Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Phillips Republicans Hope You Don't Notice They Put Party Ahead of Tennessee
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Comments (68)
Showing 1-50 of 68
They're just behaving as the national Republicans are behaving. They're interest in all of this is too defeat the Democrats, not good government. It doesn't really matter what's in any particular bill. Case in point: Mitch McConnell getting before the cameras after the Democrats reached a deal with Senator Nelson and bemoaning the bill for CUTTING MEDICARE funds. That's right, the party that could always find time to rip Medicare as socialized medicine is now pointing the fingers at the Democrats for cutting it's growth. It doesn't take a Harvard political scientist to figure out what's going on here. He wants to make sure the retiree's get all fired up and get out and vote next year.
And the sad thing is, very few people are going to catch the hypocrisy.
like
dislike
Is it perhaps because our Republican senators in Washington, D.C., by refusing to do anything more than cry and moan about how terrible health-care reform is, failed to secure any health-care pork for Tennesseans?
Yeah that's kind of the conclusion I came drew, too. Republicans got pwned. Louisiana and Nebraska at least got help with their state Medicaid. But Alexander and Corker served their party's needs of their constituents'.
" So when you don't have the same health care the rest of the nation begins to enjoy, you'll know which two yahoos to blame--"
No, when the Dems legislation doesn't torpedo my high-deductable, lower cost policy coupled with a health savings account in order to force me to pay more to subsidize other people to a far greater extent than I am now, I will know who to thank.
Shielding the state from the massively detrimental economic effects of the dems $2.5 trillion wealth redistribution scheme IS putting Tennesse first.
But of course, being a leftist, you can't be expected to actually know anything about economics.
Chris,
How is this any different from the hypocrisy of Democrats who lied about Gingrich's proposal to slow the growth rate for Medicare to approximate inflation being a 'cut?' Which party was it that invented the 'scare the seniors' tactic?
SB,
If you are comfortable with this sort of corrupt bargain, then your argument makes sense. If, however, you believe that national interest trumps such deals, then you ought to be as revolted as I am.
How are we ever going to solve the massive problems facing the nation when legislators sell their souls on dubious solutions just to win special treatment for their states?
I never took you for a cynical opportunist. But at least I don't have to worry about you ever moralizing about Republicans betraying their principles since you just put a 'For Sale' sign on yours.
That's right, Big G. Successful people who have the intelligence to get and maintain a job with good health care insurance are already subsidizing pathetic uninsured losers as it is. That's enough socialism already.
All Democrats are commies.
Mark,
I'm just calling the Republicans out on this. That doesn't mean that Democrats don't engage in hypocrisy. They do. And maybe the Democrats did invent the "scare seniors" tactic. But somewhere along the way, the Republicans intercepted and are now using that tactic. That's all I'm saying.
"you believe that national interest trumps such deals, then you ought to be as revolted as I am."
I know this comment wasn't directed at me but I will bite anyways. So what are you saying? The system is great as it is? It's like Ross Douthat recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly- he said basically that the Republicans had plenty of time since the Clinton plan and this to fix the system. They didn't do anything. Nada. Zilch. And now their "big plan" basically involves being able to shop for insurance across state lines (a good idea but not a fix by any means) and tort reform (one of the most overblown issues of our generation). That's basically it. That's why, while the polling is against the plan currently being offered, the Republicans actually poll worse when it comes to health-care.
Your column summarizes the underlying fault in DC today. You and others like you think that the primary responsibility is to get as much as possible from the overgrown federal government. That is exactly why it is time to replace them all in 2010.
Check out www.GOOOH.com. The time has come for the non violant Anerican Revolution of 2010
what on earth has Betsy Phillips been smoking this time. Or is it the kool aid this time?? Howard Dean even thinks this bill is a fiasco! I will take my Tenn reps and senators over anything the dems are growing in their basement anytime. The proof is always in the pudding my dear. Sit back and have a spoon full and see how you like it. I for one like to choose what I put in my mouth. You obviously don't mind taking what you get. My senators earned my respect even more by standing strong against this power grab and step towards socialism. You are lucky we have a right to say what we want. Or are you against that also?
