ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Hatch: If GOP Controlled Government, We Would ‘Get This Country Under Control’

By Igor Volsky on Dec 4, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) delivered an hour-long speech on the Senate floor condemning the Democratic health care reform bill and accusing Democrats of displaying “the arrogance of power” in trying to pass health reform before the holiday recess. Hatch predicted that if Republicans had 60 votes and control of all three branches of government, they would “get this country under control”:

This will become one more example of the arrogance of power being exerted since the Democrats secured a 60-vote majority in the United States Senate and took over the House and the White House. I dream some day of having the Republicans have 60 votes. I’ll tell you one thing, I think we would finally have the total responsibility to get this country under control and I believe we would. But we never come close to that. There are essentially no checks and balances found in Washington today just an arrogance of power with one party ramming through unpopular and devastating proposals on after the other.

Watch it:

Republicans controlled for years — but their agenda of tax cuts for the super rich did little to “get this country under control,” so to speak. Throughout the Bush administration, “the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.”

Republicans ignored the health care crisis. Throughout the years of Republican dominance, the rate of uninsurance grew and employer-sponsored insurance continued to erode. “When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.” Between 2001 and 2005 — when Republicans had majorities in both chambers of Congress — the number of uninsured employees grew by 3.4 million and employer-sponsored health insurance premiums grew by no less than nine percent each year, while wages only grew between 2.2% and 4.0% each year. (In fact, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency.)

In fact, during a recent exchange on CNBC, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) asked Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) why Republicans didn’t address the health care crisis during their years in power. “I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement,” Ryan said. “We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Health

How Coburn Misuses His Medical Expertise To Scare Americans About Health Care Reform

By Guest Blogger on Dec 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Our guest blogger is Nikhil Wagle, MD, Fellow in Oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and a board member of Doctors for America.

On Tuesday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) took his ‘medical expertise’ to the Senate floor to argue that the Senate health care bill would expand government rationing of care. Coburn repeatedly referred to CMS “rationing” of the medication Epogen (aka erythropoetin) – a drug designed to help the body speed up production of red blood cells in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy — to argue that any further government involvement in health care would lead doctors to ignore the needs of their patients:

What this bill’s going to do is divide your doctor away from you… Do we want physicians to be patient-centered and focused on their patients? Or do we want physicians to have their eye on the government and half of an eye on the patient?….I can’t tell you the number of people that died from the Medicare CMS regulations on Epogen for oncologists. But there were hundreds, hundreds, because Medicare never looked at a patient. They looked at dollars. So as we go forward in this debate, what I want seniors in America to know…I want them to know that the key thing they’re going to lose in this bill is they’re going to lose the loyalty and primacy of their physician thinking about them.

Watch it:

It is incredibly irresponsible of Senator Coburn, a physician, to make outlandish claims that patients are dying because they are being denied Epogen (which is intended to improve quality of life by decreasing blood transfusions, not prolong life). He is simply wrong on the facts, and using his position of supposed expertise to scare people into thinking that regulations and guidelines are rationing care when they in fact are protecting patients and doctors.

Coburn specifically refers to an example about using Epogen treatment for a breast cancer patient. What he neglects to point out is that the use of high levels of Epogen in patients with breast cancer can cause serious problems. The BEST trial showed that using high levels of Epogen in patients with breast cancer can actually increase tumor growth and the likelihood of death. Moreover, because metastatic breast cancer particularly increases the risk of blood clots, physicians need to be especially cautious about using high levels of Epogen in these patients (since Epogen can also increase the risk for blood clots).

CMS issued its regulation after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), several prominent oncology societies (such as American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)), as well as Congress. The CMS recommendations on erythropoetin were designed using numerous clinical studies regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of administering the medication to patients with cancer. Epogen can actually harm breast cancer patients, and guidelines from CMS, the FDA, and professional societies like ASCO are designed to prevent that harm from occurring. Indeed Coburn himself has stated the need for guidelines to be created by professional societies – and here we have the perfect example recommendations being made through a collaborative process with professional societies.

Doctors don’t (and shouldn’t) just decide when something should be done without grounding it in the context of good evidence. We must as least start with do no harm – and Epogen has been proven to harm cancer patient in certain circumstances. And then we must do what works – and Epogen just doesn’t make sense for certain circumstances. That is why the professional societies, FDA, CMS and others sound like a chorus of echoes with their overlapping guidelines and recommendations.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Penguins proudly parading:

— Despite having been born free on American soil, Tai Shan is getting sent back to China.

— World Cup draw seems reasonably favorable for the United States.

— House and Senate health bills both reduce the deficit.

— Every jurisdiction should have an interactive zoning map.

— Daniel Schuman does the job Politico couldn’t be bothered to do and puts the House offense expense disclosure to good use.

— Dylan Matthews is a smart guy.

In honor of our soon-to-be-departed cub, here’s “Pictures of Pandas Painting”.

