Ed Koch Sounds Like He's Been Drinking Some Tea
Koch, the former New York City Mayor, rants at Real Clear Politics, predicting a Republican victory in the House and Senate come November:
Why did the President and Congress insist on reinventing the wheel when it came to health care coverage? Weren't there prototypes in Europe and elsewhere developed and used for more than 50 years with proven track records that could have been used as models? Did the President and Congress have to terrify people who had insurance coverage in order to provide coverage for the additional 32 million Americans covered under the new law? Couldn't those without insurance have been attached in some way to the Medicaid rolls? Why did the President and Congress sell out to the prescription drug companies and strip Medicare of the right to negotiate volume discount purchases that could have saved U.S. taxpayers more than a trillion dollars over ten years? What rankles most for many, including me, is why have there been so few criminal prosecutions of those who are responsible for having brought the U.S. economy to its knees, destroyed the nation's prosperity and caused millions of Americans to lose their homes, their jobs and a substantial portion of their retirement savings? Why when looking at Obama's cabinet and advisers, do we see the faces of those who many hold responsible for the economic debacle?It is for these reasons, I believe, the coming November tsunami will roll across America and give the Republicans, who are undeserving of the honor, control of both Houses. The American public is enraged and wants to punish those who have been in charge of the country. They know those who will replace incumbents may be as bad or worse, but they also believe they can't do any greater damage. They are willing to put up with them until the next election to teach our elected representatives a monumental lesson -- that public service is an honorable profession and must be performed competently and honestly.
Okay, so now he sounds like he's smoking something, save for a few apparent exceptions like Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, who goes after earmarks in both parties, and is rather unpopular with his own party because of it. He's one of the few who even seems to notice how broke and in debt this country is. Here's a posting from his site:
Congressman Flake: So Just How Broke Are We?Mesa, Arizona, Oct 18 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona's Sixth District, today illustrated the size and scope of the growing national debt.
Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Terrell Owens was fined $5,000 on Friday for breaking NFL rules by sending out a pre-game tweet. The U.S. is so broke that in order to pay down our nation's staggering debt of $13 trillion, Owens would have to send out 2.6 billion tweets, or roughly 364 billion characters.
Any legislators you see out there with half a shred of integrity? List 'em below, and list the Hall of Shamers, too (much easier).
My prognostication, based on near-monumental ignorance: the GOP will pick up quite a few seats in the House, and a few in the Senate. In neither case will they beat the point spread.
Old RPM Daddy at October 26, 2010 4:47 AM
Tea Party. For an organization that hates gays, that name is pretty gay-sounding.
Oh, I know, I know...their only common belief is that the government shouldn't spend money that it doesn't have. And it's just an unbelievable coincidence that they only that are against gay rights.
Even though Carl Paladino has his gay nephew working for him...or had...since Paladino outed him.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 5:06 AM
My dear chap, I support the Tea Party, and I also happen to support the right of any group of consenting competent people, irrespective of orientation, gender, race, number, and - in the event that alien life is ever discovered - species to enter into any kind of relationship they please, marriage included.
Or, to put it another way, be careful where you point that generalization, son.
Alistair Young at October 26, 2010 6:18 AM
Alistair Young: Or, to put it another way, be careful where you point that generalization, son.
My apologies if you feel maligned. Please note that I did say that this was the candidates they support that are against gay rights. (Or rather, I tried to...except that I wasn't as careful in my editing as I should have been. And that sentence should read "And it's just an unbelievable coincidence that only support those that are against gay rights.") Which they are. I'm glad to know that not all Tea Partiers share the convictions on this issue of their candidates they support.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 6:37 AM
Patrick, please don't be talking about something about which you know nothing.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 26, 2010 6:40 AM
I'm just glad Dodd's out of CT's Senate race. But neither Blumenthal NOR McMahon look very promising. He's a liar, she's a showoman. What's the difference?
Nada. Nadadamn thing. Although Blumenthal happens to be leading in the polls right now. Which either means that the local vets have forgiven him for lying about his service in 'Nam, or that EVERYBODY is just sick to death of McMahon's schmear campaign. She's just a nasty person. I don't like her. It's been said that she's trying to buy her senate seat to keep the deregulation for her hubby's WWE. She's spent almost $50 million, so I guess she wants it pretty bad. Which says to me that she needs to be kept from getting it.