"Your column summarizes the underlying fault in DC today. You and others like you think that the primary responsibility is to get as much as possible from the overgrown federal government. That is exactly why it is time to replace them all in 2010."
Replace them with whom? Because that's how the Republicans have governed as well, if you haven't noticed.
I completely support the actions of Representatives Maggart and Lynn. I've called Lynn's office to let her know so. This Health Care Reform legislation in Congress is a disaster and will further drive our country into massive debt. Much of the burden will be passed on to States whose budgets are already a mess. Oh, wait Obama said it will reduce the deficit. Ha ha. The assumptions scored by the CBO regarding cuts in Medicare will never hold up. If you don't understand that, you're an idiot. Look at what's happened to Medicare and Social Security. Beyond that, this legislation is a further erosion of Liberty and expansion of Socialism where we will all have fewer choices and incentives to achieve. The good intentions to which I'm sure you will all point were the same good intentions that were behind the formation of Medicare to begin with. And now we have passed along an enormous, impossible debt to future generations. Irresponsible.
"My senators earned my respect even more by standing strong against this power grab and step towards socialism."
Hey Road Dog, where was this principled stand during the Prescription Drug plan that was costlier than this? Oh, that's right, that was a Republican plan. Principles only apply when the other party is in power. I'm so naive.
Chris,
I agree that the Republicans have failed on health care reform and that some of their opposition is political posturing at best.
And I hate the mindset that legislators will sell themselves for special benefits for their states and districts.
The scope of health care reform magnifies the dangers of such practices. We are not talking about a $5 million bus garage in return for a vote on a bill about post office closings. We are talking about one of the most important components of Americans' lives and of our economy.
The idea that a couple of Senators can vote for something that they would otherwise oppose simply for a bribe ought to terrify everyone. What is next, raising the debt ceiling another trillion so that the President and the Legislative Leadership can buy enough votes to create single-payer and mandate?
If you think the prescription drug program costs more than the dems new entitlement bill, you are delusional.
And by the way, the real costs includes ALL the costs to the public of all the insurance coverage mandates, all the taxes on medical device makers, etc. that will be passed on to the public etc.,etc.- not just the CBO projected costs that will be flowing directly through the federal treasury. That is a ginned up number to begin with.
"The assumptions scored by the CBO regarding cuts in Medicare will never hold up. If you don't understand that, you're an idiot. Look at what's happened to Medicare and Social Security. "
Indeed - the federal government has never once been proven to be remotely close to being accruate in projecting the future costs of ANY entitlment program that has ever been created in this country.
It massively underestimated the fututre costs of medicare when that program was started.
> Chris Allen asked:
> Replace them with whom?
Try following the link supplied by Mr Andrew (www.goooh.com) and you will find the answer to your question.
I completely support our two Senators in this vote and find Besty Philips take on Maggart's and Lynn's action to be fatalistic. We elect representatives to vote in our best interest - and hopefully with principle. It is heartening to see principle and the interest of the citizens of this state properly represented.
The health care legislation goes in the wrong direction. Health costs have skyrocketed since government involvement in the 1960s, directly proportional to increased government regulation. Only a more free market in health care solutions, with fewer protections of insurance companies and medical cartels, will our costs be reduced and our choices increased. Layers of bureaucracy and mandates will only further the decline of our Republic.
If the rule of law has any virtue, let the Constitution (the law of the land) dictate that the federal government has overstepped it's bounds. Support the 10th amendment by supporting those elected officials who abide by it's words.
When TN is bankrupt 4 years from now under the weight of the latest Politburo fiasco and hopey changey lovin', just remember- the Democrats gave it to you gift wrapped.