Justice

Arizona Top Superior Court Judge Calls Arpaio’s Law Suit ‘False, Frivolous and Slanderous’

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Dec 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm

arpaioEarlier this week, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and political ally, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, filed a civil suit against county administrators, elected officials, judges and attorneys who have challenged his authority. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants “conspired to hinder criminal prosecutions and investigations in exchange for funding a $345 million court building.” However, today Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Mundell released a statement calling the allegations “false, frivolous and slanderous”:

None of the judges have received copies of the judicial conduct complaints filed by Chief Deputy Sheriff David Hendershott and have only read about these allegations in news reports. Recently, two of these complaints were posted on a media website.

The allegations are false, frivolous and slanderous. This is the latest attempt to intimidate the judiciary and interfere with the fair, impartial and timely administration of justice. This attempt will fail. The bench of the Maricopa County Superior Court will continue to provide access to the courts, decide cases based upon the law and not politics, protect the rights of victims and defendants and ensure public safety.

Last month, Phoenix’s local KPHO-Channel 5 reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started looking into accusations that Arpaio has been “using his position to settle political vendettas” against those who have been critical of his controversial police tactics, primarily his aggressive pursuit of undocumented immigrants. Mundell was among the well-known Arizona public figures who KPHO listed as having been paid “unwelcome visits” by Arpaio’s deputies shortly after speaking out against the Sheriff.

During the spring of this year, Mundell criticized Arpaio’s treatment of inmates and his failure to transport them to their court hearings. Mundell then signed off on an administrative order aimed at making sure both defendants and victims get their day in court. Arpaio was furious and called the move a political attack. Shortly thereafter, Mundell reported that the Arpaio’s deputies had “mysteriously staked out her home.”

Yglesias

COIN and PowerPoint: Together at Last

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Via Michael Cohen, a head-scratching PowerPoint slide that allegedly explains our plans for Afghanistan. Click on the image for to see it at a larger size, it still won’t make much sense:

6a00d83451c04d69e2012876109f70970c-800wi 1

This was all brought to light by NBC’s Richard Engel.

Politics

Gregg’s Health Care Solution: ‘If You Work For The Government, You’ll Have The Same Health Care I Have’

By Zaid Jilani on Dec 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm

In recent days, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has been circulating a memo among his Republican colleagues, outlining the various tactics that the GOP can use to kill the health care legislation in the Senate.

Today, Gregg appeared on MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy, where he answered questions regarding his stance on health care reform. During one point in the interview, the MSNBC host asked the senator what he would say to Americans who don’t have the reliable health care coverage that he enjoys. He replied that anyone can have his health care coverage — if they would just work for the federal government:

DR. NANCY: So what do you say to the average American who has played by all the rules who can’t have the same health care you have, and you’re one of our elected officials?

GREGG: (laughs) Well, you know, if you work for the government, you’ll get the same health care I have. I mean, I have the same health care as a person who works for the Secret Service, who works for the FBI, or works down at the local federal building.

Watch it:

It’s puzzling that Gregg — who regularly slams “spending beyond our means for big government programs” — would say that anyone who wants health care coverage like his should simply work for the federal government. Certainly, Gregg wouldn’t advocate that we grow the size of government by employing the tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured in order to provide them health care. Or would he?

Related Posts

Security

Despite Conservative Claims, Administration Had Plan for START’s Expiration

By Max Bergmann on Dec 4, 2009 at 5:02 pm

obamamed3 Russia medvedevIn the run-up to the expiration of the START treaty on December 5th, conservatives were hitting the fear mongering button as hard as they could, claiming that we have “no real idea what the world will look like on December 6th.”

Because the signing of a new follow-on agreement between Obama and Medvedev would still have to be ratified by the Senate, conservatives asserted that there was “virtually no talk” about what would happen between the date START expired and a new treaty could be ratified. This “gap,” it was claimed, would suddenly allow the Russians to run wild, allowing them to “deploy fancy new missiles.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) even exclaimed: “Mr. President, I don’t say this lightly, but, this borders on malpractice.”

It was clear at the time that in attacking the Administration for not hitting the deadline, conservatives like Kyl were completely contradicting themselves. But we now also know that the assertions that the Administration put no thought into dealing with the day after December 5th were flatly untrue.

The Kremlin released a statement today saying that, despite the official expiration of the treaty, the US and Russia will work to follow the “spirit” of the original START agreement until any new treaty can be ratified. The AP also reported that most START procedures will remain in place despite the treaty’s expiration:

A Cold War-era nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia expires Friday, but its key provisions are likely to remain in effect while negotiators work out the final details of a replacement treaty. Neither the U.S. nor Russia anticipates security problems after expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. … The legal basis for the procedures, including inspections of nuclear facilities, also will expire Friday. Both sides are expected to allow each other to continue them until a new deal is in place. The State Department said this week that it believes the two sides can keep some of the verification procedures in place through an informal political agreement that is not legally binding.

