49 percent of Wisconsinites don't like Scott Walker, 41 percent do. What a mandate?

Public Policy Polling just released numbers that revealed how a few governors around the country aren't real popular, including our own hard right winger, Scott Walker. 

Over the last month or so we've polled on the favorabilities of seven newly elected Governors across the country. You might expect them all to be pretty popular if they were just elected but there's actually quite a wide range of voter reaction toward them as they begin their terms. 

BrianSandoval in Nevada, favorability rating is 57% with only 20% having a negative opinion of him … He even has a plurality of Democrats 37% to 30%Some of the newly elected Governors- Rick Scott in Florida in particular but also John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin- are not particularly popular though.

Scott's the one who's really bad off with only 33% of voters seeing him positively to 43% with an unfavorable opinion.

Walker and Kasich both have worse numbers than they did in our polls right before the election. Walker's favorability is a 41/49 spread and Kasich's is 36/40.

One key reason for the disparity? We're now polling all registered voters in the states, not just 2010 likely voters as we were the last three months before the election. Only 7% (Democrats) rate Walker favorably to 85% with a negative opinion. They don't have anywhere close to the sort of crossover appeal (like) Sandoval.

We’ll be watching our little dictator. 

Fox Guarding the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Advocates Dropping Care to Kids.

Isn’t it time we call out Republican politicians who put in place, not just critics of government departments, but advocates of doing away with those departments. This intuitively doesn’t make government better, but simply makes it incompetent and worthless, supporting the bile filled rhetoric that government is bad.

Gov. Walker has put another cancerous department head in place advocating pulling health care from kids. Dennis G. Smith's commentary is repugnant and sociopathic.  

Capital Times: Not many people in Wisconsin seem to know much about Dennis G. Smith, Gov. Scott Walker's pick for secretary of the Department of Health Services. Among the most provocative of his articles is a December 2009 essay for Heritage encouraging states to walk away from Medicaid completely rather than comply with the new health care law, which he calls a "federal takeover."

In another piece for The Heritage Foundation, he says the implementation of health reform is an impossible task for state officials. "Turning straw into gold" is how he puts it, borrowing from the fairy tale "Rumpelstiltskin." And in an interview with "Fox Business," he claims that "the real purpose of the government's health plan is to overwhelm the private sector and push it out."

Isn't it amazing to think that anyone would want to push out the private sector...completely? All government all the time!!! Extremist nonsense, that scares the fearful base, like his conspiracy theory that reform was just one way to RAISE TAXES and take control:

In a hint of how he and his new boss might justify doing just that, the December article concludes: "The savings to state budgets are so enormous that failure to leave Medicaid might be viewed as irresponsible on the part of elected state officials."

The affordable care act is a "blueprint for failure," he writes, suggesting that some members in Congress may even want it to fail as a "justification for raising taxes and extending political control."

Insane!! But Smith has bigger schemes, one that could take down health care reform and save states money:

Smith advises state officials to fight back and reduce costs in ways that will be "surprising to the law's supporters." For example, he writes, the numbers of children receiving coverage through the federal SCHIP program could be reduced by millions, since they could lose eligibility when their parents have access to new family coverage. 

Smith is a crooked conservative fox, and a guy no one would trust with their private sector job. If this was his attitude ON the job, a guy who would "fix things" to fail, then what is he doing as head of a life saving department?

Oh, did you hear, government is bad.

"Resisting the Green Dragon" a mean spirited wretched look inside the false religion of right wing fanatics.

The video below is so bizarre and outrageous, it defies explanation. The religious right has literally sold itself to the devil, if there is one, in ways totally unthinkable. For the religious zealots below, warning us of a global climate change hoax, it's hard to imagine anyone doing this without being purely evil or at the least...stupid corporate idol worshipers. "Resisting the Green Dragon" could be an Onion News World Report, excepts it's more extreme, and voiced by the most vile false prophets.

Republicans Blow reading of the Constitution in Disastrous First Day Theatrics

Dana Milbank said it best with the following right on target observation:

They couldn't agree on which version to read.

Now most Americans are of the impression that there isn't, say, a King James version of the Constitution and a New International version of the Constitution. There is only one version. But our leaders had other views.

"Will we be reading the entire original document without deletion?" inquired Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).

"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," declared Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

In fact, there is only one version of the Constitution - and it wasn't what the lawmakers read aloud. What the Republican majority decided to read was a sanitized Constitution - an excerpted version of the founding document conjuring a fanciful land that never counted a black person as three-fifths of a white person, never denied women the right to vote, never allowed slavery and never banned liquor.

The idea of reading the Constitution aloud was generated by the Tea Party as a way to re-affirm lawmakers' fealty to the framers, but in practice it did the opposite. In deciding to omit objectionable passages that were later altered by amendment, the new majority jettisoned "originalist" and "constructionist" beliefs and created - dare it be said? - a "living Constitution" pruned of the founders' missteps. Nobody's proud of the three-fifths compromise, but how can we learn from our founding if we aren't honest about it?

The selective constitutional reading was the latest indication that, for all the talk of honoring the Constitution, Tea Party-infused lawmakers are more interested in editing it. 

