Today in Washington D. C. - June 23, 2009
Yesterday, the Senate rejected the Dorgan substitute amendment to S.1023. Also, Sen. Reid filed cloture on the nomination of Yale Law School Dean Howard Koh to be legal advisor to the State Department. While Koh's nomination has been delayed largely because of Second Amendment concerns, a cloture vote is now expected on Wednesday. Warning: Koh supports gun control on a global scale. Recommend gun owners contact their Senators and insist that they vote AGAINST this anti-gun extremist.
Today, Senate Republicans will begin a series of speeches this week on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Speaking will be Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Later today, the Senate could take up the fiscal 2010 Legislative Branch appropriations bill or could return to S. 1023, the tourism bill (to create a privately run nonprofit corporation to market the United States as a travel destination abroad).
National Government Run Health Care: As President Obama prepares for yet another press event to attempt to sell his health care plan, the event the White House put on yesterday announcing an agreement by pharmaceutical companies to commit $80 billion to reducing prescription drug costs is worth closer scrutiny.
Roll Call wrote of the announcement, “[W]hile the spending by the drugmakers will certainly assist some seniors, it is unclear how it would directly benefit the health reform effort by defraying the cost of providing a new government insurance option. The new spending will aid those who already have insurance — namely, Medicare.” Other publications had similar trouble figuring out just how this supposed saving was supposed to have any effect on Obama’s goal to cover all uninsured Americans. The Wall Street Journal pondered, “It’s unclear, however, how much of the expected $80 billion in savings over 10 years will go toward paying for the [president’s] proposed health-care overhaul.”
However the The Washington Post reached the correct conclusion about the announcement: “Although the agreement represents a fraction of the total cost of health-care reform, it has been managed for maximum public relations exposure.” Managing an announcement about health care savings for maximum public relations exposure with little substance to back it up should sound very familiar to those watching the White House’s campaign for President Obama’s health plan.
Back in May, Obama held an event announcing that various health care groups were committed to reducing health care spending by $2 trillion over the next decade. The Wall Street Journal pegged the announcement for what it was: “This vague, probably illusory promise isn't much as a matter of policy, but it is a major political development in what is the Obama Presidency's No. 1 priority.” And The New York Times reported that “[h]ospitals and insurance companies said . . . that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier . . . to reduce the growth of health spending.” And The Washington Post editorialized, “None of the interest groups signed up for a specific number; no one is saying who will sacrifice what, or how much. . . . What would make up the substance of the plan? That remains to be seen. How would the private sector be held accountable for this promise to reduce costs? That, too, remains to be seen.”
And illusory promises haven’t just happened on health care. In the midst of criticism for his $3.5 trillion budget proposal, Obama announced plans for $17 billion in budget cuts in early May. At the time, McClatchy called it “a tiny amount for such a big budget” and The Washington Post explained, “The proposed cuts, if adopted by Congress, would not actually reduce government spending. Obama’s budget would increase overall spending; any savings from the program terminations and reductions would be shifted to the president’s priorities.”
Writing for the Chicago Tribune’s The Swamp blog, Mark Silva explained the exercise: “While serving up a record new budget, with record deficits, portraying the image of fiscal prudence is essential to selling it all to the public.” As reported yesterday, "Michael Barone detailed that 'Obama likes to execute long-range strategies but suffers from cognitive dissonance when new facts render them inappropriate. And, he does not seem to care much about the details of policy.' Based on Barone’s observation, Obama may not be concerned that the devils in the details of his programs are bankrupting the country, destroying the institutions that have made America great . . ." Clearly, the White House has a pattern of rolling out announcements of big savings for PR purposes, but they all seem to have details. Keep an eye out for this pattern to continue as debate on health care and a carbon cap-and-trade bill moves forward.
Tags: Barack Obama, health care, nationalized health care, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today, Senate Republicans will begin a series of speeches this week on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Speaking will be Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Later today, the Senate could take up the fiscal 2010 Legislative Branch appropriations bill or could return to S. 1023, the tourism bill (to create a privately run nonprofit corporation to market the United States as a travel destination abroad).
National Government Run Health Care: As President Obama prepares for yet another press event to attempt to sell his health care plan, the event the White House put on yesterday announcing an agreement by pharmaceutical companies to commit $80 billion to reducing prescription drug costs is worth closer scrutiny.
Roll Call wrote of the announcement, “[W]hile the spending by the drugmakers will certainly assist some seniors, it is unclear how it would directly benefit the health reform effort by defraying the cost of providing a new government insurance option. The new spending will aid those who already have insurance — namely, Medicare.” Other publications had similar trouble figuring out just how this supposed saving was supposed to have any effect on Obama’s goal to cover all uninsured Americans. The Wall Street Journal pondered, “It’s unclear, however, how much of the expected $80 billion in savings over 10 years will go toward paying for the [president’s] proposed health-care overhaul.”
However the The Washington Post reached the correct conclusion about the announcement: “Although the agreement represents a fraction of the total cost of health-care reform, it has been managed for maximum public relations exposure.” Managing an announcement about health care savings for maximum public relations exposure with little substance to back it up should sound very familiar to those watching the White House’s campaign for President Obama’s health plan.
Back in May, Obama held an event announcing that various health care groups were committed to reducing health care spending by $2 trillion over the next decade. The Wall Street Journal pegged the announcement for what it was: “This vague, probably illusory promise isn't much as a matter of policy, but it is a major political development in what is the Obama Presidency's No. 1 priority.” And The New York Times reported that “[h]ospitals and insurance companies said . . . that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier . . . to reduce the growth of health spending.” And The Washington Post editorialized, “None of the interest groups signed up for a specific number; no one is saying who will sacrifice what, or how much. . . . What would make up the substance of the plan? That remains to be seen. How would the private sector be held accountable for this promise to reduce costs? That, too, remains to be seen.”
And illusory promises haven’t just happened on health care. In the midst of criticism for his $3.5 trillion budget proposal, Obama announced plans for $17 billion in budget cuts in early May. At the time, McClatchy called it “a tiny amount for such a big budget” and The Washington Post explained, “The proposed cuts, if adopted by Congress, would not actually reduce government spending. Obama’s budget would increase overall spending; any savings from the program terminations and reductions would be shifted to the president’s priorities.”
Writing for the Chicago Tribune’s The Swamp blog, Mark Silva explained the exercise: “While serving up a record new budget, with record deficits, portraying the image of fiscal prudence is essential to selling it all to the public.” As reported yesterday, "Michael Barone detailed that 'Obama likes to execute long-range strategies but suffers from cognitive dissonance when new facts render them inappropriate. And, he does not seem to care much about the details of policy.' Based on Barone’s observation, Obama may not be concerned that the devils in the details of his programs are bankrupting the country, destroying the institutions that have made America great . . ." Clearly, the White House has a pattern of rolling out announcements of big savings for PR purposes, but they all seem to have details. Keep an eye out for this pattern to continue as debate on health care and a carbon cap-and-trade bill moves forward.
Tags: Barack Obama, health care, nationalized health care, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 11:40 AM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home