My friend Daniel here is high on Wisconsin Republican (former Governor and HHS Secrtary), Tommy Thompson …
Thompson has a GOP Primary contest coming up on August 14…
And Tea Party people are after him for being a bit ‘moderate on Healthcare in the past’….
“While Tommy Thompson has always been at the forefront of health care reform, he has been an aggressive, consistent and outspoken opponent of Obamacare as it harms both the quality of care while introducing 21 new taxes further burdening businesses struggling to make ends meet in an economy driven to a low point by President Obama,” Nemoir said in a statement. “Any effort to say otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation of his position.”
A Marquette Law School poll earlier this month showed the race was tightening ahead of the Aug. 14 primary, with wealthy businessman Eric Hovde closing in on Thompson, and Neumann and state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald well behind. Thompson still had a double-digit lead over his opponents and was the only Republican candidate ahead of Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the Democrat running for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl.
The race has enormous implications nationally. A GOP victory in the state would give Republicans a major shot at regaining control of the Senate, which currently stands at 53-47 in favor of the Democrats.
Thompson’s tea party opponents believe that his health care stances give them an opening with GOP primary voters who detest the law. While Thompson has laid out an ambitious plan to replace the health care law, some comments he made before he became a Senate candidate are coming back to haunt him.
In 2006, he hailed the individual mandate included in the Massachusetts health care law. In 2009, he called a Democratic bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee an “important” step to expand coverage and provide “affordable, high-quality health care for all.” Eager to hear praise from a prominent Republican, Obama touted Thompson’s remarks.
That seems to be a recurring theme for the US and NATO thru the years….
As this piece from the Atlantic by James Joyner points out…..
Mommar Gaddafi is gonna be out of Libya sooner or later….
When that occurs…..
What’s gonna happen?
As we see in several countries …
Replacing the bad guy running the show creates a vacuum…
That creates unrest…
Unrealistic expectations by the masses…..
And of course an oppountity by an organized opposition that often finds itself as the ONLY organized body…
All this the country has to continue running itself with with same corrupt people stealing from its population even if the head of the bad guy is gone….
So as in Iraq and Egypt….
What will happen in Libya when the time comes?
“Getting Libya back on its feet will be an unwieldy, and probably fractious, process in which many scores are settled against those who once supported the Gaddafi regime. But the problem is, of course, that much like in the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, virtually everyone at one point or another had to deal with the regime to survive. Unless political authority can be restored quickly, the sorting out of claims will undoubtedly be a bloody affair in light of the pent-up frustration that is now being released.”
James Dorsey noted for Al Arabiya recently, “The immediate problems Libyans and the international community will have to address once Mr. Qaddafi departs are huge and so are the potential pitfalls. The problems include restoring and maintaining law and order; securing basic services such as food, water and energy; achieving international recognition of a post-Qaddafi government; resuming oil exports to ensure funding for the new government; and kick starting Libya’s stagnating economy.”
He noted, “Anticipating the need to maintain security, avoid violent revenge and retribution and ensure that a post-Qaddafi government gets off to a good start, some US commanders, including Admiral Samuel Locklear, NATO’s joint operations chief in Naples, and General Carter Ham, who runs the US military’s Africa Command, have suggested that United Nations or African Union peacekeepers would have to be inserted into Libya once Mr. Qaddafi has been removed from power.”
The parallels with Iraq are eerie. In his seminal work on that conflict, Fiasco, Thomas Ricks quotes Major Isaiah Wilson, the official Army historian of the spring 2003 invasion and later strategic planner in Iraq saying that there was “no single plan as of 1 May 2004 that described an executable approach to achieving the stated strategic endstate for war.” Joint Staff officer Gregory Gardner explained why: “Politically, we’d made a decision that we’d turn it over to the Iraqis in June” 2003. Additionally, an Army War College study found, what little planning there was for post-conflict stabilization was predicated on the unfounded assumption that “the international community would pick up the slack.”
We should always take polls as simply polls….No more…No less…Some people think the Healthcare WAS repealed…
Can YOU political junkies believe this?..
A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows that nearly half of Americans either believe that President Obama’s signature health care law has been repealed (22%) or they aren’t sure (26%). Only 52% accurately say that it is still the law……
Both sides are turning things against each other….
If you are interested…..
