Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	12/31/2009 4:31:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574711

Perhaps, but the issues I raised would largely remain even if the Republicans "owned" the CBO. The CBO has to "play by" pre-defined rules, and members of congress know how to structure bills to manipulate those rules to get good scores whatever the actual fiscal results. And even if they where not skilled at it, they can, and do, submit multiple copies for evaluation, until they get a good CBO score, and then that becomes "the bill", that shows how it "saves money", even though 1 - Raising taxes to pay for a program isn't saving money, and 2 - The actual consequences of the program will be to increase the deficit, not just spending.

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	12/31/2009 4:52:08 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1574711

New Year's Resolutions for Washington By KARL ROVE Obama not only left Washington, D.C., for the holidays, but the lower 48 as well. So I thought I'd offer a few New Year's resolutions for him and others to come back to in the coming year. First, to Obama's staff: The Norwegian Nobel Committee didn't want to wake the president to tell him about his prize earlier this year, but there shouldn't be any reluctance to reassure the nation after a terrorist attack. Also, why not resolve to have a few less "historic" moments? How many can one president really have, anyway? A little more grace toward his predecessor would help him, as would less TV time. He is wearing out his welcome and his speechwriters—judging by the quality of their work lately. In 2010, Mr. Obama should work on his habit of leaving a room of people with deeply divided opinions thinking he agrees with all of them. That leads to disagreements over essential issues, like the meaning of his pledge to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 and the nature of the new military mission there. . Finally, Mr. Obama should work on meaning what he says. He didn't last year with all those health-care deadlines and tough talk supporting the public option. Now Mr. Obama will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction. As he tries to do that, voters will wonder if it's just a ruse to save Democrats. Vice President Joe Biden should resolve to speak publicly less. Every time he opens his mouth, the West Wing staff uses him to make the president look good by comparison. White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers should take a lead from Santa Clause and make her list and check it twice . . . at the White House gates. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should resolve to take a systems analysis course before she again declares that a system "worked." The Democratic congressional leadership should resolve to come up with Plan B. After rejecting bipartisanship in 2009, they won't be able to pass bills in 2010 with only Democrats. Too many vulnerable Democrats will flake on big votes. About Karl RoveKarl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process. Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions). Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove. . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who has reportedly let it be known that she is comfortable with losing scores of House seats to pass ObamaCare—might resolve to treat her pet Blue Dogs a little better. As for the Blue Dogs, why not resolve to become Republicans? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should resolve to strive for a little less unity in his caucus and in the meantime enjoy this term in office. It's likely to be his last unless Nevada Republicans tear themselves apart next year for the privilege of running against him. Republican congressional leaders should resolve not to sit on their laurels. They're winning the battle for public opinion on health care, cap and trade, and spending, but by next fall, it won't be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats. Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do. A second Contract with America won't suffice. The GOP really won in 1994 by arming candidates with a basket of issues to pick from. Next year, candidates must be fluent in kitchen-table issues from jobs to health care to deficits to spending. Ambitious Republicans should resolve to run next year. There will be a wave of voter support for GOP positions, but authenticity, passion and conviction matter. Voters can smell them, so bone up on the issues and say what you believe, not what someone tells you to say. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine should resolve not to blame himself for the coming political tsunami that'll hit his party next November. He should press Mr. Obama to raise lots of money to spend on close races in states where Democrats are in charge of redistricting. If not, he'll face a very ugly 2012 congressional election, too. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had a great year in generating enthusiasm among small donors, but ends 2009 with less cash on hand than he had when he started the year. He should resolve to stop giving paid speeches and instead use his time repairing frayed relationships with major donors, whose support is critical to winning legislatures that will redraw congressional districts in 2011. Tea Party members should resolve to resist being turned into another partisan political group. The movement's power stems from its ideas, not from any party it supports, and it has been very successful in educating Americans and arousing the country. It should let its members set their own personal course in primaries and fall elections. As for me, I resolve to speak well of Mr. Obama more frequently, curry favor with liberals by being more critical of my fellow conservatives, and be guided by the words of Mark Twain, who said that the start of a New Year "is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual." Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	1/2/2010 12:08:29 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 1574711

By PETER S. GOODMAN Published: January 1, 2010 The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good. Since Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes. As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	1/3/2010 1:25:07 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574711

Mr. Nelson's support was crucial for helping Democrats secure 60 votes for the bill, preventing a Republican filibuster. Almost immediately, Mr. Nelson drew fire. Republicans have derided the bill as the "Nebraska Windfall." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) called it "sleazy." Even the state's governor, Republican Dave Heineman, has been critical of the deal. In Nebraska, a Dec. 28 Rasmussen poll showed Mr. Heineman, who opposes the health-care bill, trouncing Mr. Nelson in a theoretical 2012 match-up, 61% to 30%. Mr. Nelson, who is 68 years old, was last re-elected in 2006 with 64% of the vote. The reaction underscores possible political peril for Democrats as the battle over the health-care bill, which both parties now expect will pass, morphs into a battle of perceptions. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in December found that by a slight margin, 44% to 41%, Americans prefer the health system as it is to the Democrats' health overhaul.

