simpson316's blog

McCowan Weaving a Tangled Web

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:17:53 +0000

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive.
~ Sir Walter Scott

SEIU thug Elston McCowan just can’t seem to keep his story straight.

As 24thstate.com’s Jim Durbin points out, Reverend Elston McCowan is having some consistency issues with his version of the events on the night of Congressman Carnahan’s health care town hall. His original story of that night’s events come from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article published on August 8th.

But Elston McCowan, an SEIU staffer, said Gladney was actually an instigator. McCowan accused Gladney of attacking him as he walked to his car. McCowan said he suffered a dislocated shoulder.

“Out of nowhere, the guy just assaults me,” said McCowan, 47, of St. Louis.

McCowan’s quote makes it clear that he was jumped by Kenneth Gladney. This wording makes it clear that there was absolutely no interaction between the two before the altercation. If only McCowan would have stuck to this story.

After much backlash (and probably a lot of coaching from the SEIU), McCowan is changing his story. His new version of events appears in, wait for it, Links: The International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Walking outside, McCowan saw Gladney selling buttons of Obama in blackface and Obama smoking weed. Feeling insulted, McCowan asked why a black man would be hawking material denigrating the first black president as he pointed to one of the buttons.

“When I pointed at the button, Gladney slapped my hand. So I told him not to hit me and pointed at it again and repeated my question. He smacked my hand even harder, hit me several times and pushed me down. As I went down, I grabbed him by reflex to break my fall. I hit my shoulder and something popped. I lost consciousness for a moment but soon realised that Gladney continued to hit me.

“Another SEIU guy, Perry Molens, came over and told Gladney, ‘He’s a minister and won’t fight back. He can’t see out of one eye. Stop hitting him!’. When Gladney kept on, Perry tried to get him off of me and threw a punch in the process.

“I don’t know why Gladney had an attorney on hand, but his attorney came over yelling ‘You two attacked him!’. Gladney went off to find cops and told them to arrest us. The cops wouldn’t listen to us and did what the Tea Party people told them to do. They arrested me, Perry, a newspaper reporter and three supporters of healthcare reform.”

This is a decidedly different story. No longer is McCowan claiming that Gladney attacked him out of nowhere. He now says that the dispute was over buttons of Obama in blackface and smoking pot. It is a seemingly small change in the story, but if McCowan is willing to lie about how this we know he is certainly willing to lie about who the instigator was.

Here’s the other problem: No one can prove that these buttons exist. Here are the six buttons that Gladney attorney David Brown says Gladney was selling (via same 24thstate.com posting)

Not one of those even has Obama pictured in it.

Jim put out a challenge: Find a picture of the buttons that McCowan was supposedly questioning. A blogger by the name of Adam at St. Louis Activist Blog claimed to find the conclusive evidence. He’s got a screen cap of a button with Obama in it that was on the board of another one of the button sellers (apparently another black conservative who was selling buttons for Gladney attorney David Brown The owner of this board is David Brown himself. He runs a business on the side selling merchandise at political events. He sold some of his buttons to Gladney.).

This is Adam’s conclusive evidence that a button of Obama smoking weed existed. The problem is that the picture shows nothing of the sort. In fact, I’m betting that most people here on RedState have probably seen the source image for this button several times.

Now, I will grant that I am one of the biggest squares around. Even I can tell that this is not a picture of Barack Obama smoking pot. It’s just your average, every day cancer stick (AKA tobacco cigarette). I guess I could give a certain amount of leeway given the replacing of the word HOPE with DOPE why one would make this mistake considering that you really can’t see the difference on a low-resolution image taken from a YouTube video. You would think that someone would make sure their evidence was air tight before going to print with it. {Oh, and Andy. I’ve got a screen cap of your post. Don’t try to send it down the memory hole.}

While it is true that Andy has shown that more than six buttons were for sale, there is still no evidence to support McCowan’s assertion. He has already told two different versions of what happened that night. How many more does he have to tell before he finally admits the truth?

Then again, McCowan isn’t the only one lying from that night.

Note: Corrected information comes from a follow-up post by Jim on 24thstate.com.

Cross-posted at my personal blog.

Defending Against Dishonesty

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:02:21 +0000

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote a very dishonest op-ed ["Defending the Indefensible"] attacking what they call “opponents of health reform”. Here is my response that I left for them on their web site:

I guess this is one way to win an argument.

1. Claim that your opponents are arguing for something that they aren’t. Who exactly has put forward a plan that says “Keep everything exactly the way it is now”? Now, given that the makeup of Congress is such that the only plan that could possibly pass would be one that is decidedly more liberal (more apt to allow government control) than conservative, the outcome of the current session would be either a liberal plan or no plan. This does not mean that conservatives wish to maintain the status quo. People like Congressman Paul Ryan have been pushing a conservative option for a few years now.

2. And then quote questionable studies that are influenced by how much government controls health care to determine quality of said system to slime those opponents. What is it that a native son of Missouri used to say about statistics? It’s not all that hard to skew the results to be how you want them when you can control the input variables to favor your outcome.

3. While simultaneously assuming that the problem is really one of health insurance and not the health care industry. The cost of health insurance is a function of the health care market (or this thing that is supposed to be a market but hasn’t been a functioning market since 1965). As health care costs rise, so will health insurance premiums since we incentivize individuals to claim everything under the sun on their insurance plan.

4. Opponents have been making a coherent case. You just aren’t listening. See Rep Paul Ryan of above. See Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon at CATO. See Greg Scandlen. See a brilliant op-ed by Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal. Etc.

As to some of the points that you make.

1. Higher administrative costs exist because you are not comparing things that are alike. In other countries, as with Medicare and Medicaid, there are many costs that are not included in their budgets. For example, in the private health care market, insurance companies have to have departments for billing, legal teams, etc that government run entities include in other budgets. The costs of the IRS collecting premiums are not included in the costs of Medicare. Neither is the costs of prosecuting those who commit fraud against the system. The same goes for many other countries. They shift those costs to other departments to make their numbers look better. {Gee, that sounds an awful lot like Enron style accounting to me}

2. Wasteful spending exists for several reasons. First, doctors practice a lot of CYA. They get sued (a lot). The best defense against a law suit is to show that you “did everything you could”. Even if that means ordering tests that have little to no benefit to diagnosis. Second, people bear a small portion of the costs of their decisions. When covered by insurance, the cost difference between an X-ray or an MRI seem quite small. When an X-ray will suffice (which costs far less) many will insist on receiving the MRI because they think it will give better results (at much higher cost). Because of the insurance coverage that they do have, they never see the true impact of that decision.