You might want to take the time to read thru this linked piece which tries to answer the major statements by the politician’s for and against the
the Healthcare Law which is now in effect……
A lot of the numbers thrown around aren’t correct…
Not even close….
Quite a few of the numbers no-one will be able to figure out until the future….
And quite a lot bullshit is going on……
From both sides….
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office states that repealing the health care law would worsen the federal deficit over the next 10 years — by $230 billion.
So how does the House Republican Leadership support its claim that the law itself is “budget-busting” and would add $701 billion to the deficit? And how does Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi justify claiming it will “save taxpayers $1.3 trillion”? Both sides are spinning shamelessly.
We judge that CBO’s projection, which is both official and nonpartisan, is the best available. But even that estimate is uncertain, as the agency itself concedes. For one thing, there is doubt about whether all of the Medicare savings in the law will actually materialize. Those reductions are supposed to offset part of the law’s new spending, but they could put too great a burden on hospitals.
Pelosi’s $1.3 trillion claim is deceptive. She’s projecting CBO’s estimate 20 years into the future, something the agency says is an imprecise and uncertain calculation. Furthermore the law raises taxes to pay for much of its new spending, so saying it “saves taxpayers” anything is misleading. Her figure is actually a reduction in the projected federal deficit.
As for the GOP’s claim that “the bill would add over $700 billion in red ink over the next decade,” we judge it to be mostly bogus.
- It rests largely on a claim that hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare savings are being “double-counted.” But CBO is simply not doing that.
- The GOP’s $700 billion figure also includes more than $200 billion for a permanent “doctor fix” to prevent a cut in Medicare payments to doctors. But that is not even a part of the new law, and many Republicans endorse the “doctor fix” anyway.
- The GOP claims the law will cost $115 billion to administer, but that isn’t true. CBO actually puts those costs at roughly $10 billion to $20 billion over the next 10 years….
Progressive groups are again targeting Republicans in competitive districts for voting to repeal health care reform while accepting federally financed insurance.
Americans United for Change, Daily Kos, and Blue America have aligned to run radio ads in the districts of Reps. Charlie Bass (R-NH), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sandy Adams (R-FL), and Leonard Lance (R-NJ).
Starting Saturday, two of the new health care law’s most significant reforms take effect — or at least begin to take effect.
The first will dramatically clamp down on insurance industry waste, abuse, and excesses. Starting on New Year’s Day, insurance companies will have to spend at least 80 percent of the revenues they receive from premiums on actual health care. Not on salaries or overhead.
“As they seek to make good on their campaign promise to roll back President Obama’s health care overhaul, the incoming Republican leaders in the House say they intend to use their new muscle to cut off money for the law, setting up a series of partisan clashes and testing Democratic commitment to the legislation,” the New York Times reports.
“Republicans, who will control the House starting in January but will remain in the minority in the Senate, acknowledge that they do not have the votes for their ultimate goal of repealing the health law, the most polarizing of Mr. Obama’s signature initiatives. But they said they hoped to use the power of the purse to challenge main elements of the law, forcing Democrats — especially those in the Senate who will be up for re-election in 2012 — into a series of votes to defend it.”
“Given their slim majority, Senate Democrats must stick together if they want to avoid sending Mr. Obama spending bills and other legislation that he would feel compelled to veto, setting up the prospect of a broader deadlock and, in an extreme situation, a government shutdown.”
A new Gallup poll finds that 43% of voters say that current economic conditions are the most important issue for the midterm elections, followed by health care and the size and power of the federal government.
“Together, the top three issues account for more than 80% of the total, suggesting the 2010 elections are being contested on a fairly narrow issue space. This is a departure from the past two midterm elections, when there was no dominant issue, and voters’ choice for the most important one spanned a greater number of issues.”
It sure is easier to be in the public’s eye as Secretary of State then as President…..
By any measure — favorability ratings or job approval — Americans by a sizable margin have warmer views of the secretary of state than they do of the president. This is of little use to Clinton beyond bragging rights, but among Hillary ’08 fans there is some satisfaction that the woman Obama once cut down as “likable enough” is now more liked than he is. Depending on the measure and the poll, she leads him by roughly 10 to 25 percentage points.