Republicans, News media, forget to mention Insurer Power Grab in efforts to repeal Health care reform.

With all the talk of freedom and liberty, you would think a health care reform plan that gives rights back from insurers who took them away, would be an issue in the GOP repeal debate. It isn’t. Check out this sample story from St. Louis Today:

"The new law is giving people more freedoms and more choices," Sebelius told reporters. "Repeal really takes away all of those freedoms and shifts power back to the insurance companies."

Republicans, however, are pushing for a repeal of the law, calling it a job-killing mandate that raises costs all around and promotes government intrusion in decisions that should be left to individuals and doctors, business owners and regulators at the state level.”

Sebelius had it right about giving people back their freedom to control health care decisions and choices.

But you’ll notice in the follow-up paragraph that repeal didn’t include putting insurers back in charge or that it would be “promoting INSURER intrusion in decisions that should be left to individuals...”

Insurers aren’t mentioned at all.

It would seem Republican efforts to put free market profits and insurance companies back in control of people’s lives would be like handing the keys back to industry, but as Republican spin would have it, the supposed “government takeover” of health care actually did the opposite:

Rep. Todd Akin said the system that he and fellow Republicans are trying to repeal is … loaded with sweet deals for insurance companies. "So it's ironic to be making that claim" about freeing Americans from worry, Akin said.

Sweeter than the insurance industries total control like before? Amazing down the rabbit hole BS.

And that’s how the press is reporting it, without ever questioning absurd statements like Akin’s. 

Dismantling the GOP and Paul Ryan's Arguments against Health Care Reform.

Ezra Klein on the Republican arguments against health care reform:

John Boehner and Paul Ryan's assertions that CBO was given incorrect assumptions when scoring the health care bill. Specifically cited as phony scoring is:

1) $115 billion implementation costs left out

2) Double counting of social security payroll taxes

3) Class Act premiums

4) Medicare Cuts

5) Doc Fix

1) No, the $115 billion wasn't left out. The $115 billion isn't "implementation" but "discretionary spending." And most of that spending predates the bill. The exact amount it already accounts for is $86 billion. What's left is optional spending.

2) CBO doesn't double count. You can read Paul Ryan admitting that CBO doesn't double count in this interview. Double counting is an accusation thrown at the administration's rhetoric. But the CBO, which doesn't make claims on Medicare's solvency, isn't double counting that money. So no, this has no bearing on their estimate. If you want to read more on this, head here.

3) CLASS Act premiums: The CLASS Act is a program to help disabled adults without putting them in nursing homes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will slightly reduce deficits in years 1 through 20, and then slightly increase them starting in the third decade. But in a world in which the health-care saves trillions of dollars in the third decade, wiping out the tens of billions CLASS is projected to cost. Here's FactCheck.org's article on the subject.

4) Medicare Cuts. Yes, there are a variety of cuts made to Medicare in the bill. But I'm amused to see it on my reader's list: The Medicare cuts are a big part of the reason the bill saves money. They're fiscally responsible in the extreme. But because they're unpopular, the GOP mentions them in the same breath as the bill's supposed fiscal irresponsibility.

5) The doc fix is not part of health-care reform. This is both the most unfair of the GOP's arguments, and the most annoying to rebut, as it's fairly complicated. But here's the short version: In 1997, the Republican Chairman Rep. Bill Thomas, added a provision to Medicare that cut doctor pay if growth exceeded a certain formula. The formula was flawed and the provision, which was expected to require modest cuts, suddenly began requiring huge cuts that would've sent doctors fleeing. So the Republican Congress began passing bills that kept the automatic cuts from going into place. When health-care reform was starting, House Democrats broached a permanent fix, but the GOP, in a sudden and opportunistic outbreak of fiscal responsibility, wouldn't let them undo the GOP's mistake unless they also offset the cost of the GOP's mistake. So House Democrats dropped it from health-care reform. Republicans then decided that this meant the doc fix was part of the cost of health-care reform, but this was transparently false: The problem predated the health-care reform bill, and needed to be fixed whether or not there was a health-care reform bill. If you follow their logic, this means that the cost of the doc fix should be added to their repeal bill, and in that case, their bill increases the deficit by $540 billion, not $240 billion. But they don't actually believe the argument they're making on this subject and neither do I, so I'm not going to try to get you to believe that. If you're a glutton for punishment and want to read more about this, head here.

Republicans want to go back to high health care premiums, and lower wages.

Ezra Klein posted this interesting research on the impact of health care premiums on wages. It's a big deal;

I can't wholeheartedly recommend Pew's tax expenditure database as, at this point, it's missing such tax expenditures as the exclusion for employer-sponsored health-care insurance, and that's a bit like having the World Cup without inviting Brazil. What's interesting about tax expenditures, I think, is that they're basically the welfare state for the middle class, cleverly arranged such that they don't look like the welfare state for the middle class.

And because we hide it in the tax code, the people who're benefiting don't really know they're benefiting. They think the poor are getting all this help and they're paying for it. In reality, the lost revenue from the tax exclusion for employer-based health care is significantly larger than the entire cost of the health-care reform bill. And it messes up the system in countless other ways.