Douthat's assertion that this is the fault of the Republicans is nonsense and fatuousness of the worst sort.This is about a socialist take over of our government, not health care. You can spell "straw man", can't you?
The author, Ms Phillips needs a lesson in Basic Constitutional Principles, which I will be more than happy to provide her.
The purpose of the Federal Government was not created by the states to wage financial warfare between the large states against the smaller less represented states.
Her premise that our Senators were poor negotiators and failed to negotiate the largest amount of pork from the Federal Government is beyond ignorant, it is stupid. All taxes come from the taxpayer, and the Federal Government was never intended for Tennessee Taxpayers to send their taxes to the Federal Government so we can try and get most of it back? Ms. Phillips, wouldn't you agree that it would be better for us to just keep our taxes within the state before the Federal Government siphons 50% of it in beuracratic waste or give it away to Nebraska?
Ms. Phillips, please let me know when you would like your first lession in Constitutional Principles?
Gilbert writes, "...the federal government has never once been proven to be remotely close to being accruate [sic] in projecting the future costs of ANY entitlment program that has ever been created in this country.
One example of government inaccuracies, Gilbert, is the Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug) Plan which has come in under projection every year.
This will not be the case with the current Democrat giveaway wending its way through the congress.
When Tennesseans don't have the same health care the rest of the nation begins to abhor, we will know which two fine ladies to thank--and when the other 49 states budgets are in the crapper, We will remember that Maggart and Lynn saved us from Obama, Reid and Pelosi's schemes!!!!!!
Amen!
Susan Lynn is right on target in getting our State to stand up to Federal National MANDATED Health Care. The key word is MANDATED.
In 1994 the Congressional Budget Office wrote a letter to all Congressmen who were working on a "mandated" plan at that time, and told them plain and simple: It is "unconstitutional". They ALSO were right on target. It was ignored,of course.
It was never intended for the Federal Govrnment to ever get this arogant and powerful. When a reporter asked Pelosi, "Wouldn't this be unconstituional?" she replied with all the arogance she could muster, "Are you serious? Are you serious?". Reminds me of a "Let them eat cake" quote.
Again, Lynn is correct in standing up to them. The Creator (state) is greater than the Created (Federal Government). If we forget that, you can kiss all your freedoms goodbye and start marching in line singing Socialistic songs in unison.
Robert H. Oak Ridge
Ms. Phillips:
You seem to have forgotten that socialized health care that is proposed by the White House and U.S. Congress has failed and failed miserably in every single country that has tried it. These countries are rapidly moving to a free market health care system because government run health care DOES NOT WORK. It never has and it never will. Tennesseans will not stand for waiting months for medical treatments that they used to receive quickly.
Furthermore, if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will not find any mention of health care in Article I, Section 8 - the section that outlines on what Congress may legislate. As such, issues such as health care fall under the jurisdictions of the individual state government pursuant to the Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am positively dumbfounded that you suggest that Senators Alexander and Corker are remiss in their duties because they have not taken bribes like the other crooks in the Senate. Admittedly, I am not a fan of either senator, but to advocate that Tennessee senators pursue an immoral and quite possibly illegal course of action with regards to this bill is reprehensible and disgusting.
Representatives Susan Lynn and Debra Maggart are absolutely on target to challenge the constitutionality of this bill. This bill will pose an unfair burden on Tennessee as it pays for other states' health care, and the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 clearly states "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Every part of this bill is clearly unconstitutional and it cannot be allowed to stand.
Wall Street Celebrates Senate's "Significantly Watered Down" Health Care Bill
Dear Friends,
Wall Street is celebrating "Health Care Reform." According to an industry insider report yesterday by MarketWatch (Gibson and Britt) health care stocks rallied as the bill moved through the Senate, particularly since there is no public option in the bill to compete or compare with insurance company rate-making.
