Dem Altmire Votes No on Healthcare Bill

REP. JASON ALTMIRE: Why I voted no on health reform

Without cost-control, health-care reform is an empty promise

Friday, November 20, 2009

The need for health-care reform is clear: The skyrocketing cost of health care threatens America's financial future and our ability to effectively care for our citizens.

When Congress set out to accomplish health-care reform earlier this year, I had two main goals in mind: slowing the growth of health-care spending over the long term and building a system that focuses on quality of care, rather than simply quantity of care. Achieving these goals would allow us to greatly reduce the number of Americans without health-insurance coverage and improve the quality and affordability of our health-care system overall.

Unfortunately, the health-care reform bill (H.R. 3962) that was passed in the House on Nov. 7 failed to include the reforms necessary to meet these goals. This is why I voted against it.

I support many aspects of the House bill, such as the insurance reforms prohibiting both lifetime health-insurance caps and denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. I also support the emphasis the bill places on wellness initiatives; its promotion of health-information technology; its creation of a health-insurance exchange; and its investment in research to better inform patients and doctors about the difference between the best treatments and the most profitable treatments.

Despite the bill's strong points, it failed to address the one issue we cannot ignore in any truly effective health-care reform bill: out-of-control health-care spending. Until we tackle this core problem, we will simply be perpetuating an inefficient system that is unsustainable. This is the reason health insurance is so unaffordable to so many.

In recent months, politicians and analysts have discussed the need to "bend the health-care cost curve." The concept is simple: We must do something to make the system more efficient and slow the growth of health-care spending that is increasing at an annual rate well above that of wages and inflation. Until we bring these costs under control, premiums will continue to rise faster than incomes, more small businesses will be unable to afford coverage for their employees and government spending will escalate year after year.

The key to bending the cost curve and achieving true health-care reform is changing the way we pay for health care. We must transform our current fee-for-service system -- which pays providers primarily based on the quantity of care they provide -- into a system that pays providers based on the quality of care they provide. This is crucial because our current payment system incentives inefficiency and over utilization because providers are paid for the number of times they see patients and the number of tests they run -- not for how healthy they keep patients.

A number of academics, economists and health-care experts from across the political spectrum -- including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -- have documented that under the House bill, both federal and overall health-care expenditures would increase in the long term compared to current law.

Instead of leaving the difficult decisions about systemic reform to future generations, I believe we must seize this historic opportunity and enact a health-care bill that includes incentives for providers to keep their patients healthy and out of the health-care system in the first place. The best way to contain costs and slow the growth of health-care expenditures is to change behavior through reforming the way health care is delivered and paid for in this country.

Supporters of the House bill have argued that it is fiscally responsible because it does not add to the federal deficit. While this is true, there is a big difference between not adding to the deficit and bringing down health-care costs. The House bill pays for itself primarily by raising taxes, not by making the fundamental reforms necessary to bring down the cost of health care.

We cannot simply add tens of millions of uninsured people into today's inefficient health-care system and expect that it will yield different results. Absent the necessary systemic reforms, this approach would only compound our nation's budgetary problems and do little to make health care more affordable for families and businesses.

The American people deserve better. I am hopeful that Congress ultimately will pass a bill that represents true health-care reform -- a bill that would both expand coverage and lower costs. The issue is too important for us to miss this opportunity.

Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, represents Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District (www.altmire.house.gov).

Health Care Debate in the Balance

Health Care Debate in the Balance

From the blog of Representative Frank Lucas, R-Oklahoma. Carried on the Hill web site, homepages of the

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/66759-pelosis-trillion-dollar-government-takeover-of-healthcare-a-bad-prescription-for-america-rep-frank-lucas

So where is the vote count in the US House of the socialization of 1/6 of US economy by Pelosi and her liberal allies in Congress?   To give you an indication of how tight the vote count is, the newly elected Democrat Bill Owens from District 23 in New York is being sworn in so he can vote with the Dem majority.   But Majority Leader Hoyer may not have the votes.

