Custom Search
Showing posts with label Sen. Rockefeller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Rockefeller. Show all posts

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Democrats Want Pres. Obama To Focus On Job Creation...Like WPA Programs Not Copenhagen!




































Economy key voting issue in Virginia. Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder talks about what went wrong for the Democrats in Tuesday’s elections.



Decision 2009 bodes ill for Dems. A day after watching his party suffer its first bad November election night since 2004, President Barack Obama got nostalgic for his own election exactly one year ago Wednesday. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.



(A clip from a short government film about the the Works Progress Administration, one of the New Deal programs started during the Great Depression. This clip shows road, bridge, and airport construction, as well as water and sewer projects. Posted by David Burns for the Fasttrack American History Project. Part II)






Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore

Off-year elections can be notoriously unreliable as predictors of the future, but as a window on how the political landscape may have changed in the year since President Obama won the White House, Tuesday's Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey delivered clear warnings for the Democrats.

But the Republicans' celebration was marred by the surprise loss of a House seat in upstate New York that had been in GOP hands for more than a century. The race that underscored the consequences of the ideological warfare that now grips the party and threatens its ability to rebuild itself as a broad-based coalition.

Neither gubernatorial election amounted to a referendum on the president, but the changing shape of the electorate in both states and the shifts among key constituencies revealed cracks in the Obama 2008 faction and demonstrated that, at this point, Republicans have the more energized constituency heading into next year's midterm elections.

The most significant change came among independent voters, who solidly backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but moved decisively to the Republicans on Tuesday, according to exit polls. In Virginia, independents strongly supported Republican Robert F. McDonnell in his victory over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, while in New Jersey, they supported Republican Chris Christie in his win over Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine.

For months, polls have shown that independents were increasingly disaffected with some of Obama's domestic policies. They have expressed reservations about the president's health-care efforts and have shown concerns about the growth in government spending and the federal deficit under his leadership.

Tuesday's elections provided the first tangible evidence that Republicans can win their support with the right kind of candidates and the right messages. That is an ominous development for Democrats if it continues unabated into next year. But Republicans could squander that opportunity if they demand candidates who are too conservative to appeal to the middle.

McDonnell pitched his campaign toward the center of the electorate, offering Republicans a model for how to reach independents. But the uproar in New York's 23rd Congressional District, where a populist conservative uprising drove the hand-picked Republican nominee out of the race, showed that ideological warfare still threatens the party.

Age gap re-emerges

Beyond the shift among independents, there were other worrisome indicators that the coalition Obama attracted last year is a shrunken force, at least for the time being. One question all year has been whether, without Obama on the ballot, Democrats could attract the new voters who went to the polls in 2008. In New Jersey and Virginia, the answer was no.

Many of the young voters who came out in big numbers in 2008 and strongly backed Obama stayed home Tuesday. In Virginia, voters under age 30 accounted for 10 percent of the electorate, half the share they represented last year. In New Jersey, their turnout also was halved.

Meanwhile, the percentage of voters age 65 and older jumped significantly in Virginia and rose measurably in New Jersey. In both states, these voters tilted slightly more Republican than they did a year ago.

A surge among black voters was another key to Obama's victory in Virginia last year. They were no less Democratic in their balloting Tuesday but turned out in somewhat smaller numbers.

Democrats also saw erosion compared with last year among suburban voters, voters without college degrees and those with family incomes below $50,000. Suburban voters had narrowly backed Obama in Virginia but went solidly for McDonnell on Tuesday; in New Jersey they had voted even more strongly for Obama but were going narrowly for Christie. Non-college graduates voted in roughly the same percentages as a year ago but were decisively more Republican this year -- a roughly 30-point shift in Virginia and about a 15-point shift in New Jersey.

Another major shift came on the economy. Polls have shown through much of the year that Americans blame former president George W. Bush more than Obama for the recession. But if the economic collapse was a powerful force working for Obama and the Democrats last year, it clearly helped Republicans on Tuesday.

Just over half the electorate in both states said they were very worried about the economy, according to the exit polls, percentages almost identical to a year ago. But last year Obama carried those voters by 59 to 40 percent in Virginia and by 61 to 38 percent in New Jersey. On Tuesday, McDonnell won three in four of those voters, while Christie won about three in five.

A blip or a warning for 2010?

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday's races were in no way a reflection of public opinion about the president or his agenda. "Whatever's driving these voters, it wasn't attitudes toward the president," he said, noting that local issues and attitudes toward the candidates on the ballots were the major influences.

Axelrod warned against extrapolating into the future the shift among independents. He said he believed that many people who called themselves Republicans in the past now call themselves independents but are still voting for Republican candidates. "I don't think they portend long-term trends," he said.

He said the only race with real national implications was the congressional contest in Upstate New York. "It's more significant because of the message it sends to moderate Republicans that there's no room at the inn," he said.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said he agreed that Tuesday's races were not a referendum on the president. But he argued that Obama's policies were creating anxiety among voters that was helping Republican candidates.

"It's not about the president personally. The president's not unpopular. Americans want our presidents to succeed. But the president's policies are very unpopular, and they are hurting Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, New York," Barbour said.

The party holding the White House has now lost nine consecutive gubernatorial elections in Virginia. In addition, Deeds proved to be a weak and ineffective candidate and got into a public spat with the White House by saying that Obama's policies were hurting him in the race. But McDonnell's big victory Tuesday was nonetheless a setback for the White House.