"Health care investors find themselves having confronted their greatest fear, and, while there will be legislation, it will be significantly watered down ..." said Mike O'Rourke, chief market strategist at BTIG LLC. As a result, shares of Aetna gained 4.7%, while Cigna rose 3.9%. United Health and Wellpoint "rallied to 52-week highs."
All taxes come from the taxpayer, and the Federal Government was never intended for Tennessee Taxpayers to send their taxes to the Federal Government so we can try and get most of it back?
Dick:
The Constitution was amended in the early 20th century and now provides for this. Read the 16th Amendment (which was ratified by Tennessee on April 7, 1911).
Furthermore, if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will not find any mention of health care in Article I, Section 8 - the section that outlines on what Congress may legislate. As such, issues such as health care fall under the jurisdictions of the individual state government pursuant to the Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sigh. So many Constitutional scholars, so little scholarship.
How many other federal acts are found completely constitutional while never being mentioned in the constitution? Provide us with a list. I'm sure you have one.
Oh, and read U.S. v Darby (1941) and get back to the class. The 10th Amendment has been on the losing side of many, many years of jurisprudence, especially since the passage of the 14th Amendment (1868), which was a direct result of another event which affirmed the primacy of the Federal government.
The blog by Phillips is unreasonable and unwise in the extreme. The Senators and Reps in Washington are not there to bring home the pork, but to consider, persuade and vote on the basis of principles; the principles of the Constitution. Well did James Madison write that our experiment in government is only good until the time when people realize they can vote themselves funds from the country's treasury.
I hear ya Rev. We got us a sweet tax-free ride at the expense of those tax paying chumps. Just call me Welfare Queen Bubba. Anyway, us good white godly men ain't spos'd to worry about those poor sick folks anyway, are we?
Good gracious, did Phil Valentine tell his listeners to swarm this blog. Anyways, this is my last comment, but Lesley Swann says:
"You seem to have forgotten that socialized health care that is proposed by the White House and U.S. Congress has failed and failed miserably in every single country that has tried it."
So much incorrect information in one little paragraph. First off, this plan is NOT socialized medicine. We keep hearing from the Right that this is on the one hand, socialized medicine and on the other, a big giveaway to insurance companies. You can't keep throwing everything up to see if it sticks. This plan isn't even remotely socialistic. If it was, please explain how the stocks of the six largest publicly traded insurance companies, Aetna, CIGNA, et al, has gone up dramatically as of late. So please stop with the inane talking points. All this does is mandate certain criteria for private insurance providers. If it was socialism, the government would be providing it, not the companies. You guys have thrown around the socialism meme so much of late without even knowing what it means.
And second of all, no one in these so called "socialized medicine" countries is clamoring for our system or trying to overthrow theirs. If they were failing so badly, you'd think this wouldn't be the case.
In short, if you want to just spout out right-wing talking points, do some follow up research on everything you hear on Fox News, Phil Valentine, or El Rushbo. You'll be better for it, believe me.
"Good gracious, did Phil Valentine tell his listeners to swarm this blog. "
So what if he did, loser! Mr. Valentine, as you should be calling him, has forgotten more about the Constitution than all libtards combined will ever know. And you are fooling yourself if you don't think this health care bill is a socialistic power-grab. As Glenn Beck said, Pelosi and Reid modeled this plan after the Soviet plan. They actually traveled to Moscow and met with people that were part of the Politburo from the Soviet days. So that makes this a Communist plan. And I won't be covered under a commie plan!!!!! Obama and his thugs can force me to be covered over my dead body. I bet that will show em!
Please tell me these people are going for satire! Or is this just the result of the poorly funded Tennessee education system.
Apparently, the Republication National Committee this we're stupid. I just got a robocall asking me to contact Rep. Cooper to object to his "liberal" votes. If I could find too many of his liberal votes, I'd call to thank him for them.
And why they called me, who has a 100 percent Democratic voting record and comes up on the far liberal side of the scale on nearly every measure, I can't say.