All 177 House Republicans have long been expected to vote against the bill, meaning that Democrats can lose no more than 40 of their 258 members and still pass their highest legislative priority.

According to the Hill  www.hill.com  “Democratic leaders, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have given away as many concessions as they could spare in an effort to get to 218 "yes" votes.

And they continued to try to do so even late into the day Friday, as a pocket of pro-life Democrats needed further tweaking of language designed to guarantee that federal funds won’t find their way to insurance plans offering abortion coverage. Into the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Rules committee approved an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.”

According to Politico www.politico.com  at least 23 members of the Democrat caucus of 258 plan to vote NO on the health care bill.    If 41 members, plus the total GOP caucus of 177 members vote NO, the Pelosi-Reed-Obama health care bill with not pass the House.  Thus the secondary vote on taxpayer funded abortions, which the original bill had in the draft.    Now the Stupak amendment is being proposed the health care bill to bar Federal funding of elective abortions will be held, in order to keep the fragile majority of Democrats on board.

You may have been surprised by the American Medical Association endorsement of the health care bill?   According to Fox News  www.foxnews.com/politics   it turns out that the AMA took the controversial position without the support of the organizations House of Delegates.    Thus, the rank and file AMA membership is up in revolt and they have moved to have the endorsement voted on and withdrawn.

“The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.

Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.

On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.

President Obama cited the endorsement of the influential AMA, along with AARP's, in a surprise appearance Thursday in the White House briefing room as he attempted to beat back criticism that the bill would gut Medicare.”  Fox News Political

On Saturday, the US House (on a party line dominated vote of 242-192 moved the Health Care bill to the full House for floor debate.   A vote could take place by Saturday evening, although some sources indicate it may be early next week before a vote is taken.   The delay is due to serious problems in the 2,000 page bill, that even Democrats are reluctant to support.     We’ll see which Democrats are willing to vote with their constituents and which ones cave to Democrat party pressure.

© 2009, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org  

A New Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility

A New Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility

Since regaining control of Congress, the Democrats with the help of the newly elected spend & tax President, have been on a spending spree never seen before in America.    The USA triple A bond rating is in jeopardy, as rating agencies are beginning to question the financial viability of the USA government,  with looming debt and unfunded entitlement programs.   While former Congresses and former Presidents are convenient targets to blame, the Democrats in Congress shoulder the responsibility for this current fiscal irresponsibility.    For a graphic view of the problem, here is a web site that gives a visual of just how much trouble the US is in, given the misguided spend & tax approach the Democrats, with the signature support of President Obama have gotten us into: www.gop.gov/accountability

For some specifics on US government waste and lack of accountability, check out Citizens Against Government Waste  www.cagw.org   See the recent 2009 Congressional Pig Book, where over 10,000 Congressional earmarks are detailed, including the newer stealth earmarks, designed to circumvent taxpayer scrutiny.

In addition to the Federal government budget having problems, many of states are in dire financial straights.   But they cannot borrow like the Federal government (probably a good thing) and must balance their budgets.  For more detail on metrics for each state in the US, the US Census Bureau has some good statistics: www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities  www.cbpp.org the budget crises for state governments continues to worsen in 2009, but unlike the Federal government, they cannot borrow money to cover deficits.  

Here is an insight from the Center: “ The vast majority of states cannot run a deficit or borrow to cover their operating expenditures. As a result, states have three primary actions they can take during a fiscal crisis: they can draw down available reserves, they can cut expenditures, or they can raise taxes. States already have begun drawing down reserves; the remaining reserves are not sufficient to allow states to weather a significant downturn or recession. The other alternatives — spending cuts and tax increases — can further slow a state’s economy during a downturn and contribute to the further slowing of the national economy, as well.”

The overview from the Center continues: “States are currently at the mid-point of fiscal year 2009 — which started July 1 in most states — and are in the process of preparing their budgets for the next year. Over half the states had already cut spending, used reserves, or raised revenues in order to adopt a balanced budget for the current fiscal year — which started July 1 in most states. Now, their budgets have fallen out of balance again. New gaps of $59 billion (some 9 percent of state budgets) have opened up in the budgets of at least 42 states plus the District of Columbia. These budget gaps are in addition to the $48 billion shortfalls that these and other states faced as they adopted their budgets for the current fiscal year, bringing total gaps for the year to 16 percent of budgets.”