And don't even get me started on the mortgage-interest deduction.   

In 2009, the average employer-sponsored health-care plan cost a bit less than $13,500. But virtually no one cut a check for $13,500. Employers generally pay more than 70 percent of their employees' health-care costs. To employees, that seems like a good deal, particularly given how fast costs are growing. A "benefit," as it's called.

But health-care coverage is not a benefit. It's a wage deduction. When premium costs go up, wages go down. When premium costs go down, wages go up. Yet workers don't know that. In fact, the information is hidden from them. That means that cost control seems like all pain and no gain, which makes it virtually impossible for Congress to pass.

A 2006 study, for instance, by Harvard's Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra used malpractice payments to estimate the effect of premium increases on wages. They found that a 10 percent increase in health-care premiums "results in an offsetting decrease in wages of 2.3 percent" and an increase in unemployment of 1.2 percentage points. Compensation is basically a set sum for employers, and they don't seem to care much whether it goes into wages or into health-care costs.

Perhaps the easiest way to dramatize the issue for workers would be to attach health-care costs to each paycheck. If employers listed the cost of health care alongside the bite taken by payroll taxes, it would be much clearer to workers that health-care coverage was coming out of their wages, not out of their employer's largess. That, at least, could help them see the costs of the system more clearly, which is, unfortunately, something that all the congressional debate isn't helping anyone do. 

Biden; "No dating till you're 30."

Kind of surreal, funny.

Now we’re getting serious: Dems Pressuring the GOP to give up their horrific Government Health Care Benefit in Congress!!!

I recently ranted how I thought the Democrats didn’t take seriously there demand Republicans give up  their congressional health benefits, treating the idea as though it were a gotcha question. They may have gotten that message. From CREDO Action: 

For two years, GOP leaders in Congress fought tooth and nail to oppose health care reform. They did their best to keep tens of millions without coverage, decrying any effort to help citizens as "socialist," "fascist" or some other equally baffling "ist."

Incredibly, now that they are the majority, their first act will be to vote to repeal health care reform that gives affordable care to 32 million Americans. And yet, when it comes to their own coverage, Republicans in Congress are not only using government-sponsored health care, they even whined about having had to wait for it.

Senator Chuck Schumer is calling the GOP on their hypocrisy, and calling on them to give up their government-sponsored health care:

"It was a central value to us when we passed health care, and a central value to the American people, that members of Congress should get the same health care as everyone else. It seems unfair that house Republicans want to deprive middle-class Americans of the same health care as members of Congress but to keep it for themselves."

"Will Eric Cantor urge every Republican who is going to be for repeal to not take government health care themselves and to drop their existing health care?”

Republicans also decided they would prefer hiding their government, taxpayer funded congressional health care benefits. Don't want to look like hypocrites. Huffington Post:

One measure that didn't make it into the rules package was a proposal by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) that would have required all members to disclose whether they are taking advantage of their federal health insurance plan within 15 days of taking the oath of office. Crowley's measure also split on a party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

On MSNBC's "Hardball" 

ISRAEL: Every Republican voted to hide their own government health care, while many of them are pledging to repeal health care for everyone else. So, you go from hypocrisy to hypocrisy; from broken promise to broken promise. And this is just the first day of the new Congress.

MATTHEWS: You mean, they didn't want to admit that they're taking health care?

ISRAEL: This is a very straightforward amendment that we offered, that, if you're going to take government-sponsored health care and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, simply disclose. Let your constituents know that you are taking that government health care. Every single Republican voted to hide their health care while many of them are pledging to repeal it for their constituents.

Watch the exchange:

End the "Death Panel" Discussion about Reform, and Point out Real Gov. Death Panel in Arizona. 2 Dead and Counting...

Keith Olbermann reports on a story so outrageous I'm surprised it hasn't been a major media story. Gov. Brewer holds fast on keeping government death panel, and future death sentences, intact to save money.

Republicans Backsliding Big Time on Pledge and Promises to grab Power and Serve the Wealthy. See the List of Lies here...

Andrea Mitchell talks with Politico about the Republican bait and switch, and goes after Paul Ryan, who appears to have dictatorial control over spending with no debate or transparency.

Pump Prices to go Higher, While Commodity Speculators Pocket our Money, and Law to Stop the Madness in Limbo with GOP House.

If you're paying about $40 at the pump now, you might soon be paying $80 instead, even though supplies worldwide are up and use down.

The old idea of supply and demand didn't work out so well, especially after the Great Recession, when everyone cut back on their driving habits dramatically. What to do? Trade oil on speculation, and rake in huge piles of cash. This free wheeling exclusive club of profiteers can be reined in, with the Dodd-Frank bill set to go in effect the 17th of this month, but no action has been taken so far. And with the Republican in charge, and Wall Street requesting a hold for at least a year, $5 a gallon prices at the pump may be next.

MSNBC had this incredible report:

 

The Constitution is not a living breathing founding document? Explain why we have an amendment process....

