John Smith's blog

Ron Brownstein reports:

When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.

"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing."

OK, I can hear you all saying "MIT - elitist. Liberal. Massachusetts. Therefore I don't have to listen to anything this guy says."

However, Brownstein also reports the bill is also supported by Mark McClellan, the former director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under George W. Bush and Len Nichols, health policy director at the centrist New America Foundation. "The bottom line," Nichols says, "is the legislation is sending a signal that business as usual [in the medical system] is going to end."

Also supporting HCR (not mentioned by Brownstein) - former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former Bush Health Secretary Tommy Thompson,&  NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Dick Armey was part of the "Read the bill!!" crowd in the stimulus debate, and even launched a website and online petition drive called “ReadTheStimulus.org”.

Yesterday, he appeared before the the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. He was there to testify as the Republican's expert witness on the stimulus.

A Democrat asked him if he supported the unemployment compensation provisions of the bill. Armey said he might...but conceded that he had not read that portion of the bill.

The Democrat then pressed on a bit. The result? Armey admitted had not read any of the bill, even though he was appearing as an expert about it, and repeatedly goes before the press to criticize it.

Seriously - you cannot make this stuff up.

And what has Dick been doing since the stimulus bill passed? Well, he divides his time between organizing teabagger rallies and working as a lobbyist to help businesses gain from the stimulus.

With the help of the Democrats, your long-hoped for bill creating an audit for the Fed was approved by the House Financial Services Committee yesterday.

Florida Democrat and fellow Fed critic Alan Grayson co-sponsored the amendment with Paul and played a leading role drumming up support for it among committee members. The adoption of this amendment is an extraordinary victory for Paul, whose libertarian, anti-Fed leanings have often been dismissed by the political establishment.

How much traction on this issue did you get when the Republicans were in charge?

New FOX News poll out today.

Q18. When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country’s custom

• Yes  67%   

• No   26%

The right hast a serious problem. It has no ideas, no solutions to any of the problems of the day, and now its formerly useful propaganda tricks and noise machine stunts aren't working.

32 retired generals and Admirals delivered a letter to Congress today supporting the closure of Gitmo and decrying Republican fearmongering over trying KSM in New York.

We have watched with disappointment efforts to engender fear among the American people about the prospect of bringing suspected terrorists to the United States for trial. Our federal justice system has a proven track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists and incarcerating them safely in our prisons. Our courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11. Meanwhile, there have been only three successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions over that same period; two of those found guilty were released in less than a year. Those convicted in our federal courts, including many al Qaeda terrorists, are serving long sentences in federal prisons. The highly respected American Correctional Association, the nation’s largest corrections organization, in a recently passed resolution assured the American public they “would be safe from harm and free from danger should any detainees be transferred to a facility or facilities within the United States.” Our prisons currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped.

The American people can have confidence that our judicial and penal institutions are strong and that our military, law enforcement and corrections professionals are second to none.

First, the Bush Administration stuffed the Justice Department with 150 graduates of the Regent Law School - a 4th (i.e. bottom) tier law school.

Second, Republicans politicized the US Attorney's office, firing those who weren't deemed "loyal Bushies".

Third, 53 Republican Senators stood by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, even after he disgraced himself and his office by claiming "I don't recall" to avoid answering questions 64 times when testifying before a Senate committee.

Fourth, the current crop of Republicans are simply stalling the confirmation of Obama's judicial nominees, using anonymous holds to prevent the up or down vote that they used to think was so important.

Fifth, major Republicans are denigrating the good men and women who work in the Justice Department by insisting they cannot possibly handle the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial - this despite the fact that there have already been over 100 successful terror trials in our courts (compared to less than 10 military tribunals).

And now this: Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is drafting legislation to prohibit the Justice Department from trying KSM.

Since 9/11 there have been 119 U.S. court cases against 289 people accused of terrorism-related crimes and associated with al Qaeda or other Islamist extremist groups.

Of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved, 195 -- 91 percent -- were convicted. Many of the acquitted still did not walk free because the government subsequently brought new charges against them or detained them for immigration violations.

Federal prisons on American soil already hold 216 international 139 domestic terrorists. All of them were tried. All of them were convicted. None of them have escaped.

This military tribunal system that is proposed as an alternative? Basically, it doesn't exist. The Bush administration got 3 convictions in 8 years.

We have the greatest justice system in the world. Why are the Republicans intent on tearing it down?

PS: Mayor Bloomberg - please seriously consider running for President.

Here are a few items from the right from just the last 5 days:

• Bill Kristol called for Nidal Hasan to be put to death without trial.
• Mike Huckabee said of the 9/11 trials in NYC that the Obama administration will be as much on trail as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
• The Danville Tea Party group in Virginia announced it was going to burn Rep. Tom Perriellio and Nancy Pelosi in effigy.
• Glenn Beck says the government is raping the American people just like Roman Polanski
• Bill O'Reilly predicts that Nancy Pelosi will be murdered by an angry mob.
• Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs have a non-ironic dicussion of whether or not Barack Obama is the devil.
• Rep. John Shedegg taunts NYC mayor Bloomberg with the prospect of his daughter being kidnapped by al Qaeda.

I don't see this as a successful strategy for attracting voters. Do you?

Do you believe that there is a need for reform of our health care insurance system? If not, why, and if so, what form would you like it to take?

Here is my take, stated as simply as possible.

1) The current system is unsustainable, on four levels.

• a) too many people cannot get health insurance (pre-existing conditions) or cannot afford it
• b) insurance company practices, like rescissions after years of paying premiums, are indefensible
• c) insurance premiums are rising much faster than inflation or income, which means (a) is just going to get worse
• d) our health care costs more than any other country, without producing commensurate increases in outcomes; without reform these costs are going to continue to rise

2) There is no free-market solution to this problem. Sound-bites like shopping across state lines and tort-reform are nonsensical non-answers.

3) Given that the private sector is failing, spectacularly, I'm happy to have the government intervene.

4) Currently, the ER, which cannot turn people away, is the primary care provider for million. If there is going to be reform, there are only two ways to fix this and to prevent free-riders: the mandate, or the wallet biopsy. I prefer the mandate, as I think the wallet biopsy is just too much to ask of medical professionals.

Yesterday chemjeff posted a blog entry characterizing HCR as enforced charity. I think that charity has nothing to do with it. I think the issue is the strain on our economy caused by spiraling healthcare costs.

 Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue. 

The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August.

The idea is still a matter of debate within the administration and it is unclear how much impact it would have on the nation's mounting deficit levels. Still, the potential move illustrates how the Obama administration is trying to find any way it can to bring down the deficit, which is turning into a political as well as an economic liability.

The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year's budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%.

Politico:

President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.

Andrew Sullivan (headline: Obama, Deficit Hawk):

To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.

Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do. 

Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.

The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it.

Why are the Democrats pushing ahead with their progressive agenda without fear of reprisal in the 2010 elections? Why have Republicans lost pretty much everything since 2006?   Simple answer: there are not as many of you on the right as you think there are.   Rasmussen, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News are all lying to you about the strength of your own numbers.   Here is an excellent example - Jon Stewart exposing Hannity's blatant lies about the number of people who attended Michele Bachmann's tea party.

Step one in the revival of the right - stop believing your own propaganda.