According to recent Gallup poll, states such as Wyoming and Louisiana are in the best shape (energy related economies) whereas the higher tax states, those with housing bubbles and those related to financial markets (New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona) are in the worst shape.  www.gallup.com

But some states are doing much better, during this economic downtown, according to Gallup polling and research. “In addition to South Dakota and the four oil-producing states mentioned above, other "best job market" states include oil states like North Dakota, those benefiting from coal like West Virginia, and farm states with comparatively good economies from ethanol and a strong commodities market like Nebraska. Financial-crisis states in the Northeast, including Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maine are some of the "worst job market" states, as is the housing crash state of California.

The second quartile of "better job market" states includes those with comparatively better economies because they are also energy-related, like Alaska, and farm-related, like Kansas. Similarly, the second-worst quintile of "poor job market" states have economies damaged by the financial debacle, like New York; the manufacturing depression, like Ohio; and the housing disaster, like Arizona.”

For the higher income tax individuals, states like New York, Minnesota, New Jersey and California are raising taxes from 5% and 6% to rates at the 8% to 10% level.   Combined with the new Obama ‘tax the rich plan’ to raise individual income taxes to 39%, high-income earner is looking at a 50% tax rate!   The assumption from the “tax the rich” camp is that higher income earners will just stay put and be a bigger tax target.   But there are nine states that may have the welcome mat that these higher income producers may want to step across to and end up with lower taxes.

So what states don’t have a state income tax:  Alaska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, South Dakota, Washington, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming.  www.irs.gov   You may want to look at moving and/or retiring in one of these nine “no income tax” states as the California and New York type of high tax states look at raising the state income tax rates to the 10% level (or approaching the 50% combined Federal + state rate for the high tax states).

© 2009, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

Spending + Borrowing = Higher Taxes

Spending + Borrowing = Higher Taxes

This week, Kansas Republican Lynn Jenkins gave the GOP response to President Obama’s weekly presidential address:  “The pace that Democrats in Congress and the White House are spending your tax dollars is simply staggering…know a thing or two about handling taxpayer dollars. I was the state treasurer in Kansas for six years before I came to Congress, and before that I practiced public accounting as a certified public accountant for nearly two decades.

So trust me when I say Washington’s books are a mess. 

It’s quickly turning into a symbol of everything wrong with Washington, D.C. – unchecked spending, no accountability and oversight, and more and more debt piled onto our children and grandchildren.

This week, we marked the president’s 100th day in office.  And while, like most of you, I like the president personally, I think the Democrats’ first 100 days running Washington can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing.” http://lynnjenkins.house.gov/

If you have had enough of overspending, taxing and waste in Washington, DC and throughout the Federal government, the next TEA Party Tax day will be Saturday July 4^th, as a TEA Party Day really near you.   With US national debt at $11 Trillion and counting, the TEA party organizers are reporting that 574+ rallies against higher taxes, excess spending and bloated government are planned for July 4^th 2009.  What does TEA stand for?   Taxed Enough Already!   http://www.teapartyday.com/ 

So just how much are US Taxpayers paying, as a percentage of their annual income in Federal taxes?   At the turn of the century, prior to income taxes at the Federal level, the US taxpayer burden was about 5% of gross income.   Tax Freedom Day®, as calculated by the US Tax Foundation  www.taxfoundation.org   occured in late January of the year.   By World War I, the US taxpayer burden was about 10% of gross income.   With the passage of the Individual Income tax and World War II (plus the New Deal), the US taxpayer burden rose to about 25% by the end of WWII.     It remained steady and rose slightly to top 30% by 1969.   It fell slightly during the Regan years (ranged between 29% and 31%), and then peaked again at a post WWII high of 33% at the end of the Clinton era.    The Bush tax cuts eased the US taxpayer burden back down to 29%, before slowly climbing back to 31% prior to the Obama election.     Here is the Tax Freedom Day® detailed history and tax law details: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr165.pdf

Where did Tax Freedom Day® come from?   It was conceived in 1948 by Florida businessman Dallas Hostetler.  He originated the concept, calculations and copyrighted the intellectual property.  Upon his retirement in 1971, he deeded the intellectual property (IP) to the National Tax Foundation.

