November 2009 Archives

Rick Larsen is the elected Representative for Washington's Second Congressional District. He's been there for several terms, and some of us think this is the year to unseat the guy who supports continued funding for corrupt organizations like ACORN, liberty-killing and economy-destroying health insurance reform, and nation-bankrupting stimulus.

We need a strong candidate in the Second CD: someone who is well-known and well-respected; who is unapologetically conservative; who is thoughtful, rather than merely opinionated; who works well with others; who can raise money; who appeals strongly to everyone from middle-of-the-road moderates to far-right libertarians, because even when they don't agree with his specific views, they agree with his goals and principles and the way he expresses them.

In the Snohomish County Council, we have such a candidate: John Koster. He can win if he runs, and if he is well-supported. He can unseat the guy who supports continued funding for corrupt organizations like ACORN, liberty-killing economy-destroying health insurance reform, and nation-bankrupting stimulus.

But he hasn't said he'll run, so a petition has been started to ask him to run. I encourage you to fill it out. This is the year.

David Brooks: I think it is a suicide pact for the Republican Party, essentially taking a moderate Republican, dead-center in American politics, and saying, sorry, you are too liberal. That's crazy.

George Will: Newt [Gingrich] was just tone deaf as were the people who picked this woman, who is a candidate of, among other things, the Working Families Party, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Public Employees Union. She's for tax increases, same-sex marriage. She's for abolishing the right of secret ballot in union elections. There's already a party for people who think like that. It's called the Democratic Party.

I like David Brooks a lot. But when it comes to his perspective of where the Republican Party is, he is completely out to lunch. George Will, as usual, is correct.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was on Meet the Press with David Gregory today, and Gregory asked him, regarding the health insurance bills, "there is going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class through health care by taxes going up, by premiums going up. It will affect the middle-class."

Geithner responded, "You know, I don't think that's the way to look at it. The--our tax--our healthcare system today imposes enormous burdens not just on businesses, but on families. There are very high hidden costs to our current system. And the best way to add to our long-term deficits, and the best way to add to those burdens is not reform health care today."

Gregory: "But it doesn't answer the question about premiums going up with an individual mandate and taxes going up on so-called Cadillac plans and other parts of this bill as they're moving their way through the process that would increase taxes."

And then Geithner again: "Right. Again, I don't think that's the right way to think about it. I think you have to look at the entire system today and the cost that presents. And if you look at those..."

Gregory: "Well, why isn't that the right way to look at it if that's the reality of what the legislation would do?"

Geithner: "No."

No.

Seriously. This is what he said.

If you are firmly in the middle class, recognizing significantly increased health care costs due to the Democrats' plan -- even though this is the reality you face -- you shouldn't think about it that way.

Ignore reality. Trust in Obama, instead.

Now, maybe Geithner meant (and stated poorly) that is not the reality. A moment later Geithner apparently denied that the Democratic plan calls for tax hikes. If that is what he meant, he's a liar, of course, because everyone knows Gregory was exactly right: the proposed mandates and taxes on "Cadillac plans" will increase costs for many people at all income groups, except the poor.

I don't think Geithner was lying in that way: I think he was trying to reframe the issue to say, the tax cuts aren't the point; rather, look at how great this bill is (except for the parts you dislike)!

And if you choose to focus on the parts you dislike, well, "that's not the right way to think about it."