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	1/6/2010 9:06:33 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574711

Dodd Will Not Seek Re-election, Democrats Say By ADAM NAGOURNEY 2:02 AM ET Christopher J. Dodd, the embattled Connecticut Democrat who has been a key figure in the big debates now before Congress, has reportedly decided not to seek a sixth term.

To: steve harris who wrote (539907)	1/10/2010 9:48:22 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 1574711

Dems Plan Big Medicaid Boost, But Rates May Spur Shortages By JED GRAHAM, Amid raging debate over the public option and Medicare cuts, the vast expansion of Medicaid that Democrats are close to passing into law has gotten little attention. Under the Senate bill that is the focus of negotiations with House leaders, the ranks of the poor and near-poor covered under Medicaid are projected to grow by 15 million in coming years — fully half of the total increase in coverage. That would boost the Medicaid population by 43% and could greatly add to already-significant stresses on Medicaid providers and patients. The potential cost of addressing Medicaid's shortage of providers — or cost-shifting if it is unaddressed — is among the reasons why the $900 billion-plus cost of the health care overhaul may be understated. A recent survey from the Center for Studying Health System Change found that only 40% of physicians accept all new Medicaid patients compared with 58% who accept Medicare patients. The difference reflects, in part, Medicaid reimbursement rates that Urban Institute researchers estimate to be 40% below those of Medicare. In an acknowledgment of the problems that could arise as Medicaid rolls swell, the House threw in $57 billion over 10 years to make Medicaid's rates for primary care providers equal to Medicare's. But the Senate, in trying to stay reasonably close to President Barack Obama's suggested $900 billion price tag for the health care overhaul, didn't kick in any funds to raise Medicaid payments. Now, as House Democrats try to squeeze more dollars out of Senate negotiators, the fix for Medicaid's low rates isn't at the top of their publicized list of priorities. "Medicaid has always been a program that is an afterthought in the health debates," said James Capretta, a Bush administration budget official now serving as a health care consultant and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The vast expansion of the program "carries the risk that you are going to have an inferior network for people of lower income," he said. While Democrats are aware of such a risk, they see at least two strong reasons for taking it. One is budgetary restraint: Capretta notes that coverage expansions through Medicaid cost less than private coverage expansions. Secondly, liberal policy experts believe Medicaid's benefits are suited to the needs of the near-poor, both because of affordability and services for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. However, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is among the policy groups that have advocated an increase in payment rates amid coverage expansions. "It is essential that payment rates be brought up to levels sufficient to encourage more providers to participate in the program. This is critical to ensuring access to necessary services," the center wrote in a February report. Even the extra $57 billion provided in the House bill would probably be "a drop in the bucket" in making Medicaid rates comparable with Medicare, Capretta said. A May report from Urban Institute researchers backs him up, noting that the cost of raising Medicaid rates to on par with Medicare's would have boosted Medicaid's spending on acute care by $20 billion in 2009 alone — even before Medicaid's population swells. Community Centers The Senate hasn't ignored the potential access problems that Medicaid patients could face. In return for his vote, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent and socialist, secured $10 billion in new funding for community health centers. The House bill provides $14 billion for community health centers. "If you expand Medicaid and if you expand health insurance in general ... it doesn't mean much if people can't find a doctor or they can't find a dentist," Sanders told reporters. "And what we have managed to accomplish is substantially increase community health centers; 10,000 communities in America as a result of this legislation will now have access to community health centers." Republicans have argued that expanding Medicaid will only exacerbate cost-shifting and raise premiums and out-of-pocket costs for the insured. A Milliman study in 2008 found $40 billion in annual cost-shifting due to low Medicaid payment rates. Critics also argue that states are in no position to absorb their share of the additional Medicaid costs under the bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that state Medicaid costs would rise by a cumulative $26 billion through 2019. The federal government would pick up Nebraska's share of those costs under a deal to secure Sen. Ben Nelson's vote that the GOP dubbed the "Cornhusker Kickback." Other states are lobbying for the same sweetheart deal. Nelson now says that was his intention all along.