Associate Prof. Akhil Reed Amar dissects point by point the myths constructed around the attempt by conservatives to "own" the Constitution. Due to the House theatrics of reading the Constitution at the start of this session we now can show everyone how vacuous and authoritarian conservative ideology is in this debate.

The Facts on Public Workers and Private Sector Pay Explode Myth Pushed by Republican Governors.

Chris Hayes examines the myth that state employees are our new "welfare queens." How would you explain the fact that public workers earn 4 percent less than private sector workers. Columbian University Assistant Professor Dorian Warren has a whole lot more.

Republican House Adding to Deficit, Breaking Pledge to Voters, Listening to the People, Open Government, and Self Destructing.

Republicans won the election! The people have spoken! The message was clear; lower the deficit, open government and create jobs.

The results are not so honorable, like cutting $100 billion. Not even Fox News is taking the BS.

 

The promise of open government, daylight on bills and an amendment process. Not even Fox News is happy:



Not listening to the what the people say?



And this was just the first day.

So far, Republicans ADDING over a trillion dollars to deficit. What the…?

Repealing health care reform will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, just like tax reform cost over a trillion, just like building nuclear power plants costs…you get the idea.

Here’s the latest deficit enhancer introduced by the Republicans, who by the way, simply don’t believe the numbers anymore. How easy was that voters?

National Journal: A GOP-led rollback of President Obama's health care law would add $230 billion to the national deficit over a 10-year window and leave about 54 million Americans without insurance, according to a preliminary estimate issued this morning by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

The CBO says that … pushing the budget window out to 2021, the deficit would swell even more, running up a $230 billion deficit. 

Further, the congressional scorekeepers said that repealing the new law would lower health insurance premiums in the individual market, but only because average plans would shift more costs to the consumer and narrow the benefits available. Premiums in employer-sponsored coverage, the CBO estimates, would increase slightly. 

But for Republicans, forget the numbers; it has everything to do with what you “believe.”

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel responded "There is no one that believes the Washington Democrats' job-killing healthcare law will lower costs, because it won't. 

I still can’t get over the GOP’s over the top bill naming strategy that pretty much fuels the propaganda; “The Job-killing healthcare law Act.” A low information voter ploy if there ever was one.

The voice of Gieco: "We should all rise up and we should stop this administration...they're destroying this country."

You do know we have to "stop" Barack Obama? When will Hollywood actors stay out of politics? Drop Geico is the lesson here. Keith Olbermann explains.

Gov. Walker would like all of us to be a "have not."

Walker really did say that. Unions are to blame for the current economic recession, not the 40,000 manufacturing plants closed during the Bush administration. Public employee pay is not out of whack with the private sector. Keith Olbermann featured Scott Walker's comment again just last night.

Reince Preibus on Colbert Report, Kinda...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
What's a Reince Priebus?
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog March to Keep Fear Alive

GOP Adding Debt, will then say, “See, we have a debt problem.” Is this too complicated?

The simple question the media should be asking is; “What estimate has the CBO given your health care reform plan?

I’ll have more on that in a moment. But first…

The Democrats have finally framed the issue so even a tea party dumbo can understand.

(AP) — Democrats are accusing newly empowered House Republicans of exempting more than $1 trillion in proposed tax cuts and higher spending over the next 10 years from a promise to cut federal deficits.

The exemptions include a bill to repeal last year's health care legislation as well as GOP-backed proposals extending a series of tax cuts for upper income filers that are due to expire in two years, according to a tally several Senate Democrats were to present at a midmorning new conference Thursday.

Now back to the opening question: “What figure has the CBO given your health care reform plan?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the year-old legislation will reduce deficits by $143 billion over the next decade, suggesting its repeal would raise red ink by the same amount.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., disputed the CBO estimate this week, but Republicans have yet to produce one of their own.

The simple question the media should be asking is; “What figure has the CBO given your health care reform plan?

Stunning New Republican Rules Allow for Huge Increases in the Deficit, Creating an even Bigger Excuse to Cut spending, and…collapse the country.

Skies the limit when it comes to deficit expanding tax cuts. The GOP formula is simple: tax cuts may not create jobs or reduce the deficit, what many would consider a failed policy, but the answer is always “cut spending.” The new tea party congress has taken this formula to a whole new level. 

What has amazed me is the media silence on their plan. When will the reporters catch on and inform Americans that the Republicans are intentionally trying to run up the debt so they can push their tax cut agenda?

Bloomberg News: Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters “I think you can sum up what our new majority is going to be about by saying it is a cut-and-grow majority,” Cantor said. “You’ll see the cut-and-grow playbook begin to take hold over … House Republicans, in one of their first acts in the majority, plan to vote today to weaken the chamber’s anti-deficit budgeting rules to make it easier to approve tax cuts even if they add to the government’s financial shortfall. The new House rules would allow Congress to permanently extend former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, now set to expire in 2012, and extend the estate tax and the alternative- minimum tax without having to find equivalent savings.

Republicans also will allow a vote next week to repeal the administration’s health-care overhaul without offsetting the financial effect.