Flynne at October 26, 2010 7:14 AM
IRA: Patrick, please don't be talking about something about which you know nothing.
Well, I haven't so far. But you might care to follow your own advice. Name one tea partier, just one, that supports gay marriage.
You can't, because there's no such thing.
And here comes the hysterics, shrieking that there's more important issues than gay marriage (ignoring the fact that I never said there wasn't), or that I'm suggesting that gay marriage is the only criteria or the most important criteria. (Actually, neither is true.)
But I've been here long enough to know how the trolls operate.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 7:58 AM
The entire first bit of Koch's piece is disingenuous at best. Koch is sophisticated enough to know exactly why the health care bill looked the way it did: the need to get current stakeholders (insurance companies, pharma, the AMA) and conservative Democratic legislators on board. The stuff he mentions, like extending Medicaid or volume discounts on drugs, would have cost the Democrats support from one or more of those groups. That's how bills get done.
I'm entirely in agreement with him that I don't understand how there have not been more fraud prosecutions in the wake of the financial meltdown. The ratings agencies appear to have signed off as AAA on the upper tranche of any securitized loan instrument, even ones comprised entirely of crap loans, or slices of lower tranches of other securitized instruments without paying any real attention to what was inside it. Moody's and Standard and Poor's have an important role in rating securities, and they were totally negligent in their duties.
Christopher at October 26, 2010 7:58 AM
CA Distrct 4 Rep Tom McClintock has an insane look in his eyes at times and is probably some type of Manchurian Candidate, but he also shows integrity. He had some choice words for Mexico's president last summer and he's also worried that Republicans don't deserve the seats they'll win in Nov. I couldn't agree more. We're doomed.
Jason S. at October 26, 2010 8:18 AM
I agree, Jason, that McClintock seems honest and principled. I don't agree with all of his political positions, but he strikes me as a decent public servant.
Christopher at October 26, 2010 8:56 AM
You can't, because there's no such thing.
Yes there is. Kevin Dujan.
HTH. HAND.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 26, 2010 9:10 AM
>> I'm entirely in agreement with him that I don't understand how there have not been more fraud prosecutions in the wake of the financial meltdown.
because they would have targeted the GSE's, which would have implicated the Federal Government. The ratings agencies were simply following the standards set by Freddie Mac, who were bundling this crap into their AAA products in order to satisfy their political obligations.
The Bank at October 26, 2010 9:49 AM
Bob Livingston makes a good argument in Friday's WSJ against dispensing with earmarks entirely. He points to several vital projects that were funded entirely through earmarks, and urges that Republicans instead concentrate their efforts on differentiating between the good ones and the bad. Here's the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562442197836742.html
kishke at October 26, 2010 12:27 PM
IRA: Yes there is. Kevin Dujan.
Very good. What office is he running for?
Since it's abundantly clear that that was my point. I said, "And it's just an unbelievable coincidence that only support those that are against gay rights."
So, what office is this Tea Party backed candidate running for? The website you linked me to doesn't say that he's running at all. In fact, it suggests he's not.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 1:10 PM
Patrick, I might like you if I met you, but your constant drumming the gay marriage shit is getting real old. Understand a lot of people do not agree with you. this does not mean we want to harass you or malign you, we just dont want to allow you to enter into "marriage" because quite honestly gay relationships dont fit that mold. Get over it, and move onto something that may be achievable. The people that bash the tea party are just afraid that there may indeed be some sanity coming to the political system that has run amok for the last 30 years
ron at October 26, 2010 1:16 PM
I don't much care what you think I'm drumming, to be blunt. Unfortunately, if those of us who are concerned about gay marriage and gay rights are concerned, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Bush originally claimed that gay marriage should have been left to the states and the courts. Then during his second term he threatened to amend the Constitution to specifically prohibit this.
If you want people who are concerned about gay marriage to stop expressing their concerns, then I would suggest you tell the people you vote for to either support it or shut up about it.