To understand why, look no further than their calendars for Monday. The president was in Alabama and Mississippi, trying again to change the public perception that his administration has been weak in its response to the oil spill. The secretary of state was in Washington receiving plaudits for being a “passionate leader” and for taking a “resolute and genuine” stand against human trafficking and slavery.
In the ceremonial Ben Franklin Room of the State Department, the passionate and resolute Clinton vowed her commitment “to abolishing this horrible crime” against human dignity. “Traffickers must be brought to justice,” she said.
For a public figure, few issues are as politically safe; the slavery and exploitation lobby, after all, was unlikely to issue a rebuttal. Clinton finished her day Monday with a speech on the need for help in sub-Saharan Africa; no criticism from the keep-Africa-poor movement was heard.
Contrast that with Obama, who had only grim tidings for Gulf Coast residents about the BP oil spill. He spoke to them of a “fear that it could have a long-term impact on a way of life that has been passed on for generations.”
Give Obama points for honesty, but that’s not going to boost his poll numbers.
Previous secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were both more popular than their boss, President George W. Bush. But such a trend is not universal: Warren Christopher didn’t have ratings as high as his boss, President Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton helped her situation by sticking to relatively low-profile issues. While the White House drove the divisive policies such as Afghanistan, she has busied herself in quieter corners of the world, enhancing the perception that she’s above the political fray.
The state’s lawmakers have agreed in principle with outgoing Governor Paterson’s efforts to trim the huge whole in the states budget with the cuts….
There will be a $775 Million cut along with $300 Million effort to further recover money thru Medicaid crack downs on fraud, waste and abuse…..
The cuts will take away money from federal funds because a large amount of Healthcare funds are eligible for matching federal funds……
Note…..Some of these cuts will not go into effect until January…… when Paterson will be come a private citizen…..
And in almost all likelihood Andrew Cuomo will be the Governor….
The cuts will affect hospitals, nursing homes and a lengthy list of other health-related programs, and marked the first significant step in weeks toward an agreement on the state’s annual budget, now more than two months overdue. The legislation also requires the state to save an additional $300 million a year by cracking down on Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse.
In the Senate, the emergency budget bill including the health care cuts passed along party lines, with all 32 Democrats voting for it and all Republicans present voting against. In the Assembly, according to the unofficial tally, the package passed with the support of most Democrats, while some joined Republicans in voting against it.
Because cutting the state’s health care spending means forgoing some federal matching subsidies, the cuts are likely to have an even deeper impact than the stated total.
Mr. Paterson and the Legislature have been unable to agree on a broader deal to close a budget deficit of over $9 billion, largely because many Democratic lawmakers are unwilling to make cuts as steep as those that the governor is demanding.
Mr. Paterson appeared to have won a partial agreement by inserting a significant portion of his health care cuts into the latest in a series of short-term emergency spending bills, which are difficult to amend.
The cuts approved on Monday night, however, were not as expansive as the reductions of $1 billion in health care spending Mr. Paterson had originally sought. Some cuts, like those to tobacco cessation programs, were reduced; others, like cuts to programs for the elderly and for prescription drug coverage, were eliminated entirely.
Supporters of the measure in the Senate, where the vote was expected to be closer than in the Assembly, were still busy on Monday night recruiting enough backers to assure passage.
Mr. Paterson also did not seek the adoption of proposals that would raise money to offset health care cuts, like higher taxes on cigarettes and a new excise tax on sugared beverages.
Though roundly denounced by hospitals and health care workers, who staged demonstrations inside the Capitol on Monday, the vote was not necessarily a difficult one for lawmakers: the total dollar figure was one that the State Senate and Assembly had already agreed to in principle during continuing negotiations over the state budget. The package was further adjusted during negotiations with the Senate and Assembly over the weekend, after Mr. Paterson announced on Friday his intention to include long-term health care cuts in the emergency bill.
- BDog @ PolitcalDog 101
- Breaking News
- CD @ PolitcalDog
- Chilean Earthquake
- Daniel G @ PolitcalDog
- DSD @PoliticalDog101
- Economic Data (Zeitgeist)
- Manila @ PoliticalDog
- Open thread
- Other Things
- Political Satire
- PoliticalDog Calls
- PoliticalDogs Merlin
- PoliticalDogs SE posts
- September 11
- Sneakers (Kicks)
- The Economy
- Up 4 Discussion