This proves what we have really known all along – at the same time the Obama administration was finalizing a new START agreement, they were also working on a bridging agreement that would ensure the continuation of most of START’s provisions. While conservatives may claim that upholding the “spirit” of the treaty has no real teeth to it, the basic fact is that it is sort of pointless for Russia – or for the United States for that matter – to violate the “spirit” of a treaty when in just a few months both countries will be bound to uphold a newly-ratified treaty that requires deeper reductions in nuclear weapons.

Yglesias

Medicare Savings Can Be Realized

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm

healthcare_costs

A kind of myth has grown up that congress is regularly scheduling future Medicare cost-savings that it doesn’t follow through on. This is an intellectual superstructure built out of two different grains of truth. One is that in 1997, Congress really did enact a set of Medicare savings, called Sustainable Growth Rate, that proved unrealistically aggressive. The other is that during the Bush years it became standard budgetary practice to write documents that assumed SGR would be applied even when absolutely nobody intended to apply it. That said, the SGR process did in fact reduce Medicare spending below the trend line and the fact that the Bush administration loved budget funny business shouldn’t obscure that. Indeed, as an important Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report argues what normally happens when Congress agrees to restrain Medicare spending is that Medicare spending gets restrained.

I would also emphasize that the SGR trick—like a similar tax-side trick in which congress pretended to believe congress wouldn’t amend the AMT rules—only ever took in the very naive. The Congressional Budget Office produced “alternative fiscal scenario” reports detailing its actual prediction. When the CBO says a bill would reduce the deficit, they’re saying, in part, that they don’t believe you’re looking at a replay of this scam.

That said, the future politics of a thing are always impossible to forecast precisely. The weird thing about the current version of this debate is that the very same conservative politicians saying these bills won’t really reduce the deficit are also busy trying to take out the reductions in Medicare spending. I think it’s pretty clear that insofar as the American political party that’s friendlier to budget cuts demagogically opposes every possible means to reduce Medicare spending that it will, in fact, be very challenging to reduce Medicare spending in the long run. But that’s an accusation to fling at them. And, frankly, I don’t see a particular reason to believe it’s a trend that will be adhered to once the particular politics of 2009-2010 pass away. But if it does, then I think the onus is on free market types to try to do some organizing and activism to have some influence on the elected officials on their side. But how many “anti-spending” tea partiers were denouncing the GOP’s defense of Medicare bloat earlier this week? Greg Mankiw didn’t see fit to mention it at all.

Politics

Tea Parties to sponsor Republican debates in Virginia congressional election.

By Amanda Terkel on Dec 4, 2009 at 4:40 pm

As ThinkProgress has reported, Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project and the nationwide Tea Parties are inspiring far-right candidates to run for office and challenge Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently “pure.” Now, Tea Parties are even officially sponsoring electoral debates:

The TEA Party grassroots organizations in the 5th District announced Friday they will sponsor three debates for candidates seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Rep. Tom Perriello.

According to a news release, the debates will be scheduled from January to March in the Danville, Charlottesville and Lynchburg [Virginia] areas. The debates will precede the GOP’s nomination process, whether that is a primary or a convention. TEA Party leaders are calling for a convention.

Danville area Tea Party leader Nigel Coleman said that “people will see the growth of the TEA Party movement and its effect on the political landscape” in the 2010 election. The 5th district in Virginia has been the site of particularly controversial Tea Party activity, such as when Coleman’s group had to cancel plans to burn Periello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in effigy after “getting a lot of flack.”

Security

Turkey: Obama’s Ideal Partner

By Guest Blogger on Dec 4, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Our guest blogger is Joshua W. Walker, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy in the German Marshall Fund and Truman National Security Fellow.

obama erdoganPresident Obama laid out his new Afghanistan strategy on Tuesday night, announcing an additional 30,000 US troops for the country in support of a new counter-insurgency strategy. While the majority of the analysis and discussion in Washington has centered on the levels of US forces or the President’s reasoning for it, the President emphasized that the “burden is not ours alone to bear.”

Declaring that not only is NATO’s credibility on the line, but that the security of the US and all of its allies are at stake, the President invoked the international consensus on Afghanistan that led to a 43 nation coalition that has operated in there since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Yet the reality is that this international coalition is waning, not surging, and is in desperate need of a regional champion that can serve as a model partner for the US in Afghanistan. Obama’s ideal partner is Turkey.

Consider the facts: Turkey boasts the second largest military in NATO after only the US and the largest in Europe. Turkey has been a close American bilateral and NATO ally for over sixty years. In addition to being a member of almost every European organization, Turkey chairs the Organization of Islamic Conference States, is a UN Security Council member, is a member of the G-20, and is one of the few examples of a functioning Muslim-majority democracy in the Middle East.

On top of all of this, Ankara has close historic ties to Afghanistan that date back to the 1920s when the founder of the modern Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, served as a model for modernization that collapsed only after great power interference in Kabul carved up the country. Often referred to as Afghanistan’s “closest neighbor without borders,” Turkey also shares considerable cultural, ethnic, and linguistic links that make it an ideal partner for the US. Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up