A Rake’s Progress

Entries categorized as ‘Republicans’

Should Iowa, Wyoming Determine Health Care Policy for 300 Million Americans?

September 2, 2009 · 1 Comment

From The Village Blog today, a great post asking why we should let those two small states — and their reactionary senators, Grassley and Enzi — have such a major role in health care reform.

Mike Enzi, Republican senator from Wyoming, Pop 510,000 (2005)

Mike Enzi, Republican senator from Wyoming, Pop 510,000 (2005)

senator charles grassley

Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa, Pop 3 million (2008)

It sounds as if the Obama Administration is finally coming to its senses and is ready to dump the anti-reform tag-team of Grassley and Enzi in favor of health care policies that actually help 300 million Americans, especially the 47+ million uninsured.

After so many years of listening to all the reasons why my home state of New Hampshire and that corn-field known as Iowa should not have the first primary and caucuses for president, it is astonishing that two Republican senators from states with a total population of about 3.5 million should be allowed to have such a major impact on health care policy for the rest of the country.

How David Axelrod and Company could have missed the major lesson of the Clinton reform effort is equally astonishing. It was not that Hillary held “secret meetings,” or that the reform plan was too complicated, or that it was “socialistic,” or that she did not include enough politicians in her deliberations (she did). It failed because the Republicans wanted it to fail. And they wanted it to fail because they do not believe that the poor deserve health care. In other words, like most Republicans, they were greedy and did not want to pay for someone else’s health insurance.

They still don’t. Nothing has changed folks. The GOP is still the party of the rich, the entitled, the haves. And they will do everything they can to keep their stash as safe as possible, the rest of the country be damned.

Grassley and Enzi?

Let ‘em go home and shuck corn and shovel cow shit. That’s where they belong.

Categories: Barack Obama · Health Care · Hillary Clinton · Hillary Clinton Quarterly · Iowa Caucus · New Hampshire Primary · Politics · Republicans
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Memo to President Obama: It’s the Pork, Stupid!

February 5, 2009 · Leave a Comment

cutepigs

First thing this morning I read President Obama’s opinion piece in the Washington Post, defending his stimulus bill and attacking opponents as representing the same-old tax-cutting GOP economics of the past.

If that’s really what the President thinks, he is missing the point. It’s not tax cuts versus spending, it’s old-fashioned pork-barrel spending versus a targeted, non-wasteful economic stimulus package that contains both spending and responsible tax cuts.

Obama writes:

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it’s a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

What’s he’s saying is that his bill is more than a bill to stimulate the economy. It’s a Christmas wish list that includes every patronage toy that Democrats in Congress want to see under their trees. That is not the purpose of this bill — at least that was not its original purpose.

When Obama took office, my comment was that his success as president would be determined by his ability to control his own party’s worst instincts. So far he has shown no ability to control anything. He let Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House write their own bill and put in it whatever they wanted, and now he refuses to cut the waste they threw into the package. What’s worse, they did so with an arrogance reminiscent of another over-reaching Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Pelosi, as we know, not only made sure that no Republican would vote for her bill, but rubbed their faces in the dirt as well: “We won!”

Of course, much was made of Obama’s trip to the Hill to talk to GOP leaders. He would have better spent his time in Pelosi’s office reading her the riot act and explaining that building bipartisan support for legislation does not include humiliating the opposition (she can check with Newt on that lesson, too).

So, now, instead of admitting more self-inflicted wounds, Obama is expanding his “strategy” in order to excuse billions in pork. Yeah, the GOP would like to see more tax cuts, but it’s the pork that’s choking this legislative baby.

If it doesn’t survive, Obama and Pelosi deserve the blame, not the GOP.

Here’s a heartening report from CNN that Senators are now going through the stimulus bill line by line. Maybe there’s hope!

If you want to see some of the spending items that fall into “pork” category, here the list from CNN:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a “security training” facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Categories: Barack Obama · Congress · Democrats · Economy · GOP · Nancy Pelosi · News · Newt Gingrich · Politics · Republicans
Tagged: , , , ,

Hillary, Bill Clinton Pass Up Last Chance to Urge Support for Obama

November 3, 2008 · 4 Comments

How odd that in their last message to voters, Hillary and Bill don’t say “Go out and vote for Barack Obama.” There’s that blurry Obama/Biden sign in the background but that’s about it — not exactly a ringing endorsement of BO’s “politics of change.”

They look like two two-year olds being forced to eat their porridge.

My advice? Write in Hillary Clinton for president. You don’t have to eat Obama’s BS just because he’s a Democrat.

Categories: Barack Obama · Bill Clinton · Democratic Party · Democrats · Election 2008 · Hillary Clinton · Hillary Clinton Quarterly · John McCain · News · Politics · Presidential Campaign · Republicans
Tagged: , , ,

How Many Presidential Elections Did You Vote for the Winner?

November 2, 2008 · 2 Comments

While Rake raked leaves today, I realized that my presidential choices have not exactly been in line with the rest of the electorate. I looked back at who I supported/voted for as president and who actually won.

My Presidential Election batting average is .333. In 12 elections, starting with 1960, my candidate won 4 times. If I were a major league ball player, that wouldn’t be too bad. As a citizen, I feel pretty much out in left field.

Here’s who got elected by election year and who I supported/voted for.

1960
Who I voted for/supported: Kennedy
Who won: Kennedy
All good Catholics voted for Kennedy or we would end up in hell for eternity! (That’s what the nuns told us.)

1964
Who I voted for/supported: Goldwater
Who won: Johnson
Like my good friend Hillary Clinton, “In my heart I knew he was right!” Basically, I liked that he was an airplane pilot and I never trusted Johnson. The Vietnam War proved me at least half right.