So when is National Tax Freedom Day® in 2009?   It occurred on April 13^th.  But if you add the deficit spending accumulated by the US Government (now at $11 Trillion), it will take American taxpayers until about June 1^st to pay for the ongoing and accumulated cost of the US government.

© 2009, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

 

 

Other People's Money-Bailout Mania

Other People’s Money: Bailout Mania

In the consulting world, a baseline maximum is:  “If you have a problem that can be solved with money, you don’t have a problem, you have an expense.”   But at what point is the spending of money the problem itself?   

Let’s look at other US Government programs, wars and social programs, in terms of their “inflation adjusted” costs in 2008 dollars.      On the American Thinker www.americanthinker.com    author Ethel C. Fenig lays out the cost of big government programs (wars, social programs, bailouts), based on research from the Jim Bianco, who works at the Arbor Research & Trading, Inc.    For more info  www.arborresearch.com    Who is the Bianco Research Service
?  Bianco Research specializes in investment research for the professional and institutional investor. Using "macro" analysis of the fixed income, equity, and commodity markets as a foundation, Bianco Research provides unique insights into the markets.   So what did Jim Bianco research show on these US government expenditures?

            The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.   Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation-adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all (italics added) of these big budget government expenditures - combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion

• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion

• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion

• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion

• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion

• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)

• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion

• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion

• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL of historical US Government programs, wars and bailouts: $3.92 trillion

So just how much is the US and it’s G-20 partners spending on the massive bail out of the financial system mess?      The liberal leaning climate change advocacy Institute for Policy Studies has a new report out that estimates the cost is over $4 trillion dollars!  “The approximately $4.1 trillion that the United States and Europe have committed to rescue financial firms is 40 times the money they're spending to fight climate and poverty crises in the developing world,” according to the recent report released by ISP   www.ips-dc.org/articles/913

Why would a group like the ISP be concerned about spending Other People’s Money?    Their concern is not from a conservative perspective of fiscal responsibility, but because the US and it’s G-20 partners are spending it on bailing out financial markets, not on climate change or global poverty.  

            Others estimate the spending binge and commitments by the US Government are even higher than $4 Trillion.   Deroy Murdock, writing in Human Events www.humanevents.com estimates that the US Government spending, loan guarantees, commercial loans and other financial bail out actions may total $8 Trillion before the spending spree is finished.

            “As president, neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could have gotten away with such aggressively socialist policies as the allegedly “conservative Republican” Bush administration’s dizzying parade of massive outlays, fiscal injections, equity purchases, mandatory subsidies, and even nationalizations.

These and other new commitments -- totaling a mind-blowing $8.347 trillion and counting -- assume that Washington should pump money into the economy. But it cannot do so without sucking money from the economy. Uncle Sam cannot spend a dollar without first extracting it from taxpayers or lenders, or by printing it in order to spend today the purchasing power that inflation will demolish tomorrow.”  Deroy Murdock, 11.28.08

            The United States estimated Gross Domestic Product (all economic activity for the nation combined) is $14.8 trillion for 2008.   See the web site the Financial Forecast  www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm  for details on the GDP forecast.   To put the financial bail out and massive spending being originated in Congress and the US Treasury in context, it is more that 50% of the total US gross domestic product.    The total US tax revenues (collected for 2006) totaled $2.5 trillion dollars, of which 44% ($1.3 trillion) was collected from individual’s income taxpayers.