If they did either, I would shut up about it, too. But since they decide to pay lip service to their Religious Right (who is neither, by the way), much like the hooey about making Bush's tax cuts permanent...lot of blowing smoke...and threaten us with amendments, well, I'm going to speak up.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 2:11 PM
Patrick, if you want to turn into the next Andrew Sullivan, you have the right to do so. But if you expect anyone to ever take you seriously again, I advise against it. I note that you haven't said a peep about Obama's refusal to re-evaluate DADT.
Bank, you're absolutely right... if there were going to be prosecutions, the officers of Freddy's Fanny would be at the top of the list, along with Dodd and Frank. Obviously we can't have that. So, no prosecutions.
Cousin Dave at October 26, 2010 3:25 PM
The US is so broke that its debt is roughly equal to one year's income.
Just to put that into perspective, almost everyone with a mortgage has a worse debt to income ratio.
Hey Skipper at October 26, 2010 3:47 PM
I've got an idea. How's about discussing Koch's piece instead of Patrick's arrogant, incessant whining about gay marriage?
jimg at October 26, 2010 4:00 PM
Cousin Dave: I note that you haven't said a peep about Obama's refusal to re-evaluate DADT.
I can't blame Obama for being the slime I always knew he was. I blame the idiots who voted for him.
But, yes, he promised to repeal it. He lied. Lie number 13,439.
Patrick at October 26, 2010 4:11 PM
huh, guess Koch feels it's safe enough to say such things now... where was he before it was passed? All in all, expanding medicaid probably was the best way to attempt a solution, that mighta started to work, but I guess that wasn't sweepin enough for them. They would still have to had fixed medicaid, and that still doesn't address the corruption involved. :shrug: We'll be stuck with that albatross forever now.
OTOH? So, Patrick what percentage of The Public is for gay marriage? Don't you imagine that political candidates somewhat reflect public sentiment? What percentage of DEM candidates are for gay marriage anyway? After all, the prez isn't, either. Isn't he the unofficial leader of the party? Even Jared Polis thinks it should be a state by state thing.
SwissArmyD at October 26, 2010 4:50 PM
To be honest with you, Christopher, I don't follow it close enough. When he ran for Governor, I voted for him, but I'm not so sure he would have accomplished much. I'm voting no on Prop 27, though.
Jason S. at October 26, 2010 6:55 PM
No matter how this election goes -- WE ARE STILL FUCKED!!!
It is going to take at least a generation to rollback to a little "r" republican government.
If no one has noticed (more than) three-quarters of the Socialist Platform of 1928 is already in place.
Unless you ask your congress(wo)men EVERY SINGLE TIME the two main questions:
we will never get back to where we belong.
Jim P. at October 26, 2010 7:16 PM
While it's not certain which side side of Congress, one thing can be expected: There will be several incumbent Democratic Congressmembers who will lose their seats to Republicans. I have to wonder if any of them will think to themselves: "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have voted on Health Care Reform. I had doubts about it, but only went along with it because all the other Democrats were supporting it. I would probably still be in Congress if I had spoken up against the legislation." It's going to be hard to feel sorry for those guys.
Fayd at October 26, 2010 9:04 PM
That first sentence in the above post should read "While it's not certain which side will get control of Congress..."
Fayd at October 26, 2010 9:05 PM
There will be several incumbent Democratic Congressmembers who will lose their seats to Republicans. I have to wonder if any of them will think to themselves: "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have voted on Health Care Reform.
Sure, they probably will. But this assumes that the purpose of being elected is to get reelected, which means that the best plan is to do nothing controversial. If the point of being elected is to pass policies you believe are good for the country, and presumably that is what Democrats thought when passing the health care bill, then I'd imagine that the people who lose their seats over the health care vote would probably consider that worth it (at least to a certain extent).
Christopher at October 27, 2010 11:16 AM
However that's not what ANY Democrats thought. They voted for the healthcare bill because they thought it was good for DEMOCRATS.
Politicians vote for laws for three reasons, and three reasons only - To increase their popularity (and likelihood of re-election), to increase their fortunes (through graft), or to increase their power over others.
The Democrats are in it for the long game - total power over the population. They regard themselves as intellectually superior, and therefore ordained by God himself to rule over us for our own good.
brian at October 27, 2010 8:38 PM
Leave a comment