan’s work.”

This might be the most lucid thing David Schultz has said as a political commentator:

Schultz says the last time the United States had a significant number of lawmakers boycott the presidential inauguration was in March 1861 when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office. Schultz adds boycotting Trump is a win-win for Ellison specifically because his district is so overwhelming only democratic and because of his goals to become the next Democratic Committee Chair. “I suspect by boycotting this he integrates himself with the real liberals of the party and with the people who are saying what the Democrats really need to do is fight,” said Schultz.

Democrats come across as petty by skipping the inauguration:

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

If anything’s painfully obvious about Brian Fallon, it’s that he’s using this transition period to audition for a new job at one of the Democratic Party’s alphabet organizations. (Think of the DNC, the DCCC or the DSCC.) His TV appearances aren’t particularly impressive. The only thing noteworthy about Fallon’s appearances are his flashing his pearly whites and his constant whining about the election. If you think that’s bad news for him, think again. That’s virtually guaranteeing him a job at one of these mean-spirited organizations.

The thing you’ve got to understand is that the DNC and the DCCC peddle negativity for a living. That isn’t just what they do. That’s who they are.

This article highlights that fact. In the second paragraph of the article, S.A. Miller wrote “Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, has said there’s ‘too much evidence’ that Mr. Trump was in league with Russian spies trying to rig the election.” I haven’t seen any evidence of that. In fact, it’s quite the contrary. Has Fallon seen top secret or confidential documents that haven’t been made public? That’s certainly possible, especially considering who his former boss is.

This video is from his appearance on the opening installment of Martha MacCallum’s terrific new show “The First 100 Days”:

Saying that Fallon was filled with criticism is understatement. If you took out all of his whining, that 4:45 video could’ve been reduced to 28 seconds, if that. It’s all whining all the time. Then there’s this:

Mr. Fallon said in a Twitter post Sunday that Americans can’t trust Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s denial that the Trump team was in contact with Russia during the campaign. “Sorry, but we cannot take their word for it on this. There is too much evidence suggesting otherwise,” he tweeted.

Says the chief spokesman for the woman who blamed the assassination of a US ambassador on a Youtube video in public, then told her daughter it was a terrorist attack. Fallon shouldn’t talk about people without credibility. He was employed by a person who didn’t have credibility or integrity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If there’s anything more disheartening than the Democrats’ dishonesty about the Anything But Affordable Care Act, I can’t find it. Elizabeth Warren’s op-ed is the latest in a lengthy list of dishonest anti-Republican diatribes.

In the opening paragraph of her diatribe, Sen. Warren, aka Pocahontas (according to President-Elect Trump), she said “For eight years, Republicans in Congress have complained about health care in America, heaping most of the blame on President Obama. Meanwhile, they’ve hung out on the sidelines making doomsday predictions and cheering every stumble, but refusing to lift a finger to actually improve our health care system.”

It must be nice to be able to outright lie and never worry that the Corrupt Media will expose you as a liar. The man who will soon be the US HHS Secretary, Tom Price, has introduced the Empowering Patients First Act “in the 111th, 112th and 113th Congresses.” Sen. Pocahontas can criticize Dr. Price’s plan. That’s fair game. She can’t say it doesn’t exist. That’s lying, which isn’t tolerated at LFR.

This is laughable:

Many Massachusetts families are watching this play out, worried about what will happen, including thousands from across the Commonwealth that I joined at Faneuil Hall on Sunday to rally in support of the ACA. Hospitals and insurers are watching too, concerned that repealing the ACA will create chaos in the health insurance market and send costs spiraling out of control.

It’s frightening to think that a US senator is either too blind to see that health insurance premium prices are already spiraling out of control or too dishonest to admit that the ACA, aka Obamacare, has caused health insurance premiums and deductibles to skyrocket.

Why won’t Sen. Pocahontas admit that “Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming will have only one insurance company offering plans through the Obamacare health insurance exchange in 2017, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation”? Sen. Warren said that the Republicans’ plan is “repeal and run”, which is catchy. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ plan for passing the ACA was to hide the product until the final product was voted on. Does Sen. Pocahontas remember this infamous quote?

I don’t have a clever slogan for the Democrats’ strategy. I’m just left with the responsibility of telling people how Democrats ignored them while shoving terrible legislation down our throats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This Washington Post article didn’t highlight what’s actually happening. Abby Phillip’s article starts by saying “A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift between the two parties.”

What’s actually happening is that the most hyper-partisan parts of the Democratic Party have jettisoned any spirit of bipartisanship. People like Sen. Manchin will be just fine. In Washington, DC, Rep. Lewis is seen exclusively as a civil rights hero. He’s certainly earned that distinction. Outside the Beltway, though, he’s seen as a partisan hack with a short list of accomplishments. When he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he didn’t think that Mr. Trump was a legitimate president and that he wouldn’t attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he solidified that image. He did nothing to soften his image as a partisan. This video will become what a new generation of Americans will think of Rep. Lewis:

The truth is that the hardline left (think Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, Keith Ellison, John Lewis, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi) has become totally unhinged. They aren’t capable of rational thinking at this point. When that’s the leadership of the Democratic Party, bipartisanship is virtually impossible. What’s yet to be determined is whether the DLC wing of the Democratic Party will reassert itself and save the Democratic Party from itself. At this point, I’ll predict that will happen but not until after a lengthy civil war for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-SF), and Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-Calif.), attacked Donald Trump after Rep. John Lewis said that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president. Here’s what these California dimwits tweeted:

After saying that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president-elect, Rep. Lewis said “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don’t plan to attend the inauguration.”