            So the massive bailout of 2008, orchestrated by the Democrat controlled US Congress and an outgoing “lame duck” president will be paid for by the US taxpayer in form of higher taxes (as Barack Obama has promised), increased US debt and inflation from money being printed to cover deficit spending.  Whatever the method, the spending in the Washington DC is out of control.    And the incoming Democrat Congress and new Democrat President has said we’ll put a hold on reducing US Government debt and spending until the US economy is back on track.   Huh?   

            Once again the temptation for politicians at all levels, especially those in Washington DC, to spend Other Peoples Money is too easy and too great to resist.   It’s probably a good time to buy some gold, save some money and avoid more personal debt.    We could be in for some wild financial times, given the spending spree in Washington.

© 2008, Four Corners Media, Jasper Welch    www.jasperwelch.org

Replay that 90's Tape

Replay that 90’s Tape

As the Obama team runs trial balloons on their presidential appointments, the first few don’t appear to be “Change We Can Believe In”, but rather “Replay That 90’s Tape”!     Rather than new faces and new ideas in Washington, President-Elect Obama is floating names and looking to appoint Washington and New York insiders to key positions in the new Obama administration.  In fact, it appears that former members of the Clinton years are reappearing with a regular frequency in an Obama administration.   Even the Obama supporting Washington Post (Pravda on the Potomac) is coming to the President Elect’s defense, “Some critics are unhappy about the number of Clinton administration veterans -- the derogatory word is retreads -- in the new administration. As we've said before, we have no sympathy for this complaint. The best thing the new administration has going for it in comparison to the last Democratic president is the amount of executive branch experience it has to call on. Mr. Obama's willingness to do that and to bring on board those who supported his chief rival -- indeed, to enlist his chief rival herself -- underscores his own confidence.”  Washington Post, 11.22.08, Page A14   www.washingtonpost.com 

         This is the typical liberal and progressive defense offered by the press advocates at the Post.   If your motives are pure and liberal, and we like your progressive policies, then the actual facts on the ground really don’t matter.  And further, the Washington Post editorial writers, use moral leverage, “we have no sympathy for this complaint” (of appointing Clinton retreads).   Rather, the progressive writers compare the replaying of the 90’s tape to the wonderful Obama willingness to appoint his chief rival, none other that Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton herself as the Secretary of State.

         This is part of the legacy media and Obama team storyline of the “Team of Rivals”, popular book by Doris Kearns Goodwin (2005) about President Lincoln and his cabinet picks in the 1860’s.   This Lincoln-esque approach is being promoted as how the new Obama administration is being put together.    While this story line is classic and lends the Obama as the “next most famous president” imagery to his manufactured resume, even the liberal LA times www.latimes.com is having a hard time swallowing the “team of rivals” story line.

         From the editorial by Matthew Pinsker in the November 18, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times, “People love Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on the Lincoln presidency, "Team of Rivals." More important, for this moment in American history, Barack Obama loves it. The book is certainly fun to read, but its claim that Abraham Lincoln revealed his "political genius" through the management of his wartime Cabinet deserves a harder look, especially now that it seems to be offering a template for the new administration.

"Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet," is the way Obama has summarized Goodwin's thesis, adding, "Whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis."

Matthew Pinsker, a civil war historian concludes the well written editorial, “Over the years, it has become easy to forget that hard edge and the once bad times that nearly destroyed a president. Lincoln's Cabinet was no team. His rivals proved to be uneven as subordinates. Some were capable despite their personal disloyalty, yet others were simply disastrous. Lincoln was a political genius, but his model for Cabinet-building should stand more as a cautionary tale than as a leadership manual.”  LA Times, 11.18.08

         So what will become of the newly minted Obama administration that has a large share of Clinton administration retreads?     How will the 1990’s tape of liberal ideas and policies replay in the context of more challenging 21^st Century problems facing the United States?     What most of our progressive friends and liberal politicos are silent on is the fact that from 1994 to the end of his term (during the impeachment debate), former President Clinton had a more conservative Republican Congress to balance his liberal agenda.   The negotiated policies (reform of welfare, more responsible fiscal policy, a Federal government surplus) of the 1990’s, which the Clintons claim full credit for, were in fact a negotiated bipartisan outcome between a Republican Congress and a Democrat Congress.