The revised rules would exempt most tax-cut proposals the Republicans intend to push from being financed with offsetting savings elsewhere in the government’s budget. Proposed spending increases, though, still would still face the offset requirement … spending increases could only be defrayed with cuts in other areas, not tax increases.

Budget watchdogs blasted the rule changes, saying that with them Republicans were reneging on campaign promises to cut the federal deficit.

Representative Mike Ross, an Arkansas Democrat and a member of the party’s fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said pay-go “has been successful in the past because it treats all spending the same -- if it adds to the deficit, it has to be paid for. Period. This rules package threatens to undermine” the efforts to reduce the deficit.

Bob Bixby, head of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, a Washington-based group that promotes balanced budgets, said, “I don’t know what’s worse: setting up a pay-as-you-go rule and then ignoring it or saying we are just going to tell you what our hypocrisies are right up front.”

Taking the “alternate reality” thing one step further, Paul Ryan is now deciding the real world is all wrong:

The health plan is projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to save $143 billion over the next 10 years. Ryan said those savings are phony.

Welcome to the dictatorship.

Will Republicans Support their Radical Reading of the Constitution in Public? We Should Ask...

Here's a nice post on holding the Republicans feet to the fire on what they believe is unconstitutional, and asking them about their positions every time they're interviewed. From Think Progress, a short sample...

....while most GOPers have remained carefully vague about how they view the Constitution, those few who have revealed their specific views leave little doubt why the rest of the party is keeping quiet. Their views are both dangerous and radical:

Child Labor: In three separate opinions, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas called for a return to a discredited theory of the Constitution that early twentieth century justices used to declare federal child labor laws unconstitutional. Many GOP elected officials have embraced rhetoric suggesting that they agree with Justice Thomas that child labor laws are unconstitutional. They should answer directly whether they agree with him or not.

Whites Only-Lunch Counters: In a now-infamous interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that there are constitutional problems with the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters. Justice Thomas’ pre-New Deal understanding of the Constitution also supports Paul’s view.

Minimum Wage: Although Goodlatte claimed not to know whether the minimum wage is constitutional, Thomas and many other prominent Republicans believe that it is not.

Rights for Women not specifically in Constitution. Joan Walsh Has a Message for him.

Ed Schultz and Joan Walsh:

Repealing Health Care, without Making the Case for an Alternative Plan, has Real Consequences.

Here's a list of adverse affects if the Republican dream to repeal health care comes true:

WSJ: Repealing them, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warned, would hurt the little guys, especially families and small business owners, while helping the big guys, especially insurance industry barons.

Key provisions of the law:

Nearly 3.6 million residents of Wisconsin with private insurance would be vulnerable again to lifetime limits on coverage and147,000 young adults would lose coverage through their parents' insurance plans if the federal health care law is repealed.

Nearly 900,000 Wisconsin seniors who have Medicare coverage would be forced to come up with a copay for important preventive services such as mammograms, colonoscopies and annual check ups, and 46,680 seniors who got a one-time tax-free $250 rebate in 2010to help pay for prescription drugs during the "donut hole" gap in coverage would face significantly higher prescription drug costs in the future.

Without protection, 320,000 people in Wisconsin could risk losing benefits when they become sick or injured if their carriers find even a minor mistake in their old paperwork.

Sebelius said of the law, ""What we're seeing already is that it's giving people more freedom and more choices. Repeal will take away all those freedoms and shift back control to insurance companies."

A congressional report found that over the next few decades the reforms would reduce health care costs and our national deficit by a trillion dollars.

Tort Reform Removes Consumer Safety from Business Equation and Eliminates Public Accountability.

Can you prove a bad product or action was intended to hurt or kill you or a loved one? That is a proposed new standard that would make it almost impossible for consumers to sue for damages. Now that's freedom and liberty.

More details of the civil lawsuit reforms proposed by Gov. Scott Walker came to light early this week, various changes aimed at limiting actions and damages in civil lawsuits.

It quickly drew praise from Wisconsin's business community and Republicans

• limiting non-economic damages awarded against long-term care providers.

• limiting liability in actions against manufacturers, distributors, sellers and promoters of a product.

• requiring that a non expert's court testimony not be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge of the witness.

• prohibiting the use of reviews and evaluation reports of health care providers (required by the state Department of Regulation and Licensing or Department of Health Services) as evidence in a civil or criminal action.

• changing the criminal liability for certain acts or omissions by health care providers. (Specifically, the bill says a "healthcare provider is not guilty of the crimes of causing the death of,or bodily harm to, an individual by negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, if the health care provider is acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.)

But the Wisconsin Association for Justice warned the proposal is a red flag that Walker favors corporations over the people of Wisconsin.

"The Governor's proposals won't send a message that Wisconsin is'open for business.'  Rather, the proposals send a message that it is 'open season' on the people of our state," Mike End, president of the Wisconsin Association for Justice, said.  "Let's face it,every company looking to cut corners in order to make a bigger buck can come to Wisconsin without worry that they will be held accountable for seriously injuring or killing you or a member ofyour family."