Obama was the first Democratic nominee to win Virginia since 1964, and in many ways, the state was emblematic of his "expand the map" electoral strategy nationally and the new coalition he attracted. Obama had other important victories -- in Colorado, North Carolina, Indiana -- but few were as satisfying to his team as that in Virginia.

On Tuesday, Virginia moved back in the direction of Republicans, a reminder that the political landscape is far more fluid than it appeared to be a year ago -- and a challenge for the White House and the Democrats as they look toward 2010.




View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Republicans Attack Baucus' HC Reform Bill Like Vultures!...Key Dems Hate It Too























































America's Healthy Future Act:

You can download and read a copy of the Health Care bill from this link at Senate.gov


(Sen. Max Baucus unveils his Health Care Reform bill which pleases Insurance companies. I can just hear the Insurance co Execs laughing with glee. He tells the American people "we can't allow this historic opportunity to pass us by")



(Will there be Republican support for this particular bill? I doubt it. In fact it doesn't matter what kind of bill is drafted, the GOP has no plans to support Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform agenda at all!)



(GOP Operatives are working hard to derail Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform agenda.)





Senate's 10-year health fix would cost $856B

Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

The bill by Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine, and language prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems.

At a Capitol Hill news conference, the Montana senator cited the rising costs of health care as an imperative to act. He said lawmakers cannot let this opportunity pass. He said he expects Republican support when his committee finally acts. Baucus said it is "a good bill. This is a balanced bill."

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member-owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

In other ways though, including its overall cost and payment mechanisms, the bill tracks closely with the priorities Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last week.

Baucus is still holding out hope for GOP support when his committee actually votes on the bill, probably as early as next week.

The measure represents the most moderate health care proposal in Congress so far, compared to legislation approved by three committees in the House and the Senate's health panel. Obama's top domestic priority is to revamp the health care system to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and to rein in rising costs.

The bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges — reflecting the White House's newly stringent stance on the issue after a Republican House member interrupted Obama's speech last week to accuse him of lying about it.

The bill also would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It's all but certain that the Baucus provisions will not be the last word on either of those volatile issues.

The bill would set up a verification system to make sure people buying insurance in the exchanges are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, using Social Security data and Homeland Security Department files. The bill would impose penalties for fraud and identity theft.

While only legal residents would be able to buy coverage through the exchanges, illegal immigrant parents would be able to get insurance for their U.S. born children.

The bill would prohibit abortion from being included in any minimum benefits package. However, plans in the exchange could offer unrestricted coverage for abortions, provided that no funds from government subsidies are used to pay for them. Women who want coverage for abortions would have to pay for it with their own money.

Wednesday's bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the "Gang of Six" — Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Enzi said he couldn't support the Baucus bill and preferred an incremental approach. "Let's start by focusing on the issues where we already have broad, bipartisan agreement," he said.

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support Tuesday night. "Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," she said.

The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders.

"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

Many liberals also have concerns. Some wanted Baucus to include a public option, while others fear that, in his effort to hold down the price of his bill, Baucus didn't do enough to make health coverage affordable to working-class Americans. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a member of the Finance Committee, said Tuesday that he couldn't support the bill in its current form.

Baucus' plan, released as a detailed 223-page summary, aims to make health insurance more affordable for self-employed people and those working for small companies, who now have the biggest problems in getting and keeping coverage.

People insured through large employers would not see major changes, but some of their health care benefits would be nicked to help pay for the cost of the plan. The Baucus proposal would limit to $2,000 a year the amount people can contribute to flexible spending accounts, which are used to cover copayments and deductibles not paid by their employers. That provision would raise $16.5 billion over 10 years.

Everyone covered through an employer would learn the full costs of their health benefits, which starting next year would be reported on employees' W-2 tax forms. Although family coverage averages about $13,000 a year most workers don't know how much their employer is paying.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

The plan proposes a $6 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which would recoup some of the profits the companies expect to make from millions of new taxpayer-subsidized customers.

Unlike the health care bill written by majority Democrats in the House, which permanently rolls back scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, the Baucus plan only suspends the reductions for one year. That trims more than $100 billion from the cost of the bill, but has already led to criticism from the American Medical Association.

The legislation makes no changes in medical malpractice laws. It does incorporate Obama's call for federal funds for state experiments on alternatives to malpractice lawsuits.

Democratic leaders are aiming for votes in the full House and Senate this fall.




View Larger Map

Sources: Senate.gov, MSNBC, NY Times, Politico, ABC News, Zimbio, Google Maps

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Key Dems Livid Over Baucus' Version Of HC Reform Bill...Public Option Intentionally Excluded









ABC News----

Sen. Jay Rockefeller Dumps on Baucus' Bill and No Snowe Yet

(Is the fate of the Health Care Reform bill in trouble?)




(Physicians nationwide appear to agree that a Public Option should be included in Pres. Obama's HC Reform bill.)



Following up on his "This Week" appearance where he promised to fight on for the public option, Sen. Jay Rockefeller blasted the draft bill produced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus: “there is no way in its present form that I vote for it unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.”

He’s not alone. Fellow Finance Committee member Ron Wyden is livid too. Expect a rocky mark-up next week. As one top Democrat told me, the fundamental problem is that Democrats “are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support.” The compromise without the cover.

Meanwhile, Republican Olympia Snowe's office just told me that the Senator is not ready to sign on to the Baucus draft. He will introduce it tomorrow without her support. But Snowe intends to keep negotiating and working with Baucus through the mark-up next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a special caucus on Thursday for Democrats to discuss the Baucus bill. Should be lively.




View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, ABC News, Huffington Post, Google Maps