3. People most assuredly will lose their current coverage under the current proposals in front of congress. Own an insurance plan that is not exchange approved? You can keep it until the company has to alter the plan. Then you are forced to buy a policy from the exchange which is likely to be more expensive than the one you had before. On a company run plan? When faced with the decision between paying you $4000 for your individual plan or $12000 for a family plan versus a $750 fine for not providing insurance coverage, which do you think your employer is going to choose? If you said that they would continue to offer coverage you should be reminded that companies are looking to cut costs everywhere, especially these days. And cutting costs by millions of dollars would just be far too attractive to many companies to ignore.

A topic that you really miss covering here is how the current proposals will lead to a decrease in employee wages. If an employer is required to provide insurance coverage or face a fine, their costs of employing someone are going to go up in either instance if they don’t already offer health coverage. In an environment where wages are already seeing very slow growth, this would shift additional compensation dollars to health care since employers already cannot afford to both increase wages and health care premium contributions at adequate rates. Forcing them to put more into the health care premium contribution means that there will be fewer dollars available for wage increases. In extreme cases, this could even mean a reduction in either wages or number of employees if costs get too far out of hand.

{P.S. Is this reasoned enough debate for you? Or am I just trying to “fear monger” as you have so broadly painted the “anti-reformists”?}

Cross-posted at my personal blog.

Meet Elston McCowan

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:00:09 +0000

This is Elston McCowan.

Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the banner of the Green Party of St. Louis.

[ed: This was from before the election. McCowan is now a former nominee of the Green Party.]

All of that sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Well, except for the position with the SEIU and the whole Green Party thing (think Cynthia McKinney).

The problem with McCowan is that he is something more. McCowan is a thug.

You’ve actually seen McCowan before. He was in a video that has been played on just about every blog on the right, mentioned on countless radio programs and has even seen play on cable news. The video sparked the protest that I attended on Saturday outside of the SEIU office here in St. Louis. See if you recognize him now.

(Click image to view original YouTube video of the aftermath)

This is one of the men (along with another upstanding citizen in a SEIU shirt) who did this to Kenneth Gladney:

Kenneth, like many other protesters, went to the townhall on Thursday seeking to voice their opinion. He had hoped to spread the message of liberty by passing out the Gadsden flag. McCowan beat Kenneth over a flag*. He found the message of liberty to be too much so he tried to stop Kenneth’s freedom of speech with his fists**.

And just think that these fine, upstanding individuals now claim that Kenneth attacked McCowan.

Don’t let them get away with this. Stand with Kenneth. Attend your local town hall, tea party or any event where you can speak your mind. I suggest you organize something yourself if you can’t find an event near you***. Heck, even if you are the only one that shows up, don’t let your voice be silenced. Send the message loud and clear:

h/t to Bill Hennessy for the news.

*Don’t tell me there isn’t a certain sense of irony involved in beating a man passing out the Gadsden flag emblazoned with the words “Don’t Tread On Me”.

**How very becoming of a minister. Remember that from his profile?

***Here in the St. Louis area there is a program called 99 Corners. Individuals have pledged to organize protests on major street corners. This could be a great way to get involved in your neighborhood.

Cross-posted at my personal blog.

“Don’t Tread On Me”

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:58:20 +0000

Those were the words of Kenneth Gladney. These words however were spoken by his lawyer since Gladney was under heavy medication as a result of the beating he took at the hands of SEIU thugs.

St. Louis Tea Party Protest @ SEIU Office - August 8, 2009 from Brian Simpson on Vimeo.

If you can’t see the video it is of a speech by St. Louis Tea Party’s Bill Hennessey and the attorney for Kenneth Gladney.

I’m hoping for a transcript of the prepared statement soon.

You can see some of the pictures of the “mob” here. Do these people look dangerous?

Full photostream here.

More on this at Gateway Pundit, Josh Schroeder’s blog, and Amir Kuritovic.

What Did You Do This Saturday?

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:13:35 +0000

Patterico highlights how two different groups of people are spending today.

{Update} Appologies to anyone who I pushed off the front page, I clicked the wrong button. This was supposed to be a RedHot.

Want to Cure Your State’s Budget Ills? Attract the Millionaires

Tue, 19 May 2009 12:55:00 +0000

If you live in a state that is having budget problems (Hint: You are living in a state that has budget problems), your legislature is probably trying to figure out how to fix said problems. There’s lots of ways to do this, but only some of them actually make sense. One of the politically least popular (especially in Purple to Blue states) is to cut taxes. And when I say cut taxes, I mean cut, eliminate, end, cease, destroy taxes. Why do this?

As Arthur Laffer (Yeah, the Laffer Curve guy) and Stephen Moore point out in the Wall Street Journal, people are sensitive to higher taxes {h/t QandO}.

Here’s the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, “Rich States, Poor States,” published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Re-read that last paragraph again. 1,100 people a day! 89% more jobs! 32% faster income growth! Those aren’t insignificant numbers. Those should be the big neon lights that even politicians can understand. Who wouldn’t want to be the Speaker of the House, Governor, Senator, whatever who helped bring about that kind of success. You’d practically be set for life (barring any, ahem, indiscretions).

What’s more is that many of these high tax jurisdictions are trying to make their taxes higher. It’s almost like they are trying to give their Millionaires (and even Billionaires) away for free.

The Buffalo News: Golisano leaving New York to escape income taxes {h/t AoSHQ}

ALBANY — Ending any speculation about another possible run for governor, Rochester businessman and Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano said Thursday he will be moving his legal residence to Florida to escape New York state taxes.

Baltimore Sun: Maryland plan to tax millionaires backfires {h/t Dan Mitchell}

But as the state comptroller’s office sifts through this year’s returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.

NY Daily News: Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh says he’ll leave New York over Gov. Paterson’s tax increases

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk show king, announced this week that he’s ditching his New York digs and finding another alternate location for his top-rated show in the wake of Gov. Paterson’s “stupid, punitive, massive tax increases.”

So, message to the rest of the states: Cut your taxes. Better yet, eliminate your income tax. I know. It sounds crazy. I assure you, you will find other ways to fund government. Heck, that many incoming Millionaires is sure to spur economic growth. Economic growth means sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc, etc.

In a related message, Bill Whittle has a message for the millionaires: Leave Now. His message is to the nation-at-large, but the notion is the same. This punish the rich mentality will only be at the detriment of the jurisdiction raising the taxes while benefiting those jurisdictions with low taxes.

McCracken on St. Louis

Sun, 03 May 2009 18:47:39 +0000

(Click to view video. Opens in new window/tab.)

A lot of people here in St. Louis are up in arms over this campaign ad released by Brewster McCracken, a candidate for Mayor of Austin, TX. McCracken levels some harsh reality. St. Louis once was one of the premier cities in the United States. As he says, we hosted the Olympics and the Worlds Fair in the same year. We once had a very large industrial base [which with the announcement that Chrystler will close both plants in Fenton has pretty much sunk to next to nothing]. Over the past few decades though, things have gotten bad.