"So much incorrect information in one little paragraph. First off, this plan is NOT socialized medicine"
Sure it is.
It deliberatly redistributes wealth for allegedly egaliatarian purposes.
That is socialism, pure and simple.
"One example of government inaccuracies, Gilbert, is the Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug) Plan which has come in under projection every year."
As I recall, the main complaint from the democrats at the time that entitlement was passed is that is was not generous ENOUGH in the benefits bestowed on the seniors.
So all those dems now yapping about Bush's irresponsibilty in creating it are full of crap. If they had been in charge, it would have been an even bigger entitlement and spending a lot more money than it does.
The Latest Lie
Well the President in name only admitted what I have been saying for a month when he said this bill will cut the deficit in half?
I said a month ago looking at what was going on with this bill, needing to be passed by the end of the calendar year, was about taxing and collecting as of the 1st of January 2010. The bill, not taking effect until 2014 now, is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to collect money and in two years Obama can stand up and say he cut the deficit in half.
The deals that went into getting this bill to this point are beyond absurd and warrant a criminal investigation. How can you possibly exempt a state from the Medicare increases “forever” what is that coming from a bunch of lawyers who are supposed to be so much smarter than us? Is this how you instigate an uprising?
The states need to say no, and also send a message to the Senate; Sorry we are opting out! I hope people realize the extent of destruction this will cause to our economy.
This is no about Partisan politics which are tearing this nation apart.
"A government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want, also is a government powerful enough to take it all away." We can't keep taking from the rich and prosperous to give to those that are not sooner or later those that employ people and pay most of the taxes move out or quit their endeavors to get in the line for the free ride and then the ride is over.
Where is tort reform in this bill?
Where is a fix for Medicare fraud averaging 50 billion $$ annually?
Oh I forgot they are mostly lawyers in our legislature.
The whole idea of OUR government running health care is absurd not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL, hows that hope and change working out for you?
"Sigh. So many Constitutional scholars, so little scholarship."
You wouldn't know.
Here's a short article that detail the terrible facts of the details of Obamacare:
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjc5ZmM4ODk4MWZhZTA5NDlhY2JkODE3ZTQ1ZmZmZWY=
And here's an exerpt:
"Remember back in June, in President Obama’s major address to the AMA, when he said the following? “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise…If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” In the six months since, there seems to have been a change.
Obamacare would require Americans to buy government-approved health insurance. It would make it illegal to offer choices in insurance plans beyond the handful of very similar ones that the government would allow. It would become illegal to offer new and innovative plans. Under any of the government-approved plans, it would become illegal to pay your doctor directly for more than a certain percentage of your care. Higher deductible, consumer-driven plans would be severely altered or eliminated. By law, a greater percentage of money would have to be paid in insurance premiums, rather than directly for care. Competition and choice would diminish tremendously. One-size-fits-all conformity would rule the day."
U R right Mr Martin, those NR folks know a lot, they told me where those Iraqi WoMD were hidden.
Komrade Phillips counsels us to give in, because the fiscal miscreants are going to do what they want. It's OK. It feels good to spend tax dollars which haven't been collected yet. It is pointless to resist.
Refusing funding on principle IS putting the taxpayer first. It's called backbone. It's amazing that anyone in Congress is resisting the Red Tide. Degenerate mouthpieces like Phillips consider upholding the supreme law of the land to be a fetish, something to be ashamed of. I think you're going to be surprised at what transpires in politics next year, pinko.
Mr Carmen - U R right. Like Boy George & I always say, "Deficits don't matter."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/27/deficits/index.html
http://www.calaborlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/deficits-by-president.jpg
Frivolous lawsuit? Really? You mean challenging the treatment of one state differently than all the rest? You mean challenging the constitutionality of a mandate to buy insurance from a private company? Frivolous? Really? I know: why don't you guys do like Bruce Barry does and blame it all on Marsha Blackburn, and stick up for those "nonpolitical" scientists with the UNCC? Why don't you guys do a story and tell us excactly what Tennessee is going to gain from all of this. Talk about putting party ahead of the state!