The President Elect, in his weekly radio address continues to push the idea of reform and change in Washington, “That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will.”   Barack Obama, Saturday 11.22.08

         So in 2009 we are back to one party rule, Democrat style.  This is something the United States hasn’t seen since 1992, or during the “new society” Democratic Lyndon Johnson years.    It appears that we are gearing up to a replay of the early 1990’s.   And it is clear that our new President-Elect will act.   The question is how will a self proclaimed “change” president lead the US forward with a host of 1990’s retreads pulling in the opposite direction.  Or is “change we can believe in” really a move backward “to the 20^th Century past” with Clinton era cabinet appointees? 

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media   www.jasperwelchorg      

GOP Takes a Licking at the Polls

GOP Takes a Licking at the Polls

Some straight talk.   The Grand Old Party (GOP) and the Republican brand took a licking at the polls in the November 2008 election.    At the national level, the GOP has lost Congressional seats in the past two elections.   The trend may continue in 2010, unless the Dems overreach the political center from their left leaning majority position in Congress and the Congressional Republicans get back to conservative basics.   The GOP positions during the later Bush years that tolerated bigger government, more spending and open-ended wars played to the Democrats strengths.  Why support Democrat-lite (GOP) when you can vote for the real thing (full-throated Democrats)?

For example, in the past two election cycles Colorado lost both Republican held US Senate seats (Campbell, Allard). These contested open seats were won by Democrats (Salazar, Udall).  And the Governor’s mansion in Colorado is now held by Democrat Governor Bill Ritter.    In New Mexico, the open US Senate seat due to the retirement of the legendary Republican Pete Domenici was picked up the other Udall (Democrat Tom Udall).   And both Republican Congress members from New Mexico (Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce) chose to run for US Senate, thereby leaving their US Congressional seats open, which were lost to Democrat candidates.   So New Mexico, like Colorado has 2 Democrat US Senators, a solid Democrat group of Congressional members (NM has 3 Dems, Colorado is 5 Dems, 2 Reps) and both states have Democrat Governors (Richardson, Ritter).    

Pundits, pollsters and politicos will dissect, deliberate and determine a variety of reasons.   From a campaign perspective at the national level, the GOP ran a traditional political campaign: fire up the Republican base, capture some independents and don’t worry about the Democrats.    The Obama campaign ran as a movement: The traditional Democrat party apparatus was only a part of the coalition.   Like-minded 527’s, complimentary organizations (like ACORN) and interest groups aligned their political resources as a team.    Add to that approach the electronic and web media, a favorable Main Stream Media (advocacy) and countless volunteers, supplemented by a well-organized Obama ground game.  The Presidential election result:  Blue states were even more blue, swings states went blue and some red states swung to the blue electoral result.   Congratulations to President Elect Obama, who was elected along with increased Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? years are finally over.   It is unlikely that a Bush or Clinton will ever serve in the White House again.    So what will we see?   It is likely that the Obama machine plans on running in 2012.   Why not see if the movement can dominate the weakened (and disorganized) Republican Party again?    Meanwhile, the GOP has to regroup, refocus and rebuild.    More of same (fuzzy on conservative principles, lack of out reach to independents, straying from the conservative message) by the GOP will yield a similar result (loosing elections).  

But shouldn’t we as Republicans be more moderate to win the middle?    This may sound like a logical approach, but it the best way to loose an election.   In Colorado, the voter registration is split three ways: Republicans, Unaffiliated and Democrats.     Assuming the party candidate (Democrat or Republican) can maintain their base (and loose the opponents base), the real battle in for the middle.   In a swing state like Colorado, not voter can be taken for granted; most voters will split their ticket; so the quality of the candidate and their campaign matters.    So can a conservative Republican win in a blue state or blue district?    Sure, it is more challenging, but if our approach is to look like a Democrat, then the voters will probably go for the real thing (vote Democrat).   Rather, a principled conservative approach that reaches out to the unaffiliated voter and the conservative leaning Democrat is the winning combination.  More on the common sense conservative approach that gets results (using La Plata County, Colorado example) in an upcoming Four Corners Media post.