1968
Who I voted for/supported: Humphrey
Who won: Nixon
Do I really have to explain? OK, HHH was a motor-mouth, a liberal version of Papa Stalin — he was going to take care of us. Like many who voted for him, I started as one of those “Clean for Gene” McCarthy supporters. As for Nixon, anyone who was a friend of Joe McCarthy was an enemy of mine.

1972
Who I voted for/supported: McGovern
Who won: Nixon
This proves that either I am the most erudite political observer, or a total idiot! Watergate and the slow end to the war proved something. I never hated a pol as much as I did Nixon! I wept when Agnew resigned and cheered when Nixon was led out of the White House.

1976
Who I voted for/supported: Carter
Who won: Carter
Victory at last! Giving a pardon to Tricky Dicky was Ford’s downfall in my eyes and in the eyes of many voters.

1980
Who I voted for/supported: Carter
Who won: Reagan
It wasn’t Jimmy’s fault that Iran kidnapped all those Americans or that inflation hit 18%. Or was it? In any case, I am a snob and think the main talent of actors is. . .acting? Besides, I liked the way Carter pronounced the word, “nuclear.”

1984
Who I voted for/supported: Mondale
Who won: Reagan
After Reagan won in 1980 I went into a 12 year political trance. I could not even stand to watch the news. I voted for Mondale because he wasn’t Reagan and he picked Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate.

1988
Who I voted for/supported: Dukakis
Who won: Bush
See! I knew those Bushes were up to no good! In retrospect Bush One was a statesman compared to his son. I think the main reason why I voted for the Duke was Anne Richardson’s speech at the Democratic Convention — “Poor George was born with a silver spoon in his mouth/” Vintage stuff!

1992
Who I voted for/supported: Clinton
Who won: Clinton
Free at last! Free at last! Free at last! I woke up from my political slumber and my girl, Hillary, was finally in the White House. Like this current election, the economy was the main impetus for Clinton’s victory. Bush, no surprise, just didn’t get it.

1996
Who I voted for/supported: Clinton
Who won: Clinton
I am on a roll! And so is the country. The economy is perking along, jobs are up, wages are up, and despite the Gingrich Revolution and bimonthly Clinton scandals invented by the GOP, Bill and Hil get four more years. It didn’t hurt that Bob Dole was the worst GOP candidate in party history.

2000
Who I voted for/supported: Gore
Who won: Bush
This one was Gore’s to lose — and he did. Tough election after Bill’s BJ and impeachment hearings. But another Bush. I became depressed again.

2004
Who I voted for/supported: Kerry
Who won: Bush
I have a theory about the losing ways of Massachusetts liberals like Dukakis and Kerry. Winning in that state as a Democrat is such a slam-dunk, they never learned how to play nasty against the GOP, which is what you need to do if you plan on winning the White House. Living next door to Kerry’s home state I was more than familiar with his pompous campaign style, but by this time it was clear that Bush was living up to his low expectations, screwing up the war, the economy, and American confidence all at the same time.

2008
???/???
Am I going to continue my losing ways? Most likely. But I assure myself as I look at the past, that I might have lost elections but was on the right side of history — most of the time.

So what’s your Presidential Election Batting Average?

Categories: Al Gore · Barack Obama · Bill Clinton · Bob Dole · Democrats · George Bush · Goldwater · Goldwater Girl · Hillary Clinton · Hillary Clinton Quarterly · JFK · Jimmy Carter · John Kerry · John McCain · Liberals · Mike Dukakis · Politics · Presidential Campaign · Reagan · Republicans · Richard Nixon · Walter Mondale
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Is Playing Games with Tax Cuts.

October 28, 2008 · 1 Comment

Earlier today we noted with some surprise that Obama had lowered his definition of “wealthy” from those earning $250,000 a year to those earning more than $200,000 a year.

Now there’s a report from Fox News quoting running mate Joe Biden saying that wealthy begins above $150,000. Biden told a Scranton, Pa., TV station on Monday that Obama’s tax break “should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”

John McCain attacked the downward trend in the Obama-Biden definition of wealthy:

“You getting an idea of what’s on their mind, huh? A little sneak peak,” McCain said, pointing to Biden’s comment. “It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase.” 

As I noted earlier today –

We’ve heard his promise to taxpayers so many times, it is permanently etched into our brains: “If you make less than $250,000, you will get a tax cut.”

Thanks to Obama’s cash-flush campaign, he ran those ads so often, we can recite the numbers by heart. We were all pretty clear that $250K was the thresh-hold. Below that, and you were on the Obama dole — the check was as good as in the mail! If you earned more than $250K, you were out of luck, buster! Just hand over your paycheck or business revenues to the Obama enforcers and be done with it.

Now we have this new Obama ad — I call it “The Case of the Missing $50,000.” Just 30 seconds into the ad and now Obama is promising that “If you earn less than $200,000, you will get a tax cut.”

What happened to the $50,000?

Did someone in his campaign finally do the math and realize that he needed to punish more people in order to redistribute sufficient wealth to the rest of the country?

Rest assured, no one will fail to catch this last-minute switcheroo. But I sense that those who were supporting Obama in the first place generally earned much less than $200K a year. This is not going to change their vote.

What people should really be concerned about is how Obama’s definition of wealthy is likely to keep shifting downward –$100,000? $75,000? A warm body with a steady job?

Careful what you wish for, America!

Categories: Barack Obama · Democrats · Election 2008 · Flip-flopping · Fox News · GOP · Hillary Clinton Quarterly · Joe Biden · John McCain · News · Politics · Presidential Campaign · Republicans · Sarah Palin
Tagged: , , , , , ,