Drive Highway 70 from the county towards downtown. Once you pass the airport, you see the side of the highway littered with abandoned buildings. Businesses are leaving the City for the County in droves [St. Louis is one of those cities where the County and the City are wholly separate government entities.]. People who live in the County now only venture downtown for sporting events.

So what has been one of the dominate factors as to why St. Louis has been declining for decades? One party rule.

The Democrats have had exclusive control over the office of Mayor of St. Louis since 1949. That’s 60 years of a political party that makes decisions based on what gets them elected, not what will encourage new business and entertainment opportunities to move downtown.

CNN Hackery Nothing New

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:42:56 +0000

There has been no shortage of digital ink on the despicable reporting on CNN by Susan Roesgen. Here at RedState alone:

Objective CNN Reporter to Chicago Tea Party Attendee: “Why Are You Complaining? Don’t You Know Obama Gave Your State Billions in the Stimulus!?” - Jeff Emanuel

We Have a Winner! Absolutely, Positively WORST Tea Party Day Coverage in the Galaxy - Skanderbeg

Don’t Expect to See Jon Stewart Rail on Susan Roesgen Again - Moe Lane

A CNN Reporter’s Selective Outrage - Josh Painter

Avoiding Criticism: CNN Shuts Down Anti-Tea Party Reporter’s Email Address - Warner Todd Huston

And that is just on the front page. There are dozens of other diaries along with hundreds of comments on this topic (including this diary that has video from the Founding Bloggers on what happend after CNN stopped rolling it’s cameras).

It’s important to keep in mind, that despite the networks slogan of being “The Most Trusted Name In News” (and who doesn’t love hearing Darth…er…James Earl Jones’s booming voice saying that?) they really have not earned that trust.

You see, back in the first Gulf War, CNN covered the “War in the Gulf” like no other network: They faked it.

That’s right. That was actually aired on CNN. {I know, I thought it was a spoof myself.} That is none other than St. Louis’s own (KTVI Fox 2 and KTRS 550) hack Charles Jaco. [Jaco has been a bit of hack on the Tea Parties himself: reporting the false narrative of astroturfing, calling us whiners on his radio show, and various other liberal talking points.]

So, when people start to wonder where CNN’s credibility has gone. I wonder when they ever had it.

Mandating Higher Health Costs

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:19:18 +0000

Imagine you are a Doctor. You are fed up with the current situation in the health care market, so you decide to do something about it. You see lots of people who lack health insurance. Because of this they are forgoing needed trips to the doctor for regular check ups, ect. You decide that you will set up a plan whereby uninsured patients pay you a monthly access fee and then a very low co-pay when they actually come in for a visit. [Astute observers will recognize that this is essentially concierge medicine. This is likely to be one of the ways that a market based system will solve the problem of the uninsured.] Your idea opened up a way for patients to get access to care that they did not have before. This is an achievement to be celebrated. Or not?

The state of New York has determined that this very practice runs afoul of their insurance regulation. You see, in the state of New York only licensed insurance companies have the right to charge flat rates for unplanned medical expenses. As a result, Dr John Muney has had to dramatically raise his rates that he charges for unplanned procedures and abandon the monthly access fee.

The result of these regulations is that hundreds (if not thousands) of people being served at Dr Muney’s clinics in New York now no longer have access to affordable health care. Isn’t that what advocates of government control were fighting for?

This highlights something I have been saying for a while. Our health care problem will not be solved by mandating health insurance (or replacing private insurance with government run insurance). The same disincentives to create innovative ideas like Dr Muney’s will exist under either option. That leaves us with the false choice of the current situation or the equally bad “universal” health care. Dr Muney created an option that required no subsidization by government. And he did it while still making money. What was wrong with that?

If the Death Tax Wasn’t Bad Enough Already

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:00:06 +0000

Legislators in the state of Oregon have proposed a tax on the distribution of a life insurance policy’s death benefit.

Oregonians who purchase life insurance and annuity products to assure the financial security of themselves and their loved ones would be hit with a tax that undermines their carefully-made financial protection, long-term savings and retirement income. H.B. 2854 would impose a tax on the life insurance benefits received by Oregon families suffering the death of a loved one. It would also impose a new tax on savings through life insurance and annuities.

This strikes me as monumentally stupid. I understand that Oregon (like many other states) is suffering a budget crunch, but this has to be one of the least sensitive decisions that has been (or yet to be) made. Why would you, at a time of deep grieving, want to make the problem worse by telling the family of a deceased individual that the government has to take it’s cut of your forsight to plan for your loved one’s early demise. This is yet another case of government punishing those who act responsibly.

MO-Sen: Who Is John Weaver?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:04:17 +0000

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza highlights the (presumed) race for the Republican nomination to face Robin Carnahan for Senate in 2010. In the piece he introduces information that Sarah Steelman is talking to campaign stratagists. He mentions by name former McCain advisor John Weaver.

Blunt was the first Republican in the race to replace Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R), who is retiring after three terms, but Steelman is almost certain to run and is in talks with top national party strategists, including John Weaver, who was a top campaign adviser to Sen. John McCain. (Steelman endorsed the Arizonan for president in 2000 and 2008.)

“Sarah Steelman is a breath of fresh air for our party,” Weaver said. “However I’m involved, I’m sure this conservative reformer will be the next senator from Missouri.”

My first reaction: “Who?”

Well, fortuantely for me (and the rest of you) Google is my friend. Here’s what we know about John Weaver:

He was originally known as McCain’s Rove
He once left the Republican party to work as a Democratic strategist
He’s a big money consultant who hates big money (How exactly does that work?)
He was behind the implementation of the GOP Toolbar (something that needs to be drastically expanded upon)
He was fired from McCain’s 2008 campaign after, well bluntly, royally screwing things up
He was originally thought to be the leak in the New York Times‘ Iseman-McCain affair scandal, something he vehemently denies
Post-firing he was mostly noted for his disagreements with the campaign, especially the Celeb ad and the (in his mind) lack of quieting down the “mob mentality”

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think that bullet points number two and five speak highly of an individual who would be your head strategist. Leaving the party and then having the balls to say “our party” is a bit much. And if I was Steelman, I would take one look at the first half of McCain’s campaign and say no thanks to Weaver.

Earmark Issue Opens the Door For Steelman

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:18:47 +0000

After Senator Claire McCaskill’s comments about earmarks (and the glaring hypocrisy of those comments), Congressman Roy Blunt said something that I believe leaves no doubt that former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman will challenge him for the Republican nomination to the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kit Bond.

“I’ve never been nearly as effective at this topic as Sen. Bond, who’s fought hard for our state,” Blunt said in a radio interview with talk radio host McGraw Milhaven Wednesday morning. “But I certainly wouldn’t be the person to say I’m not going to be out there competing for things that are good for Missouri.”