UPDATE: 1/6/11-Gov. Walker's intentional "cluelessness" on tort reform and his political assault on Wisconsin consumers is insulting. Try not to punch the monitor after reading his asinine remarks:

Walker said he doesn't see anything in the proposal that would make it more difficult for someone who has had a legitimate problem with a product or company.

The proposal sends a "clear message ... that we're not going to have any one group out there hold us hostage when it comes to moving business forward, particularly small businesses."

"If someone manufactures something that they know is going to put people in harm, if they put a product like that out even with these things being passed into law they're going to be liable for it," he said.

Walker know full well the problem, because he said it himself: "something that they know is going to put people in harm." Prove it? Good luck.

Issa Fabricates Medicare Waste and Fraud Dollars Recoverable by his crew of Witch hunters.

The nation is now relying on a level headed chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in this case Rep. Darrell Issa, to provide level headed oversight and go after fraud and waste. But that’s not going to really happen. We’re talking about a partisan Republican, who called President Obama's White House "one of the most corrupt administrations." 

Politifact: Rep. Darrell Issa said Medicare alone accounts for $125 billion in waste and fraud annually.

Said Issa: "We can save $125 billion in simply not giving out money to Medicare recipients that don't exist for procedures that didn't happen. These are real dollars.”

A great sound bite that reinforces the idea that government can’t do anything right and the public (seniors) can’t be trusted. But he’s completely wrong. A bad first step for the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

About a third of Medicare's improper payments are the result of a claim not having enough, or proper, documentation. Upon further investigation, many of those claims are ultimately deemed proper. Also, not all improper claims can be completely recouped. For example, say a surgeon was paid $10,000 for an inpatient procedure when Medicare only reimburses for an outpatient procedure that costs $5,000. The government wouldn't recoup the full $10,000, just the $5,000.

In other words, the government wouldn't end up with $125 billion even if all improper payments were eliminated for all those services, including Medicare … the report on which Issa based the $125 billion figure shows that the Medicare portion of that total is $47.9 billion. That alone makes Issa's figure simply wrong. 

Are we expected to believe anything else from Issa in the future? I hope not.

Fearful Gun Toting Conservatives Brains Scaring them Witless.

More on the conservative brain's fear center. It's a big one, that's why they have to carry guns.

Beck Fired after Low Ratings. Guess the People Have Spoken.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101040026Media Matters: Today's blow is the most significant and the most shocking: Beck will be off the air in America's largest media market, New York City, in a matter of days: 

Glenn Beck may be one of the hottest talk show hosts in the country, but he apparently left New York's WOR cold.

WOR (710 AM), one of the city's two biggest talk radio stations, said this morning it is dropping Beck's syndicated show as of Jan. 17 and replacing him with a familiar New York name: Mike Gallagher.

"The reason is ratings," said WOR program director Scott Lakefield. "Somewhat to our surprise, the show wasn't getting what we wanted."

Too bad, since we found out Beck would never lie to his audience...Ed Schultz and Media Matters:

The Debt Ceiling Disaster in the Wings, Republican Rep. Mulvaney not sure what would happen!!!

Here Keith Olbermann gets the details on what would happen if the Republican congress failed to raise the debt ceiling , from Ezra Klein.



Here's Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney admitting cluelessness about the ramifications of not raising the debt ceiling.

Tea Party Psychopaths seek small government over Fellow Americans General Welfare!!

Shutting down the government will do a lot of big bad things, including cutting off Social Security and Medicare. "It's gonna take some real pain to fix this nation..." says Tea Party Patriot Mark Meckler calmly.

So begins the side show of issue based distractions,  a media fight royale, all the while nothing gets done and jobs are not created.  

Rep. Dan Lungren tries not to acknowledge a new CNN poll in favor of "Obamacare."

When it comes down to the Republican agenda making any sense at all, not even wacky Rep. Dan Lungren can articulate what's going on. Oh, and no matter what the polls say, the GOP got the voters message. The one from their base.

What was that message voters sent to Republicans again...?

What you didn't know about Rep. Darrell "the car thief" Issa!!!

Crooks and Liars ran this revealing piece on Rep. Darrell Issa (watch for the pattern to develop):

Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the incoming subpoena-wielding chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was on Faux News this weekend, attacking ACORN and Attorney General Eric Holder, talking about how "corrupt" the Obama administration is. 

 Via Wikipeda:

A retired Army sergeant claimed that Issa stole a Dodge sedan from an Army post near Pittsburgh in 1971. The sergeant said he recovered the car after confronting and threatening him.

Issa denied the allegation and no charges were filed.

In 1972, Issa and his brother allegedly stole a red Maserati sports car from a car dealership in Cleveland.

He and his brother were indicted for car theft, but the case was dropped.

That same year, Issa was convicted in Michigan for possession of an unregistered gun. He received three months probation and paid a $204 fine.

[...] On December 28, 1979, Issa and his brother allegedly faked the theft of Issa's Mercedes Benz sedan.

Issa and his brother were charged for grand theft auto, but the case was dropped by prosecutors for lack of evidence.

Later, Issa and his brother were charged for misdemeanors, but that case was not pursued by prosecutors.

Issa accused his brother of stealing the car, and said that the experience with his brother was the reason he went into the car alarm business.

