Logical contradictions from Novak, tsk, tsk.
Hey Robert, both can't happen en masse. Either Seniors sign up for free drugs, or else the free drug program doesn't swell the deficit.
Posted on 01/09/2006 9:09:31 AM PST by rob777
It is said only in hushed tones and not by anybody of prominence, but a few brave souls in the Bush administration admit it. President Bush's Medicare drug benefit that went into effect Jan. 1 looks like a political blunder of far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, these critics assign major responsibility to Karl Rove.
The hideous complexity of the scheme, which has the effect of discouraging seniors from signing up, is only the beginning of difficulties it entails for the president and his party. It will further swell the budget deficit without commensurate political benefits. On the contrary, the drug plan may prove a severe liability for Republicans facing an increasingly hazardous midterm election in November.
This program looks less like a bump in the road than a major pothole on Rove's highway to permanent majority status for the Republican Party. As Bush's principal political adviser, Rove has a brilliant strategic mind and can take credit for crafting the 2000 and 2004 presidential election victories. The drug plan was an audacious effort to co-opt the votes of seniors, reflecting Rove's grand design of building on the electoral majority by adding constituency groups. By failing to win new supporters while alienating old ones, the drug plan betrays a flaw in Rove's strategic overview and points to potentially disastrous consequences.
This is the winter of Republican discontent, even if it is not openly conceded. GOP members of Congress live in terror of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal touching them. Once House Republicans return from their global junkets in about two weeks, they face increasing pressure to elect a new majority leader to replace Tom DeLay. The Bush Social Security reform concept lies strangled in its crib, while his tax reform did not even get that far. In this atmosphere, the consequences of passing the drug benefit two years ago become unpleasantly clear.
Just before Christmas of 2003, the White House and the House Republican leadership forced the drug benefit down the throats of unhappy conservatives. In a memorable pre-dawn session, resisting Republican House members were threatened with dire consequences and offered rich rewards as the roll call was held open for more than an hour to erase a 12-vote deficit.
Rove's aim was to entice low-to-middle income seniors who vote heavily Democratic and complain about the cost of prescription drugs. That political maneuver was translated by bureaucrats and health-care technicians into a government program so difficult to understand that someone now receiving any prescription drug care would be inclined to stick with the present program even if it seems inadequate. For many whose existing insurance does not help pay drug bills, the Bush program is only a disappointment.
An earlier Bush attempt to co-opt the opposition also failed. The "no child left behind" education bill was passed in 2001 only after considerable arm-twisting of conservatives, but it has not produced political dividends. The president remains as unpopular as ever inside the education establishment, where school administrators complain about constant testing and paperwork required by the act.
Loyalty is the watchword among Bush administration officials, particularly White House aides. Consequently, George W. Bush in the course of his working day is unlikely to hear a discouraging word.
One mid-level presidential appointee, however, laid out for me the parameters of Bush's predicament with three full years remaining of his presidency. Bush is essentially a war president, leading the nation to fight an unpopular war that promises no temporary victories much less a final one, and at best offers the prospect of withdrawal from Iraq with honor. He needs something to energize the nation in his second term, but he has failed to do that with Social Security reform and has not even tried with tax reform. There is no clear sign the president appreciates the size of his problem.
Now, to begin his sixth year in office, Medicare drug benefits come into play, a major new entitlement that offends Bush's friends and does not placate his foes. There is not much at this point that can be done about it, except to try to convince seniors and conservatives that the program is really not that bad.
A TRUE conservative would have laughed at a new social program, and not signed CFR, McCweird style. But then again...
How could (1) happen concurrently with (2)? Wouldn't the presence of (1) prevent (2)?
Who's Karl Rove?
Who's robert novac
Miers Medicare D!!!
if the program is so complex and horrible that no one is going to use it... how is it going to cost billions?
Bush is a socialist; he may favor wealth, but he likes to underwrite it with public tax dollars. Given a chance he would turn the US into a bigger version of Mexico. The term conservative shouldn't even be applied to him.