“I would hope that Claire would change her mind on this,” the former House Minority Whip added.

What? Look, let’s not take the one position that McCaskill is (semi)right about and ask her to change her mind. Blunt really stepped in it with this one. Make no mistake, Steelman is going to take this issue and run with it. On Saturday, she released a letter in response to a Missouri GOP press release aimed at Robin Carnahan:

A recent communication sent from the Missouri Republican Party to Robin Carnahan contained the following question (#6 out of 10):

6.) Senator Bond supports worthwhile projects for Missouri in Congress. Senator McCaskill won’t. Would you join with Senator McCaskill, so that Missouri unilaterally disarms itself, and gets nothing while other states get projects in Congress?

An Open Letter to Fellow Missouri Republicans

I recently saw the ten questions sent out by the Missouri Republican Party for Robin Carnahan. I don’t have any quarrel with most of the questions. However, I am bewildered by question no. 6, which not only asks Robin Carnahan’s position on the improper, inefficient, and corrupt practice of earmarking, which is an entirely appropriate question, but actually defends pork barrel spending at a time when most republicans, at least those who don’t live in Washington D.C., are trying to stop the mounting and dangerous deficits.

I don’t believe that a majority of the state committee supports inefficient and wasteful spending. I know that a majority of Missourians don’t.

The Missouri Republican Party should not proclaim earmark spending a virtue. It is not. This does nothing but harm the efforts of principled politicians of both parties, who recognize that the old way of doing business; earmarks, pork, and a lack of accountability, has cost America jobs, security, and confidence. The old ways can no longer be tolerated.

I have been asked how the Republican Party lost its Congressional majority. One of the major reasons, in my opinion, is that our party no longer has credibility on fiscal issues. I want our party to flourish and expand and to help lead the country out of this economic disaster. But why would anyone believe in our principles when Republican elected officials don’t? We can no longer be the party that says one thing and does another. We must restore fiscal restraint and discipline. We must be the party that supports ethical reform by holding our elected officials to a higher standard of public service than exists today. We must always remember that Congress is spending taxpayer’s money – it belongs to the people – and it should be spent prudently.

Please remember what Ronald Reagan said in 1964, “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. ”

Sincerely,

Sarah Steelman

She also didn’t waste any time taking Blunt to task on her Twitter page:

The Hill reports Roy Blunt is defending earmarks! “Caught between the longing for love and the struggle for the legal tender” song title?

[I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't get the reference.]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another letter/video/speech from Steelman in the very near future (or at least once the school year is over as she is teaching class at a college). This one will be the start of a candidacy. Keep an eye on her website. Eventually it has to change from Steelman for Governor. I’m guessing they aren’t wasting the money on a redesign now to roll out the Senate campaign later on.

McCaskill’s Hypocrisy

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:07:57 +0000

Senator McCaskill has somehow managed to position herself in the eyes of the general public as a fiscally minded politician. I’d say a healthy part of that comes from her time as the State Auditor here in Missouri. People tend to think of the Auditor as a position of someone who knows what is and what isn’t good spending. McCaskill is definitely trading on that experience.

Earmarks

On Wednesday, McCaskill took to the Senate floor and railed against earmarks (though unsurprisingly she only highlighted the Republican offeders).

“Every single member of Republican leadership has earmarks in this bill,” McCaskill said. “Every single one of these people rejected the stimulus … because supposedly they were so upset about wasteful spending.”

At one point, McCaskill made a veiled criticism of her fellow Missouri senator, Christopher S. “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., saying there are some who argue that bureaucrats should not decide where spending goes. This has been a common argument made by Bond, a major supporter of earmarks.

“This notion that bureaucrats are doing the decision making — we have the power to tell the bureaucrats how to spend the money,” McCaskill said.

“This notion that somehow we need to do earmarks because the bureaucrats are going to run amok, I don’t get it,” she added.

I’d like to do like the Club for Growth has done and congratulate McCaskill for getting it, but I just can’t (and it’s not because she’s a Democrat). Cato@Liberty’s Tad DeHaven pointed out why:

A headline from yesterday’s online version of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

McCaskill joins McCain in anti-earmark effort, announces local grants

Ugh. One of my chief policy pet peeves is the idea that congressfolk earmarking money to special interests is bad, but having bureaucrats dole out the same sort of cheese through grants and loans is A-OK.

Says Sen. McCaskill (D-MO):

We are looking at deficits in the trillions, and I think Americans are fed up with the way Washington has been spending their money…. Changing the earmark culture is not the whole solution to bringing fiscal responsibility back, but it’s a start.

So far so good, but then:

Also Wednesday, McCaskill announced two grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA):

A total of $752,560 to the city of Silex in Lincoln County. “The money is being provided through the United State’s Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development funding initiative, which works to improve the economy and quality of life in rural communities by supporting and providing government loans and grants…. According to the USDA, the city will receive a grant of $387,560 and a low-interest government loan of $365,000. The funds will be used to upgrade the centralized sewer system, providing improved water treatment facilities and adding thousands of feet in main line.”

$50,000 to the city of Berger in Franklin County. The money comes from the same USDA program targeting rural communities. “According to the USDA, the funding will be used to provide a centralized sewer system that will improve the health and sanitary conditions of the area by providing water to residents who currently rely on failing septic tanks,” the senator’s office said.”

So, if another member of the Missouri congressional delegation had instead instructed the USDA to redistribute taxpayer money to these two Missouri communities via language in a piece of legislation it would have been bad? According to Sen. McCaskill, the answer is apparently “yes.”

Look, I’m happy Sen. McCaskill is on board the anti-earmark train. Kudos to her. But whichever means Congress chooses, the end is the same: taxpayers on the hook for special interest spending.

Geesh, you’d think a former State Auditor would know that it doesn’t matter how you tell someone to spend the money, but that you do tell someone to spend the money.

McCaskill hates earmarks, but she’s definitely a fan of the spending. Remember, she did vote for the (over) $1T “stimulus” bill and seems to be falling lock step in line with every big government spending plan the Democrats have pushed.

On second thought, does McCaskill really hate earmarks all that much? Yes? Then why did she vote against a provision that would have eliminated 13 earmarks for the PMA lobbying firm that was recently raided by the FBI? And why would she reportedly have voted yes on the Omnibus bill loaded with over 9,000 earmarks?

Tax Shelters

It doesn’t stop with earmarks. Senator McCaskill has also doubled down on her antics this week by co-sponsoring a bill proposed by MI Senator Carl Levin that would crack down on the use of off shore tax shelters. Funny thing is, McCaskill uses one of those very tax shelters she wants crack down on:

Which is funny—given that McCaskill has disclosed partial ownership of a company called Rural Reinsurance Company International, Ltd, based in Hamilton, Bermuda. According to her most recent personal financial disclosure, the asset is valued between $500,001 and $1,000,000.