A day after a court order was issued, giving Issa control of automotive alarm company A.C. Custom over an unpaid $60,000 debt, Issa allegedly carried a cardboard box containing a handgun into the office of 

A.C. Custom executive, Jack Frantz, and told Frantz he was fired.

In a 1998 newspaper article, Frantz said Issa had invited him to hold the gun and claimed extensive knowledge of guns and explosives from his Army service.

In response, Issa said, "Shots were never fired. ... I don't recall having a gun. I really don't. I don't think I ever pulled a gun on anyone in my life."

After 100,000 Fish Killed, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Official says, It’s still Okay to Eat the Fish!! Does that go double for massive bird kill too?

Anyone up for a fish dinner? 

MSNBC: State officials on Monday were investigating why 80,000 to 100,000 fish washed up dead on the shores of the Arkansas River last week. Officials said 95 percent of the fish that died were drum fish — indicating that the likely cause of death was disease as only one species was affected.

Keith Stephens, a spokesman for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (said), "Right now it's fine to fish," KTHV quoted Stephens as saying. "If you go out there you can still fish for bass and crappie, catfish, it will be fine. Obviously don't eat the dead fish."

Now that's a warning you can believe in. But there's more;

The mass kill occurred just one day before thousands of blackbirds dropped dead from the sky in Beebe, Ark., which is 125 miles away.

Preliminary autopsies on 17 of the up to 5,000 blackbirds that fell on this town indicate they died of blunt trauma to their organs … suggests they suffered some massive midair collision. That lends weight to theories that lightning, hail or New Year's Eve fireworks hit or startled the birds.

Move Forward was Republican Mantra when Democrats took Congress. Did People vote to Move Backward?

How nice! The media has given its stamp of approval with this headline: “G.O.P. Newcomers Set Out to Undo Obama Victories”

Why is the media treating the incoming Republican House majority as America’s conquering heroes?

Remember when the media warned the Democratic Congress a few years ago that they would appear vengeful if they went out and investigated past government corruption and political influence, along with overturning any Bush administration policies. Move forward, move forward.

Now the media is acting as though it’s expected and completely normal for the Republicans to repeal everything passed over the last 2 years, while allowing them to brag about conducting hundreds of investigations, handing out just as many subpoenas’.

Amazing.
 

The Plan: Create a Desperate Public first, than give everything else to the private sector.

Jack Lohman wrote this warning about the consequences of the Republican rush to privatize "Big Government." 

There’s another ploy coming to a theater near you! They’ve been preparing the soil and soon they’ll spring it on us.

It’s called privatizing.

It’s always the same false claim: Private is more efficient than public. The public unions are impossible to work with, they’ll say, and we have a corporation that can save us dollars.

Rarely is that true, especially after they add all of the exorbitant salaries, bonuses, shareholder profits, marketing and political bribes that must be passed on to the taxpayer. These costs usually far exceed government waste, unless offset by egregiously low salaries that further harm the economy.

Need proof? Privatized Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers 17percent more than government Medicare, which provides care to 80percent of our seniors. Privatized Blackwater troops in the Mideast cost five times what U.S. troops cost. But Blackwater executives give campaign dollars and our troops don’t, so what else would you expect?

Politicians now have us right where they want us: desperate.

See his blog in the sidebar under The MoneyedPolicians.

Republicans; if tax cuts create bigger deficits, cut spending. Does that make sense to you?

The idea is a simple one, as explained by Ezra Klein:

“In the House, the rules are being changed to make increasing the deficit through tax cuts easier, and decreasing the deficit through tax increases harder.”

So if the Republicans make things economically worse with tax cuts, they can continue to complain about government spending, while never having to solve the problem or be accountable.  Put another way:

According to the new regulations, tax increases can no longer offset new spending and tax cuts no longer have to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere.

This could easily be called the “straightjacket solution.” The end result may not be desirable, but this is what the American people voted for supposedly, and we all will have to live with the results for many years to come. 

Here come the Big D Republicans; Draconian and Dickensian

The message from the Republican and tea party extremists so far has been; Freedom and liberty means you don’t have to buy health insurance, and the poor shouldn’t get health care unless they pay for it.

This twisted down the rabbit hole conservative utopia resembling something out of Road Warrior is building public support, believe it or not. The message in unambiguous:

“As part of our pledge, we said that we would bring up a vote to repeal health care early,” Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think you’re going to see the fight on Obamacare across the board in the House and the Senate to try to de-fund the Obamacare bill and to start over,” Mr. Graham said, adding that he was working with Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, on legislation to allow states to opt out of the requirement that individuals obtain health insurance and of the expansion of Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor.

We'll see how brave the public is once the net has been removed.

Tea Party hates the American way of life, our partner countries, gays, and safe edible food. Just what the founding fathers intended?

Nothing makes clearer the true intentions of the more extreme elements of the Republican Party, the tea party movement, than this piece from the NY Times:

NY Times: Tea Party politicians … are already taking issue with Republicans for failing to hold the line against the flurry of legislation enacted in the waning weeks of Democratic control of the House of Representatives … Democrats succeeded in passing legislation that Tea Party leaders opposed, including a bill to cover the cost of medical care for rescue workers at the site of the World Trade Center attacks, an arms-control treaty with Russia, a food safety bill and a repeal of the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.