Who's that guy Rove reports to? Isn't it ultimately HIS blunder? You know...what's his name? Oh yeah, Cheney! That's it.
Didn't you read the article? Bush has nothing to do with it. It's ROVE.
Many, mant Seniors have had very beneficial drug coverage as part of retirement bennies from their employers. Now, MOST of those programs have been dunped, deferring to hastily and deceivingly concocted new and endless varieties of Medicare part D plans.
In order to keep the substantial benefits they previously had, they are now required to pay premiums 4X the previous amounts, and still wind up with less actual benefit than they had before the end of the year. In my Moms case, she had been paying $440/yr for unlimited benefit which was the right to get her meds for 20% of the "cost". Now, she must pat 1200+/yr but the "benefit" is that she must now pay 25% of the "cost".
Medicare part D is a gift horse to the pharma's and ins co's. I believe that some benefit to seniors was a good idea, but the insurers using it to dump those who had worked and paid for their benefit should not have been messed with. Part D should have been a means-tested benefit, with regs barring the insurers from dumping retirees "because they can", which is what they have done in widespread fashion.
Logical contradictions from Novak, tsk, tsk.
Hey Robert, both can't happen en masse. Either Seniors sign up for free drugs, or else the free drug program doesn't swell the deficit.
The only things Novak writes or discusses these days are negative things concerning this Administration and Republicans. No question that terrible blunders have been made, mainly in Congress, but there are also successes. Let me give you two examples which are illegal immigration and Law Enforcement. You will never see this on the liberal MSM. It's from www.polipundit.com:
Law & Order
One final legal gem for you law mavens out there; this one from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
Richard Steven Keen pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of stolen firearms. He was sentenced as an armed career criminal to the statutory minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. Keen appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court’s determination that he was an armed career criminal violated his Fifth [and Sixth] Amendment right[s]….
BTW, for those who are curious, Mr. Crime-Bot was a busy man before he got rolled up with those stolen guns:
[He] had three prior convictions for breaking and entering and one conviction for arson, all committed on different occasions.
And those merely were his convictions. Imagine how many other crimes he actually committed!
In any event, regarding his appeal the Fourth Circuit said:
“We . . . affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.”
So long, Mr. Recidivist Crime-Bot. Try not to let anyone turn you into their bee-aaatch.
* * *
I love prosecutions and court decisions along those lines.
First, they remove recidivist crime-vermin from our streets and communities.
Second, they cause various components of the reflexive-anti-GOP brigades to begin twitching and foaming at the mouth.
Which is a good thing.
Theory = blase.
Reality = bullet to the head.
Last but certainly not least, the judges involved with the foregoing decision were:
Widener = Nixon.
Niemeyer = George H.W. Bush.
King = William J. Clinton (post-1994).
Boyle (USDC) = Ronald Reagan.
Judge Boyle currently is a nominee to the Fourth Circuit appeals court.
And there are no term limits on federal judges…..
-- Jayson
Border Control - Judges
Items you won’t see in too many corners of the Internet:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
Juan Miguel Hernandez-Cervantes pled guilty to the crime of reentry of a previously deported alien . . . . Given the defendant’s extensive criminal history, the [trial] court . . . sentenced Hernandez-Cervantes to 84 months in prison. Hernandez-Cervantes argued that his sentence should be reduced in accordance with the practice of jurisdictions that have adopted fast-track sentencing procedures. The district court declined to reduce the sentence . . . . For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the defendant’s sentence.
Nice.
Two other points are germane:
1. That illegal alien was prosecuted in 2004 after local police apprehended him and then contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Therefore, I blame Chertoff and Bush for the fact he’ll now be spending seven years behind bars before he once again is deported.
2. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote that opinion. Judge Gibbons was nominated to the appeals court by George W. Bush. Here’s a copy of her official gummint bio.
Judge Gibbons – originally a Reagan appointee to the federal bench – is a brass-knuckled conservative, is quite young (55), and, most importantly, is not a bomb-throwing hot head, a la Robert Bork. Meaning she’s confirmable. So, ergo, if yet another SCOTUS vacancy presents itself over the next 2.5 years, Judge Gibbons would, IMO, be an absolute no-brainer choice. BTW, for those who are curious Judge Gibbons is an elder at her church.