This arrangement has drawn the attention of ethics watchdogs and the Kansas City Star (subscription required), which published an article that included McCaskill’s tacit admission that her Bermuda-based company was, in fact, a tax shelter:

Furthermore, one of [McCaskill’s husband Joseph] Shepard’s interests–a Bermuda-based reinsurance company–shares attributes with a tax shelter the IRS wants Congress to rein in.

[snip]

Some experts say that if a reinsurance firm does not have employees or offices and does not market its services, its purposes are suspect.

It’s all about avoiding taxes, said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington watchdog group. “That’s the whole point of them. I’ve heard so many excuses for doing it. But why is it in Bermuda? There’s only one reason. Because of taxes.”

“There is absolutely no tax sheltering that is occurring that is not part of a tax code that Senator Talent embraces,” McCaskill said Monday night at a debate in Springfield.

But if the Senate does take up legislation aimed at curtailing such shelters, McCaskill would be in a position to help decide whether one of her husband’s major investments could survive.

Funny, McCaskill is in a position to decide whether one of her husband’s major investments will survive. How much do you want to bet they know for sure that he will be able to keep it?

So Missouri, how do you feel about your fiscally responsible Senator now? Don’t fall for the smoke and mirrors. McCaskill’s real fiscal credentials wouldn’t get her a seat at the 4H budget meeting.

The Future of Health Care: Aligning Incentives

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:55:18 +0000

All over the country, people (on both the left and the right) are trying to figure out how we are going to solve the problem of health care. The choices run the gamut from free market solutions to full government take-over of the funding and running of the health system. What is often forgotten in the debate is discovering what the problem really is.

Currently, you do not directly pay for your health care (unless you happen to be uninsured and pay full price for your care). A vast majority of Americans have their care paid for them through a third party entity such as Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. Aside from the issues coming from of someone else controlling your medical decisions, this situation creates very perverse incentives in the health care market.

You see, you are no longer the customer in the health care transaction in the current system. Someone else is paying. They get to be the one who gets catered to and have their needs (not yours) attended to. [Yes, I do realize that ultimately you are paying in the case of private insurance, but circumstances over the past two decades or so have made it so that the private health insurance market has simply become a parrot of the government funded portion of the sector.] Often times this means that health care is rationed, not by your choices on what you want and what you can afford, but by a (for all you care) nameless and faceless bureaucrat who is looking out for the interests of the entity he works for. You see, the incentives in the system aren’t necessarily to make you better or get you the care you want at a price you are willing to pay.

How do we fix this? We realign the incentives.

The introduction of the Health Savings Account (when coupled with a qualifying High Deductible Health Plan) was the first step in this process, or at least it should have been. As originally designed, the HSA takes the decision making power out of the third party’s hands and places it back in the hands of the consumer (under the advisement of the health care professional). It was also intended that the HSA would cut out the insurance company in all but the most necessary of functions - actually acting as insurance instead of claims processing. The insurance company’s role was to underwrite the risks of having health care costs higher than the deductible while leaving anything under the deductible to the discression of the consumer. [Obviously, the insurane company would still play part in tracking the costs to determine when their liability kicked in.]

Instead, the HSA has been somewhat gutted. This has been done by both those in policy making positions (by requiring that health insurance companies go through a process of certifying that funds qualify as expenditures under IRS rules - something that is actually done at the register already at time of service when the HSA debit card is used) andy by health insurance executives (who seek to maintain their revenue streams by adding in many of the features of regular insurance that should have been eliminated like office copays). What that has done is limited the effectiveness of the HSA as a tool in changing the health care landscape. Instead of triming out all of the wasteful steps of the current process, the current stakeholders have found a way to reinsert the waste to their benefit.

The HSA (restored to its original intent) is just one example of how to realign the incentives in the health care industry. Another way is to offer discounts or penalites for certain actions.

The City of Kennesaw, Georgia is doing just that. They are implementing a system where employees who take steps to better their health (lose weight and stop smoking) will avoid a penalty of increased out of pocket on their health insurance.

If Mayor-Council passes the recommendation by the benefits committee, which is composed of city employees, smokers who choose not to participate in the city’s wellness program will pay an additional $25 per pay period. High risk employees not participating in the program will pay an additional $50 per pay period. The city’s 233 employees are paid every two weeks, and 125 are attending wellness programs offered by the city.

Kennesaw dropped traditional health insurance coverage about four years ago. It went with a self-funded model in which premiums go toward paying claims and establishing a catastrophic health care fund from which large expenses are paid.

The City, under advisement of a council of employees, found a way to realign incentives so that individuals bear the cost of their decisions. When a system does that, an individual now sees not just a physical benefit but a monetary benefit to positive actions. The consumer is empowered to either make the choice to better their life in the program or pay the additional premium. It’s their choice. They control the outcome.

Only by finding other ways to realign the incentives in the current system will we be able to truly effect health care reform. Universal health care does not do this. It would merely replace the current set of bureaucrats with a new set of bureaucrats. Not exactly the change we deserve.

Missouri News and Notes 02-06-09

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +0000

Here’s some of the bigger goings-on in the Show-Me State.

Mission #1: Exposing Robin Carnahan

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced her candidacy for the Senate seat currently occupied by Senator Kit Bond (who announced his retirement a few weeks ago). Since her announcement, two stories have highlighted why Carnahan should not represent the people of Missouri.

1.Gateway Pundit has highlighted Carnahan’s ties to a group called America Coming Together(ACT). Carnahan’s communications director is Laura Egerdal. She is a former recruiter for ACT. So, whats wrong with ACT:

ACT hired dozens Of felons some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary – to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in Missouri and other swing states. Seven of the ACT employees lived at Missouri halfway houses and at least four returned to prison. Because of this the Missouri Department Of Corrections banished ACT from its pool of potential employers for parolees, saying, “They did not want offenders handing sensitive personal information. The names of two of the ACT employees even matched those of people convicted of murder and rape. ACT was also good at getting the dead voters signed up in time for the election.

Remember, Egerdal recruited for ACT. And now she is in an important position on Carnahan’s staff.

2.Carnahan has been endorsed by EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List is a readical pro-abortion group. True, EMILY’s List has had some success recently in getting their candidates elected, but Missouri is an exception.

Here’s the thing though, last cycle Emily’s List lost two big congressional races in Missouri. They got killed in the sixth district with a candidate, Kay Barnes, who was supposed to be a rock star. And they lost with another, Judy Baker in the ninth district, in a race they thought they had a chance to win all the way to the end.

As The Source continues, they point out why Carnahan will have trouble getting elected in Missouri.