“Do I think that they’ve (Democrats) recognized what happened on Election Day? I would say decisively no,” said Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party.

One of my favorite new rules demanded by the tea party extremists is justifying new laws by citing the Constitution. Perhaps they’re unaware of the debate, since before the inception of the this country, over the ideological interpretations of the Constitutional language written by our founding fathers:

Still, the Tea Party could point to some impact already … Representative John A. Boehner has proposed new procedural rules … House members will not be able to introduce a bill or a joint resolution without “a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact it” … This was a leading demand of the Contract From America, a Tea Party manifesto.

Will House members have to take their bills to the Supreme Court for their blessing? Insane stuff, much like the tea party hypocrisy over a balance budget and deficit bloating tax cuts:

Tea Party leaders scoffed at the Republicans’ greatest victory from the lame-duck session — the extension of the … Tea Party leaders complained that Republicans had abandoned a push for a full repeal of the estate tax.

Americans should be able to hit the "inheritance jackpot" and pay no taxes on money they didn’t earn. It’s the "legacy lottery" winner they’re fighting for. Even more bizarre is the following statement about exploding the deficit with tax cuts for the already filthy rich:

Mike Lee, a senator-elect from Utah who had Tea Party support said he believed that the vote to extend the Bush tax cuts signaled that Congress had heard the demands of the Tea Party in the midterm elections.

The rich can keep their wealth and not pay back to a society that provided the means to their success? What a message. 

Ryan Justifies Secret, No debate or up/down vote in House, because of Democrats. Where’s the voter outrage…again?

Things are so bad now, even worse than the Great Recession, that thing about deliberation and debate, forget it.

Despite years of whining about, and demanding transparency, our new House Republican “rulers” are subject to a different standard and one that changes on a whim. Rep. Paul Ryan’s take no prisoners, uncompromising philosophy cannot be questioned. He doesn't have to listen to us. And he’s loaded with excuses, all six of them to justify his ultimate power, even if it “flies in the face of GOP promises of transparency.”

The Hill: (1)“It now falls to the 112th Congress to develop a budget for the U.S. government, (2) yet there is currently no budget enforcement mechanism to account for taxpayer dollars. Ryan noted that (3) the budget authority he would be granted had been granted to the chairman of the committee in the 1990s as well. Ryan said (4) that he will use the power to try to bring non-security spending levels back to 2008 levels. (5) “I plan to file a discretionary spending limit that would take non-security spending back to its pre-bailout, pre-stimulus spending levels ... (6) it's a step we must take, and we must take it now," he added.

No debate, no amendments, do openness or transparency. That’s what the voters wanted, right? Thom Hartmann put it this way:

Among these new rules: each new piece of legislation will now be required to include a statement regarding its constitutionality - also the Democrats' previous rule known as PAYGO - which required all new spending legislation to be paid for by cuts to other programs - will be dismantled to exclude tax cuts for rich people from having to be paid for. Say hello to even higher deficits thanks to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Arizona Death Panel met with Absolute Silence by the Tea Party Phonies.

When I saw this headline, "Republican Right Silent on Real Arizona Health Care Death Panel," I couldn't help but think of all the other times tea party issues were met with silence. But this one is the most egregious, since this was one of the phoniest issues created by the tea party, and brought their movement to the forefront. 

Now that we have the government of Arizona rationing health care to its citizens, which will result in their deaths, tea party loudmouths haven't said a word.  Why? Because the monied interests behind them haven't manufactured and marketed outrage over the issue. Which brings me to the story below:

SeattlePI: Charles Grassley led the propaganda charge when it came to accusing the Obama Administration of intending to create a health care death panel.

It is interesting to observe the stony silence of the senator from Iowa as well as that of his colleagues when a very real death panel has reared its ugly head in Arizona.

Current Republican presidential frontrunner Mike Huckabee provided an example of the real Republican right mindset, which was anything but protective of human life. Huckabee likened Americans with severe health problems to cars placed in totaled out status by insurance companies.

On the subject of the Grassley death panel scare tactic, a real example arrived under the watch of current Republican right Tea Party favorite Gov. Jan Brewer. Under Brewer Arizona has a death panel that threatens the lives of citizens needing lifesaving operations.

When confronted on the subject of the Arizona health care death panel, Brewer wrings her hands and asserts that the state is in a tragic economic position. What she does not tell questioners is that state money has been spent on repairing the roof of an indoor arena while citizens in need will die unless corrective steps are taken.

What has been the response of Grassley and others on the Republican right regarding the Arizona death panel existing under the watch of one of their party's current favorites?

Running true to form, there has been a deafening silence. The death panel question was great for spin to be used against Democrats as a sop to the party's pro-life religious right base. In a realistic situation applied to a Republican governor a "don't kill granny" concern is not expressed.

Another example where the “tea party” is really nothing more than a tool to push a few hot talking point from time to time from their handlers.