* * *
The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals:
Vazquez argues that he is entitled to immediate release because he is a national of the United States. Vasquez, however, is not a national. Although he has applied for citizenship, he cannot complete the application process because he is ineligible for citizenship as a result of his [2001] conviction of an aggravated felony. The District Court also correctly rejected Vasquez’s claim that he is being punished twice for the same offense ….
Excellent.
Two of the three judges on that panel were:
Nygaard - Reagan.
Smith - George W. Bush.
The trial judge was:
Muir - Richard M. Nixon.
There are no term limits on federal judges.
* * *
Believe it or not, dozens of rulings along those lines are handed down by the various federal appeals courts each and every . . . . day.
* * *
Last but not least, on a related topic, and for those who might have missed it, when the U.S. House voted to approve that massive fence along the southern border (along with other brass-knuckled anti-illegal immigrant measures), the partisan breakdown was:
36/200 = Democrats in favor of the fence (18%).
203/220 = Republicans in favor (92%).
Who would have thunk it?
-- Jayson
Law & Order
Stories you probably won’t see anywhere else on the Internet:
Illinois:
“Texas Man Sentenced to 27 Years in Prison for [Child] Sex Offense”
In addition to the 27-year prison sentence, Chief U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey ordered that . . . . William H. Veazey . . . be placed under supervised release for the rest of his life.
That federal trial judge was appointed by . . . William J. Clinton.
Yeah, even many of Clinton’s judges are brass-knuckled when it comes to law & order issues. You can thank Michael ("card-carrying ACLU member") Dukakis for that.
The MediaCrats made a vow after getting their asses kicked back in 1988 they would try like heck never to lose another national election on crime & punishment issues. That’s why the college and grad-school-aged “Save Tookie” brigades are thrown overboard and left for dead whenever a major election cycle approaches.
* * *
Here’s another gem out of Florida and the 11th Circuit COA:
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Anthony’s motion for a mistrial because [of] the police detective’s comment about Anthony’s ‘excessive past’ . . . . The district court provided an explicit instruction to the jury to disregard the detective’s response and to consider only the parties’ stipulation that Anthony was a convicted felon.
That’s the kind of decision that makes me giddy.
First, the trial court allowed into evidence testimony that worked to the obvious disadvantage of a recidivist crime-bot. Then that judge highlighted the information by telling the jury {wink, wink} not to consider it. Then the appeals court went ahead and affirmed the ensuing conviction and prison sentence.
I love it.
The appeals judges were:
Carnes (55 years old) - George H.W. Bush.
Pryor (43 years old) - George W. Bush.
and . . . . wait for it:
Roney - Richard M. Nixon.
Judge Roney now is well into his 80’s, but that’s the whole point, Buchanan: There are no term limits on federal judges.
The trial judge who rolled up that criminal was:
Altonaga (43 years old) - George W. Bush.
* * *
Last but certainly not least, here’s the sort of federalism case that causes the denizens of the Sullivan/Drezner “federalism” {cough} brigades to develop facial ticks:
Petitioner Derrick Sean O’Brien was convicted in Texas state court of capital murder and sentenced to death. Subsequently, O’Brien filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal district court, which denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability ("COA") on any issue. O’Brien now asks this court to grant a COA….
And the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said:
We find that jurists of reason could not disagree with the district court’s resolution of O’Brien’s constitutional claims. We DENY a COA on all claims.
Adios, Mr. Crime-Bot. You won’t be missed.
That panel of judges:
Jones (56 years old) - Ronald Reagan.
Barksdale (61) - George H.W. Bush.
Prado (58) - George W. Bush.
Scores – if not hundreds – of decisions along those lines are handed down by the federal courts each and every . . . day.
Go figure.