A lot of people are giving Carnahan the edge no matter who she faces. But we would suggest she will have a hard time if she can’t win the sixth, the ninth or the seventh (almost certainly a Republican win, and maybe a big one if Roy Blunt is the candidate.) Carnahan would have to have Obama-like turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis to offset those losses, and we don’t think she generates that much passion.

Obviously Missouri will elect Democrats statewide. But if you look at who has been elected lately, all have at least a modicum of conservative thought. Even Claire McCaskill tried to act like a conservative in rural areas. Carnahan won’t be able to pull that off, and that will be her ultimate undoing.

The important point in there is that Carnahan will not enjoy the historic turnouts in St. Louis and Kansas City that Democrats enjoyed in 2008. If Republicans are able to pick up even a few points in those Democratic stronghold, Congressman Blunt (the likely Republican nominee) will perform very well in the more rural, conservative areas of the state.

State Senator Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) Holds Up Linda Martinez Nomination

Governor Jay Nixon has nominated St. Louis lawyer Linda Martinez for the director of economic development. State Senator Rupp has some issues with this nomination and is holding up her hearing. One of the primary reasons why Martinez makes a poor choice for a position involving economic development is her stand on illegal immigration. Martinez has drawn fire from groups concerned over her role in suing the City of Valley Park over their tough laws punishing businesses and landlords who knowingly hired or rented to illegal immigrants. Why should we have an director of economic development who is interested in seeing that development go to those who are here illegally? Watch Rupp discuss the hold up here:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7VRt2pq61o]

This issue has also given freshman Senator Robin Wright-Jones her first opportunity (of many) to play the gender card:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fF-5Z8DLeA]

Stay classy Senator.

Add Another Democrat to the Tax Problem Pile?

The Missouri GOP has some questions for Senator Claire McCaskill. They want to know if she could be the next Democrat with “tax issues”.

Jefferson City - With three of President Obama’s top appointees exposed for not paying their taxes, Claire McCaskill has chimed in with one of her most hypocritical rants to date. McCaskill, who Roll Call magazine ranks as one of the richest members of the U.S. Senate, informed MSNBC earlier this week, “For anybody watching this show, if you ever think you’re going to be in government, please pay your taxes. Pay them now.”

Here are the facts about McCaskill’s tax problems, which, by her newfound standard, would seemingly disqualify her from government service:

McCaskill has repeatedly refused requests to release family tax returns, which would shed light on the matrix of government subsidized business dealings (i.e. government subsidized housing, tax credit brokering, nursing homes, etc.) that have made her one of the richest members of the U.S. Senate.

If McCaskill actually abided by her MSNBC rhetoric, her goal of becoming a career politician would have gone unrealized due to a federal tax lien and an embarrassing incident in 1994 in which Camden County published a notice to auction McCaskill’s lakeside condo due to her failure to pay taxes on it.

McCaskill, who told MSNBC “there’s a lot of tax money out there that we need to be collecting”, has been dodging questions about her family’s offshore tax shelter, headquartered in Bermuda, for years. In an October 2006 Kansas City Star story that focused on McCaskill tax shelter, a D.C. watchdog group offered this view: “It’s all about avoiding taxes,” said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington watchdog group. ‘That’s the whole point of them.”

“Apparently, Claire McCaskill is not interested in practicing what she preaches when it comes to tax problems,” said Tina Hervey. “Timothy Giethner, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer have proven that failing to pay taxes is not grounds for disqualification from government service in the eyes of the Obama administration. Maybe that explains why McCaskill has turned out to be one of Obama’s most loyal surrogates.”

So Senator, in the interest of open government (something you have told us you champion) release your tax records. We have a right to know if your family has paid their taxes.

As Always, Anything Else of Importance - Toss It In the Comments

What Criteria Are They Using?

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:19:51 +0000

Much has been written over the past few weeks on the impending stimulus pork-laden, debt bill. Unfortunately, it seems that the Democrats in charge of the Senate see fit to ram this bill down the throats of the American public. With that in mind, I’m wondering what criteria they are using when they consider projects. I wonder this, because I’ve been reading through the spending requests made by the U.S. Conference of Mayors on StimulusWatch.org.

The mayors of the State of Missouri have submitted 403 projects with a price tag of a whopping $3,760,293,491.00. Several of these projects are set to fund the Metrolink system in the St. Louis metro area. There is a lot to like about Metrolink (especially the fact that you can park in better lots than you can find downtown when you go to a sporting event), but why should the City and County of St. Louis expect other states to foot the bill for these projects?

You see, St. Louis County residents recently rejected an additional sales tax that would have been used to fund Metrolink. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd to ask someone else to pay for something your own citizens won’t pay for?

Stimulus Plan Bails Out Insurance Companies

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:02:39 +0000

The Heritage Foundation has pointed out that the pending stimulus legislation includes a provision in it that would subsidize COBRA to the tune of $30.3 billion. For a quick primer (or reminder for those who know what COBRA is), let’s see how the U.S. Department of Labor defines the program:

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) gives workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances such as voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in the hours worked, transition between jobs, death, divorce, and other life events. Qualified individuals may be required to pay the entire premium for coverage up to 102 percent of the cost to the plan.

There are other provisions to the plan, but this is the one that is central to the discussion. The new $30.3 billion subsidy would cover 65% of the cost of a COBRA plan (or roughly cover enough to keep the individual or family paying what they were before they lost group coverage).

There are two major problems with this.

What is this doing in a “stimulus” package? I understand that money is fungible, but I’m really not sure how this is supposed to create short term growth in the economy. These funds will be spent on a product that is defensive in nature. Insurance (despite being necessary if you want to avoid bankruptcy after an ER visit) doesn’t really create growth. It may avoid negative growth, but if that was the goal of the stimulus plan we are in much worse shape than even the most pessimistic amongst us thinks.
Once you get past problem number one (we’ll skip the whole debate on whether or not the government should subsidize health care for now), there are a lot of better options out there than COBRA for most people. COBRA plans are expensive (because they are just the continuation of your expensive employer-sponsored health plan). Yes, for those with health conditions it is the best option until they can either secure new group coverage or qualify for a high risk pool in their state. For everyone else though, it is money spent on a product that the could find an alternative to for much less. If (Yes, big if) a subsidy for health care was a useful way to stimulate the economy, why not expand the subsidy? Let those who lose their group coverage use the subsidy for any insurance plan. This way the individual/family gets to pick the best plan for them. If they want to save their money and go for a slimmer, less benefit packed plan then they should be able to. That would at least lead to less money spent on defense, leaving extra dollars in that family’s hands to spend on other goods and services.