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org  

2008 Colorado Voter Registration

2008 Colorado Voter Registration

Colorado is a “swing state”, with voter registration split 3 ways between Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated voters.   As of October 22^nd over 1.1 million Colorado voters had returned “mail in ballots” or had “cast an early vote” as the local courthouse.     Both La Plata County and the state of Colorado have larger numbers of unaffiliated than some “Dem” or “GOP’” states, with the Democrats and Republicans nearly the same statewide.    But a slight drop in the historical Republican registrations has Democrats competing statewide since 2006.    Colorado is not longer “solid or leaning” to the GOP, but rather the increased Unaffiliated registered voter is trending towards Democrat candidates.

 

Registered Voters in Colorado (for 2008 Presidential election cycle)

Final numbers for Colorado (as of October 22, out of 3,203,583):


Democrats--1,051,643 (32.8%)


Republicans--1,063,347 (33.2%)


Unaffiliateds--1,069,294 (33.4%)

As of last evening, 1,123,173 voters had returned their mail-in ballots or cast an early vote: Number of Mail-In Ballots Received--880,491
Number of Early Voting Ballots Cast--242,682

 

As of October 30^th the Colorado Secretary of State web site www.elections.colorado.gov   reported the following:

Colorado mail in ballots received:  993,542

Early votes cast in Colorado:  298,029

According to the Durango Herald  www.durangoherald.com    and the La Plata County Clerks office, here is the voter registration:

La Plata County Voter registration by party  (Durango area)

Democrat - 12,225

Republican - 11, 808

Unaffiliated - 12,862           

Libertarian - 165

ACN - 23

Green - 200

UPA - 1

Total Registered - 37,284

According to the Durango Herald Saturday edition, it is estimated that 14,000 out of 37,000 total registered voters in La Plata County will have voted.

(c) 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media    www.jasperwelch.org

Bailout Root Cause: Social Engineering 10.5.08

Now that the US Senate has loaded up the 2008 financial rescue package with additional tax ‘extenders’ and increased the size of the Bill to 441 pages at a price tag of One Trillion dollars, it was the Democrat Majority in the US House who passed the “bail out bill”.    Over the past two weeks the US markets have been volatile, the credit markets hobbled and various experts scrambling to figure out exactly how we got here.    But the historical record is clear, the US Congress, particularly the Democratic members, have had their fingerprints on legislation to advocate a greater government role in housing and related targeted loan guidelines.    In fact, in 1994 Barack Obama (note his long time affiliation with ACORN) sued Citibank under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to legally pressure a leading US Bank to make risky mortgage loans.  (More below)

            Back in 2003, when some Republican members of Congress (who were in the Majority at that time), expressed concern about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Democrats rose to defend the government role in risky loans.  In the words of the esteemed Member of Congress, and chairman of the US House Financial Services committee Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.):   I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities (Freddie & Fannie) that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios . . . .

            Oops!   It looks like Representative Frank was exactly wrong.  For more on what the members of Congress said 5 years ago  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html

Where did the Congressional fingerprints start?  In the beginning was the word, or in this case legislation passed by the US Congress.   

            During the administration of Jimmy Carter and a Democratically controlled Congress, the Community Reinvestment Act  (CRA) was signed into law in 1977.   This started the ball rolling whereby the government began to require banks to make loans for social engineering purposes.    For more info on the CRA legislation, impact on the housing and mortgage lending in the US, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

            So how did community organizers, like Barack Obama, use the CRA as a way to leverage their agenda?  Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show host, put it this way in his early October 2008 show: "That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN ... to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in 'sub prime' loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.  Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with [these community redevelopment things] -- and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.  In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions."  Think of ACORN as a thousand Jesse Jacksons, in terms of shaking down companies and institutions.  