Good riddance. I won’t miss him. Rep. Lewis was a civil rights hero a half-century ago. He’s never been a noteworthy legislator. He’s lived his entire legislative career relying on his civil rights reputation. He’s been a bitter man most of that time.

Contrary to Rep. Lewis’s opinion, “the Russians” didn’t help get Mr. Trump elected. The people who were most responsible for getting Mr. Trump elected were the lazy media, the DNC leadership and, most of all, Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in US history. She insisted on running essentially the same campaign as Mitt Romney did. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Mrs. Clinton relied on analytics and top-down-know-it-all management. Further, Mrs. Clinton was so arrogant that Mrs. Clinton wrote off Wisconsin despite the fact that Wisconsin had been trending red for years. Then Mrs. Clinton ignored the reports from Michigan that things weren’t going so well there.

Finally, let’s be blunt about something. Donald Trump won the way all other presidents have won: by winning the most electoral votes. This isn’t a mystery. President-Elect Trump won more states (by far) than Mrs. Clinton did. Mrs. Clinton won California, New York, Illinois, the northeast and the Left Coast. She got clobbered in the battleground states.

Bitter partisans like Rep. Lewis aren’t helping bring this nation together. They’re doing their best to tear it apart.

Perhaps, he should retire rather than divide the nation.

This article parrots Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s talking point that high risk pools “are prohibitively expensive.”

Bob Bryan wrote that “Ryan said Republicans planned to replace Obamacare with high-risk pools, which had been used by states before the ACA was passed, so that Jeans and others could continue to get coverage. Health-policy experts have been wary of this plan because of the low enrollment and prohibitively high costs in previous state-level pools.”

First, the “health policy experts” Bryan is talking about are from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a wildly pro-ACA organization. Trusting them isn’t entirely like trusting a used car salesman but I can’t say that I’d recommend trusting them without tons of verified information. Further, KFF apparently relies more on surveys than on research.

Second, Minnesota had a high risk pool before it was destroyed by the ACA. It wasn’t wildly expensive. It kept health insurance prices down for people who didn’t have pre-existing conditions. Finally, it helped Minnesota achieve an insured rate of 93% in 2007.

Though it isn’t in this video, Speaker Ryan told a townhall audience that President Obama and Democrats should’ve fixed the parts that were broken and left alone the parts that were working:

Instead, driven by partisan ideology, President Obama and the Democrats destroyed a health care system that 85% of the people liked and thought was working. While shoving this 2,700-page monstrosity down our throats, they didn’t have the decency to let the American people, or Republican representatives, read the bill. Only a handful of Democrats knew what was in the bill when it was passed. Now we’re supposed to trust Democrats when they tell us what won’t work?

That’s insulting and I won’t tolerate it.

One of the major highlights of CNN’s townhall meeting with Speaker Ryan at George Washington University came during the question of the night. That’s when Speaker Ryan announced that the House would repeal the ACA and pass the Republican replacement “at the same time, and in some cases in the same bill.” Speaker Ryan continued, saying “So we want to advance repealing this law with its replacement at the same time.”

The first person to ask a question of Speaker Ryan was a small business owner named Jeff Jeans, who identified himself as a former Republican and a cancer survivor. Jeans told Speaker Ryan “Just like you, I was opposed to the Affordable Care Act. When it was passed, I told my wife we would close our business before I’d comply with this law. Then, at 49, I was given 6 weeks to live and with a very curable type of cancer. We offered 3 times the cost of my treatments, which was rejected. They required an insurance card. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I’m standing here alive. Being both a small business person and a person with pre-existing conditions, I rely on the Affordable Care Act to purchase my own insurance. Why would you repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement?”

Ryan replied “We wouldn’t do that. We want to replace it with something better. … We believe that state high risk pools are a smarter way of guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. We had a really good one in Wisconsin. Utah had a really great one. I was talking with a congresswoman from Washington today who was telling me how good their high risk pool is. What I mean when I say this is that about 8% of all the people less than 65 years of age have that type of pre-existing condition. … We don’t want people to go poor or go bankrupt because this thing happens to them so we obviously want a system where they can get affordable coverage without going bankrupt when they get sick. But we can do that without destroying the rest of the health care system for everybody else. That’s the point I’m trying to make. What we should have done is fix what was broken in health care without breaking what was working with health care and that’s what Obamacare unfortunately did.”

Here’s the video of that exchange:

It’s worth noting that Minnesota had a high risk pool, too, which was also working well until the ACA destroyed it. In 2007, before then-Sen. Obama was elected president, Minnesota boasted that 92.8% of its citizens were insured. Of those that didn’t have health insurance, more than half were eligible for some sort of taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Had those people gotten signed up, Minnesota’s insured rate would’ve exceeded 97%, which would’ve been better than anything that the ACA could ever hope to accomplish.

What’s particularly insulting and infuriating is the fact that Democrats know the Republicans’ plans. It’s infuriating because Ryan’s plan has been out there for months. If there’s anything certain about Speaker Ryan, it’s that he’s a policy junkie in the best sense of the word. He lives to write great legislation.

Speaker Ryan said that he didn’t have a specific date that he’d put on repealing and replacing the ACA, though he told Jake Tapper that he thinks it will happen in President Trump’s first 100 days.

If that happens, you’ll see the economy take off because Obamacare is sucking the incentive out of growing small businesses. Watch the entire video. It’s educational and enlightening.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,