Point number 2 leads directly into the problem of government funded (partially or wholly) health care. When they write the check, they make the rules. They pick the winners and losers. Not you. They pick what qualifies as acceptable insurance under the funding plan. You want that low cost high-deductible health plan and Health Savings Account (HDHP/HSA) that might save you money that you can spend else where? Too bad. The government isn’t going to help you with that. If you want the money you accept the strings.

So, who has the government decided wins in this scenario?

The health insurance companies. Group insurance makes up the vast majority of revenue for nearly every insurance company out there. It is how they get the revenue (that they then invest when not needed to pay out claims - that’s how they really make their profits). By enticing more people into spending more money than they would on their own, the government has just handed a $30.3 billion gift to the insurance industry.

This is why the government has no business being involved in the business of health.

Technology

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:17:45 +0000

Take a look at the picture below:

(Click to enlarge)

This is a map of the relationship network of Congressional members who are on Twitter. It’s pretty easy to look at this map and get really pumped up: The Republicans “win”. The problem is that GOP dominance of Twitter doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t add up to votes.

This map (and I guarantee, the reaction of many who see that picture) is really the problem in the GOP right now. Many think that all we have to do is bridge the technology gap and the GOP can return to power in Congress and retake the Presidency in 2012/2016 with ease. This just isn’t true. We weren’t defeated by technology in the race for President (or any other race for that matter). We were beaten in the basic game of attracting people to your message.

Over on The Next Right, Patrick Ruffini goes into a lengthy explaination. I suggest you read it all.

Until Republicans learn the lesson that “technology” is not the answer, we may be in for a long time in the wilderness.

MO-Sen: Rounding Up the Potential Candidates

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:00:08 +0000

Brilliant state roundup. Fronted by Erick. But don’t forget to put the state in the tags or it won’t show up on the state blogs.

With the announcement from Missouri’s Senior Senator Kit Bond, there is going to be something that hasn’t happened in Missouri for a very long time: a race for an open Senate seat in Missouri. This has sparked some major interest, both here in Missouri and nationally as everyone starts to watch the jockeying for who will be the junior Senator. {Ugh, this means that Classy Claire McCaskill will be our senior Senator from Missouri.} Here’s the rundown of those who are or ought to be considered for the post.

Sarah Steelman

Sarah Steelman is the former State Treasurer. She served in that office from 2005 until inauguration day this year. Prior to her term in the Treasurer’s office she was a State Senator, originally elected to office in 1998 representing Rolla and the surrounding area. Mrs. Steelman was one of the two major candidates for the Republican nominee for Missouri’s Governor in the 2008 cycle. She entered the election after Governor Blunt announced that he would not be seeking re-election.

Erick Erickson has already written about why there is much for conservatives to like about Mrs Steelman. You can find out more about her positions by visiting her website. [Yes, it does appear to be left over from her Gubernatorial candidacy.] One of her biggest accomplishments as Treasurer was the implementation of a terror free investing policy for the state’s pension funds. The State no longer invests in companies that do business with state sponsors of terror. Steelman managed to divest those funds without damaging the performance of the funds.

Steelman has already confirmed that she is considering a run for the vacated seat. It appears that she will use much the same theme she used against Congressman Hulshof in the primary.

Outgoing State Treasurer Sarah Steelman is considering a run. In an interview with KY3 TV in Springfield, Steelman took a shot at both Senator Bond and Congressman Blunt, saying, “Senator Bond and Congressman Blunt represent the old ways of Washington. I don’t think people can tolerate that.” Bond endorsed Steelman’s opponent, Congressman Kenny Hulshof, in the Republican primary for Governor.

Peter Kinder

Peter Kinder is the current Lt Governor of the state of Missouri. [He was the only Republican elected in a statewide election this year. He will be serving his second term at this position.] You can visit his official state biography here. Kinder was the lone real bright spot in Missouri in 2008. Every other statewide office either went to or was retained by the Democrats. Kinder was able to keep his seat in the Lt Gov office by outperforming every other Republican in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas. Kinder previously served as the State Senator from portions of Southeast Missouri. He was elected as President Pro Tem in 2001 when the GOP took control of the Missouri Senate for the first time in over 50 years.

No one is really sure whether Kinder is considering running for the open seat. He has long had his eyes on the Governor’s mansion. Kinder was briefly a candidate in the Republican primary this last year, but dropped out of the race after Congressman Hulshof announced he was seeking the position. One would imagine that should he choose not to run for Senate (or run and fail) that he would be the likely front runner for the nomination for Governor in 2012.

Kinder is a very strong candidate for the seat. His ability to perform well in urban areas is not due to the normal graft and giveaways that many moderate candidates resort to when they are seeking votes in urban areas. He gains his support by sticking to his principles and simply showing up at events and talking about issues that are important to all people like jobs and health care. Unlike other politicians (even Democrats) Kinder attended the recent NAACP dinner in Missouri and stayed for the entire event on the weekend before the election. It’s clear that his commitment to campaign anywhere and to anyone has paid dividends for him.

Kinder and Steelman have a soft spoken feud going on. Just the other day Kinder responded to the above quote from Steelman (although not directly or by name, it’s safe to say that Steelman was the target):

But Kinder was closed-mouthed about whether he would try to replace Bond, saying, “I’m not going to join those in what I think is unseemly haste in taking potshots or announcing my plans today.”

He declined to name the official taking the potshots, but he did say he saw a statement on a blog that he considered shocking.

Roy Blunt

Congressman Roy Blunt (MO-07) has been involved in Missouri politics since 1979 when he was elected county clerk and chief election official of Greene County, MO. He was then elected Secretary of State in 1984. After a brief hiatus from politics from 1993 to 1996, Blunt was elected to his current position as one of Missouri’s delegation to the House of Representatives. He served as the GOP Whip from 2006 until he stepped down recently.

Blunt stands to suffer some from “Blunt fatigue”. Despite all the good that his son (the outgoing Governor Matt Blunt) has done for the state, he has become a villain of the left. In much the same way that President-elect Obama ran against the third term of Bush, Governor Nixon ran against the second term of Blunt. The constant abuse that the name Blunt took will likely mean that the Congressman would have a very steep uphill to climb in urban areas (which Senator McCaskill showed in 2004 that you need a strong showing in your opponents wheelhouse if you want to win in the very divided state of Missouri - urban blue and rural red). He does however benefit from the name recognition that comes with having served the state of Missouri for as long as he has.

Jim Talent

Talent is the former occupant of the Senate seat that Claire McCaskill now occupies. He began his political career when he was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 1984. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992 and elevated to the Senate in 2002 (when he defeated Jean Carnahan - widow of Mel Carnahan who died just weeks before the election in 2000 and won anyway). Since leaving the Senate, Talent has been a scholar with the Heritage Foundation and also was a member of Mitt Romney’s campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination for President.