Well said, Senor. I love the term "nonpolitical" scientists. I'll have to start using that in conjunction with libtards.
You know who will gain from all of this? That is ACORN. Listen to Glenn Beck and he'll tell you why. And I just found out ACORN runs a restaurant here in Nashville, called The Acorn. I just called the general manager and registered my disapproval. He denied they were part of ACORN of course. But a name's a name. And I'm calling on all of us conservatives to boycott that restaurant and kick ACORN out of Nashville!!!!! I'll be sending an email to Phil Valentine and Steve Gill after this to let them know!
I would think this board, of all boards loaded down with progressives, would be at least somewhat dismayed by the bribes to Neb and LA.
Conservative or liberal, it just don't seem right, as they say.
I know everyone does it, a little here, a little there. Does this one not seem over the top?
John - agree. Tennessee, like most backward states, receives much more from Washington than they send. For Tennessee, it's about $1.27 of Federal spending received for every dollar we send to Washington. I agree, it's time for a tax surcharge on Tennesseans to pay back our excess 27%. Washington can pass it on to the more deserving states like New Jersey.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
HEll I like the abortion plan in this bill. You know who will be signing up for that. Now this is what me and Margaret Sanger had in mine
Well, I think Sanger was into the eugenics thing along with Hitler, but you did not hear that from PP-hood.
As for NJ, they do not deserve to get any of my tax dollars. I suggest you visit and I'm just getting back my own money, BTW.
Gilbert Martin could address that one far better than I.
Are you actually telling me National Review is against the health-care reform plan?! Seriously?! Man, my head is spinning at this news. It's stunning. This changes everything.
"John - agree. Tennessee, like most backward states, receives much more from Washington than they send. For Tennessee, it's about $1.27 of Federal spending received for every dollar we send to Washington. I agree, it's time for a tax surcharge on Tennesseans to pay back our excess 27%. Washington can pass it on to the more deserving states like New Jersey."
States don't pay taxes - individuals do.
And the IRS statistics show that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of federal income taxes. The top 25% pay 86% of taxes and the top 1% pay 39% of taxes. Every person in those groups is getting back less in services than they pay in taxes - a lot less.
If we're going to start adjusting taxes based on payments vs services received we can do it at the INDIVIDUAL level and that would be just fine and dandy.
Marvin, my boy, I have not looked at the NR in a year or so. But, perhaps you should or just a daily read of the WSJ; switch to FOX, too.
I do listen to Rush occasionally. Another New Year resoluion for you. Try to broaden you views.
Also, I'm pro-choice but consider 3rd trimester abortion akin to murder. And, further more, favor universal care but not Oboma's abomination, ie, the new health care "reform" which not one person on this board, including myself and BHO if truth were known, has the faintest clue of what it's about.
Rest assured I do not get all my money back from the Feds.
Merry Christmas to all!
I cannot agree with a proportional allocation by state. The Constitution does talk about promoting the general welfare, so it follows that poor areas that contribute less to the tax base would receive a disproportionate amount of funding.
We need an allocation law that will prevent the sort of dealmaking with tax dollars we have now. I hope all of you will vote anti-incumbent, because we desperately need new thinking in Washington.
I'm not against taxing the rich. The system makes their wealth possible. Everyone benefits from philanthropy, so I would advocate lower tax rates that will enable the wealthy to dispose of their money as they see fit. I think a successful entrepreneur could do more good than a sluggish government bureaucracy, don't you?
The Republicans offered common sense and affordable health care reform. The Democrats slammed through by partisan means unaffordable realignment of the health care provider orientation, a measure that is only going to get more expensive. So, just who was selfish by putting "party" in front of 'the People'?