-- Jayson
Judges - Border Control
Items that won’t be seen in too many corners of the Internet:
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit:
Gonzalez-Andazola was arrested on October 26, 2003, by a United States Border Patrol Agent. The government filed an indictment charging [him] with being found in the United States after having been previously deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony . . . . On March 8, 2004, Gonzalez-Andazola entered a guilty plea without a plea agreement.
I blame Bush and Chertoff for that prosecution.
FYI, that alien crime-bot was sentenced nearly to six years in the joint, after which he’ll be deported.
The appeals court said:
Irrespective of whether Gonzalez-Andazola can show that his substantial rights were affected, he is not entitled to relief because he cannot demonstrate that the district court’s error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Bye, bye, Mr. Alien Crime-Bot. Remember not to bend over for the soap.
Two of the judges on that three-judge panel were:
Ebel - Reagan.
McWilliams - Nixon.
There are no term limits on federal judges.
* * *
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit:
On May 8, 2002, Zabala filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal with the [INS] . . . In June of 2002, the INS . . . [charged him and his family] with removability because they had remained in the country longer than permitted [by their non-immigrant visa] . . . . In October 2003, the Immigration Judge . . . rejected his claims for withholding of removal . . . specifically stating that Zabala’s testimony was ‘not credible’ . . . . In April of 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision . . . .
That alien then petitioned for review with the 11th Circuit, which responded:
“DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
In other words, no dice, Chomsky.
Two of the three judges on that appeals panel were:
Dubina - George H.W. Bush.
Carnes - George H.W. Bush.
* * *
Here’s another gem from the 10th Circuit COA:
Chavez-Alonso, a citizen of Mexico, first entered the United States without inspection in 1980.
Wait a minute. There were illegal aliens entering this country 25 years ago?
Do NRO and Buchanan know about that?
Continuing:
Chavez-Alonso was charged with illegally re-entering the United States in 1997, but the charges were dismissed and he was deported in 1998. He was also deported in 2001 and 2003.
Hang on a second. There were illegal aliens re-entering the country back in the mid-1990’s? And Bush & Co. were deporting people like that well before the “Minutemen” came on the scene?
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Continuing:
In May 2004, Chavez-Alonso was found in McPherson, Kansas without having obtained permission to re-enter the United States. He was indicted . . . for re-entry after deportation subsequent to a conviction for the commission of an aggravated felony.
I blame Bush.
FYI, that alien crime-bot conditionally pled guilty, then asserted various arguments on appeal. To which the 10th Circuit appeals panel replied:
[W]e AFFIRM the judgment of the district court denying Chavez-Alonso’s motion to dismiss, and uphold his conviction.
Bye, bye, Mr. Alien Crime-Bot. Try not to let anyone turn you into their bee-atch.
The judge who wrote that opinion was:
Michael McConnell (51 years old) - George W. Bush.
The other two judges on that panel were:
Baldock - Reagan.
Armijo (USDC) - George W. Bush.
The trial judge was:
Belot - George H.W. Bush.
Go figure.
-- Jayson
Whoaaa...talk about changing the subject. Man, stick with the topic per thread.
GWBush will go down in history as one of the biggest spenders and expanders of the federal bureaucracy America has ever had in the Oval Office. Contrary to the rhetoric from the offended Bush cheerleaders, aka. "Bush Attack Pack", Bush is establishing a lousy legacy. Bush along with a majority controlled GOP Congress, has promoted big government Republicanism. From 1995-1999 America had five years of fiscal responsibility under Speaker Gingrich's leadership and the Contract With America. During that time, the GOP held Clinton in check on spending and run away government expansion. During the last five years we've seen government spending go through the roof and a liberal expansion of the social welfare state. For proponents of limited government this has been a bad time. And as we all know, bad habits are hard to break.
That's about right. I have an excellent, low cost drug prescription program through my employer. When I retire, which is very soon, I could take it with me at reasonable cost. Now I have to sign up for Medicare part D whether I like it or not, and will pay more for less at taxpayer expense. So I lose coming and going, and my employer benefits.
Large scale government medical benefits are almost never cost efficient. This is a disaster from every point of view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.