It’s likely that both Blunt and Talent would not seek the office at the same time. Neither would be very likely interested in a primary campaign against each other. Expect only one of the two to actually enter this race.

Should Talent get back into this race he will clearly have to perform much better than he did against McCaskill. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is a much stronger opponent than McCaskill was in the previous race. Talent will have to re-solidify his support in the rural parts of the state while trying to make ins in the urban areas of St. Louis and Kansas City (parts of the state that anyone with the name Carnahan has a virtual lock on)

Sam Graves

Congressman Graves serves Missouri’s 6th CD. He was recently re-elected to his fourth term. He easily defeated form Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes in what was originally considered a pickup opportunity by the DNC. Graves has been a steady Conservative while serving in Congress. He recently voted against the $700B bailout.

Graves definitely suffers from a lack of name recognition. I would be willing to bet that the average Joe outside of his Congressional District know much about the Congressman. It would be quite surprising if Graves did decide to get into the race (especially if either Talent, Kenny Hulshof or Bond were to enter the race as they all have much more name recognition in the state). The area where he does perform well (his district is in the northwestern part of the state) doesn’t exactly stand out as a population center that would give Graves a large base of support to launch a statewide campaign from.

His Congressional biography is here.

Kenny Hulshof

Former Congressman Hulshof (MO-09) was the Republican nominee for Governor in 2008. He lost in a landslide to Jay Nixon. He served in the House of Representatives from 1996 until giving up his seat this year in order to run for Governor.

Congressman Hulshof would likely not be involved in the race should either Congressman Blunt or former Senator Talent get into the race. He may not have the resources or the energy to engage in a hotly contested race this soon after the tough Republican primary and the blow out from the general election.

John Loudon

John Loudon is a member of the Missouri Senate represending the seventh district of Missouri. Prior to being elected to the Senate in 2000, Loudon served in the Missouri State House of Representatives from 1994 through 1998.

Loudon is one of the young stars of the GOP in Missouri. Clearly, he would be at a very large disadvantage at this point in the game should he choose to get into this race. He has very little name recognition statewide and would be easily out-fund raised and out-campaigned by any of the more experienced politicians. Loudon’s future is bright, but a stop at a state wide office would be a wise choice before trying to jump to the national stage.

The Democrat Candidate

The likely Democrat candidate for the seat is current Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. She is one in a long line of the very politically powerful Carnahan family. She was already the likely Democrat candidate and Bond’s retirement makes Carnahan the current front runner. Public Policy Polling recently polled three potential match-ups in this race and Carnahan is leading (although in the MOE on two):

Carnahan 47
Talent 43
Und 10

Carnahan 45
Blunt 44
Und 11

Carnahan 47
Steelman 36
Und 17

There is talk the Congressman Lacy Clay (MO-01) may throw his hat into the ring for the nomination, but this would appear to be futile. It seems that the entire Missouri Democrat apparatus is gathering around Carnahan. Clay would end up as the also-ran for the Democrats.

As I See It

At this point in the game, this race is shaping up to be a matchup that is very similar to the Republican primary for Governor from this year. Sarah Steelman is likely to be involved in this campaign regardless of who she would have to face. The only question would be who her competition would be. Since Talent, Bond andHulshof would likely not want to face each other in a contest I forsee one of those three (probably with the backing of the other two) stepping in as the front runner. I really don’t see Kinder getting into the race. He is most likely to spend the next four years gathering his resources to make a run at the Governor’s mansion. ASteelman v. Blunt/Hulshof /Talent race would likely be just as rough as the Governor’s primary. That’s something that would not be good for the GOP considering the Democrats are going to be gunning hard for this seat in their quest to obtain absolute control over the Senate.

This seat is a must keep for the GOP. It’s going to take a lot of work over the next two years.

save

Massachusetts Provides Further Example of How Not to Solve Health Care

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:03:56 +0000

Promoted from the Diaries by Jeff.

Under former Governor Mitt Romney, the state of Massachusetts undertook the largest single step towards single payer health care of any government entity in the United States to date. It has created a myriad of problems, chief of which is a massive headache for those who are now forced to pay for insurance that they never wanted or can’t afford. The plan, in a nutshell, requires all Massachusetts residents to purchase a state approved private health insurance plan or pay into a state run plan. This mandatory purchase law, with concurrent restrictions on what qualifies as “insurance”, has lead to the nation’s largest increases in premium.

Instead of recognizing that insurance premiums are rising because of the state’s laws, current Governor Deval Patrick is set to double down on the squeeze that health care costs are putting on his state’s citizens.

Patrick said officials are considering using state insurance regulations to block excessive healthcare premiums.

It certainly doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that by “block excessive healthcare premiums” Patrick means that he is going to institute tighter control over premiums [Every state's insurance regulatory body already reviews and approves rate increases annually based on each state's formula for ho much they feel the insurance company has to pay in benefits on each dollar of premium before they are allowed to raise premiums. Note that this formula doesn't take any account as to whether the company is profitable as there are other expenses beside the actual costs of the claims.] The folly of price controls will not solve Massachussetts problems. Price controls will simply introduce new problems [while admittely keeping the price of insurance lower]:

An environment where a company feels that it cannot make a profit in return for the money it invests in the market will lead to less choice in insurance companies. This will eventually lead to a quasi-state sponsored oligopoly where a few large players, who will have lots of ties to the officials overseeing the industry, will be able to exert control over the entire system. This is very bad for consumers as both choice and quality would decrease.
Even before enough companies decide that the math doesn’t work for their continued existence in the state, many of them will have begun extremely aggressive measures to reduce their costs in order to remain sufficiently profitable for as long as possible. [There will be a desire amongst most players to remain in the game long enough to become one of the few left standing.] The costs that will most likely be cut are the reimbursements to health care providers. Considering the already alarming trend of the loss of primary care physicians, these cuts would place a great deal of consumers in Massachusetts in the position of having fewer quality doctors to pick from. If they thought their wait times for a visit were long now, wait until more doctors get fed up and leave their practices. This will likely mean that more Massachusetts consumers will forgo basic medical treatment, despite having insurance that covers the visits for a low copay, because the time to wait for the appointment will become to great.
In countries that have instituted price controls for health care, the have had to step in and exert greater government control over the supply of health care. For example, in Canada you can wait months for a needed surgery [such as life saving open heart surgery]. In Spain, you are assigned a doctor by the government based on where you live. This has led to the same phenomenon we experience in the states with respect to moving into the quality school districts as Spaniards try to move to neighborhoods with the best doctors. How would you like to be the one that can’t afford to move into a neighborhood that has anything resembling a good doctor.

Try as we will, this type of logic will be lost on the most fervent advocates of further increased government control over the health care market. I fear for my friends in Massachusetts. The state was offered evidence that their experiment is failing. As of yet, they have not recognized the warning signs.