            In the mid 1990’s, Democratic President Bill Clinton weighed in by expanding the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) roles in the housing marketing.  From the initial elimination red lining in targeted neighborhoods (a practice by banks that was less risky for underwriting but not socially acceptable in liberal circles) set forth in the CRA in 1970’s, the movement in Congress was to ramp up mortgage lending to targeted neighborhoods and populations (lower income, minorities and substandard housing). Social policies of home ownership were pushed onto the banking system using Freddie and Fannie (GSE’s), through lessening of credit standards and pressuring banks through community organizations like Accorn.

Ed Lasky, a blogger with American Thinker www.americanthinker.com  on October 4, 2008 noted:  Nine years ago (1999), Steven Holmes of the New York Times wrote admiringly of the way Bill Clinton and the Democrats could claim credit for "Eas[ing] Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending." It amounts to a map of how Bill Clinton and Democrats created this crisis.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  NYT, 1999.

            According to conservative research (see TownHall at www.townhall.com)

and Media Circus www.mediacircus.com) Barack Obama, as a left wing activist attorney sued Citibank under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1994.   This lawsuit, which was settled by Citibank, is part of the legal underpinning to force banks to make poor mortgage loans in order to meet CRA requirements   Here is the direct link on the details: www.MediaCircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans    

            Social justice (ACORN) plus fiscal liberals in Congress equals risky mortgage polices resulting in a US government bailout.  Another experiment in government responsibility superceding personal responsibility, resulting in the Federal government stepping back in with taxpayer dollars (2008 Rescue package passed by Democrat majority House on October 3, 2008) to fix the mess.    And to realize that Barack Obama was one of those who pushed for this social engineering at the taxpayer expense.  No wonder he had a “hands off” approach during the crisis, and preferred to stay on the campaign trail as long as possible, while blaming Wall Street “fat cats” for the mortgage loan crisis.

 

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org  

DEAL or NO DEAL?

Deal or No Deal?     What happened in Wash DC?   9.27.08      Jazzman3

Deal or no deal?   So did the Democratic (party) controlled Congress actually have a deal by Thursday 9.26.08 in Washington?   Well it depends on what “agreement in principle” means, or what your definition of “close to a deal” is.   With news coming out of Washington, the RNC, the DNC, the MSM, the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and on the blogsphere plus alternative media, it is pretty confusing as to what actually happened.  [See Stephen F. Hayes article Depends on the Meaning of Close: Blaming McCain for the bailout fallout at  www.weeklystandard.com 9.25.2008] The $700 Billion bailout, as proposed by the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and being advocated by the Democratic leadership in Congress, is very unpopular with the US voters.   According to recent Rasmussen Reports www.rasmussenreports.com  only 30% of the American public thinks that the US government should fund the Wall Street leaning bailout.   So if the majority Democrats can pass a massive bailout bill (without Republican support), why are they waiting for the minority Republicans?     Why was the MSM press reluctant to report the massive amount of phone calls from the American people that are coming into Congressional offices with real concerns?   Each and every member of the House faces re-election in early November, so this bailout vote will be very visible and will have political, as well as financial implications.

Now we inject Presidential politics into the mix, and, as is always the case, political considerations supercede all other considerations.    While New York City may be the (weakened) financial capital of the United States, Washington DC is still the political capital of the Nation.   And in Washington, it is all about politics all of the time.   So in order for the Dems to gather political cover for a massive and unpopular $700 bailout, they are desperate for enough Republican votes to pass the massive bailout to have political cover before they face the voters back in their home districts.   But the Dems have some serious political problems, including never really including the Republican members of the House in the preliminary work on the bill, and the need for Democrats to deny any credit (and to lay blame for any fallout) to GOP nominee John McCain.     It is very hard to claim the bipartisan credit that Democrat leadership of Congress yearns for, if the Republicans don’t support the massive bailout in its present form.  

So was there a deal?    You decide, but until there is an actual vote in Congress and the President signs the bill, there is no signed deal.    In the meantime, the bailout deal and the election cards on the table are being managed by political magicians for their own purposes.   

© 2008  Four Corners Media, Durango, CO     www.jasperwelch.org