Health Care: Deregulation
The short version --- he's grossly misrepresenting McCain's policy, making a leap of logic by taking a McCain quote out of context. Deregulation has absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis. Details below...
The approach involved two basic elements. First, after (somehow) implicitly attributing the current financial crisis to deregulation, Biden argued that McCain wants to do the same thing to the health care sector and so presumably send it into a similar crisis. “As a matter of fact,” Biden said, “John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health-care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.” The same argument is advanced in a new Obama campaign commercial. Over images of Fannie and Freddie logos, the ad asserts that McCain wants to do to health care what “Bush/McCain policies have done to our economy,” by which they mean deregulation. The ad says:Health Care: TaxationMcCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation; said he'd reduce oversight of the health insurance industry too, "just as we have done over the last decade in banking.”The line they quote comes from an article by John McCain (i.e by his campaign) about the McCain health plan in the latest issue of Contingencies magazine. In a passage arguing for more competition to lower the cost of health insurance, McCain writes:
I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field.The Obama ad of course doesn’t quote all of that, but merely suggests McCain is endorsing some supposed deregulation of Wall Street. In fact, McCain is very plainly talking about the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act, passed in 1994, which permitted banks to establish branches nationwide by eliminating the requirement for separate subsidiaries in each state and the prohibition against banks accepting deposits from customers out of their home states. This very sensible reform updated a 1956 law to modernize American banking, and there is simply no question it has been successful and useful. It passed the Senate 94 to 4, and Sen. Biden voted for it.
That important act of deregulation had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the economic crisis we now face, and on the contrary has contributed to American prosperity and competitiveness.
The short version --- Biden's math on this tax credit is based on an omission of data that presents the tax credit in a false light. The reality of McCain's credit is that most people will get better coverage for less money (the only exception being the wealthy, down the road). Details below...
The second leg of the Obama-Biden critique is directed at McCain’s proposal to provide a tax credit to individuals and families for the purchase of health insurance while counting employer-based coverage as taxable income. Biden himself was the first to launch this particular charge. At a rally in Pennsylvania on September 18, Biden told the assembled audience that John McCain, through his health-care plan, is:Some other points that Biden made in the debate:proposing the largest increase on middle class taxpayers in American history....It will cost the middle class over one trillion dollars in additional taxes. So ladies and gentlemen it’s almost unbelievable, you almost don’t believe what I’m telling you, because it sounds so wrong.It does sound wrong, because it is. The Washington Post a few days later described Biden’s claim as a “fabrication,” explaining that McCain’s plan takes the existing tax break for employer-purchased health coverage and gives it to individuals as a credit to use in purchasing health insurance they select — whether they get their insurance through their employer or not. The plan doesn’t provide the tax benefit twice — before and after the employer purchases coverage — but once, the way it is provided today. The difference is that individuals get the benefit as individuals, rather than through their employer’s payroll, and regardless of how they purchase their health insurance. It’s true that this means more taxable income, but the amount of additional taxes paid on that income would be made up for and then some by the tax credit itself. The Post quotes Eric Toder of the non-partisan (if slightly left-leaning) Tax Policy Center saying “It is not fair to pull out just one part of the McCain proposal. It is a package. They are giving back more than they are taking away.”
In fact, as the Post further noted,By most independent calculations, the McCain plan will leave most taxpayers better off in strictly financial terms, at least until 2013. After 2013, the benefits will begin to diminish. By 2018, taxpayers in the top quintile will be slightly worse off, but middle-income taxpayers will either break even or be slightly ahead.More importantly, they will have more reliable, affordable, and portable health coverage as well. In Thursday’s debate, Biden added an even more deceptive element to his earlier fabrication. He said:
Now, with regard to the — to the health care plan, you know, it's with one hand you giveth, the other you take it. You know how Barack Obama — excuse me, do you know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit you're going to get, a family will get? He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer. That's how he raises $3.6 trillion, on your — taxing your health care benefit to give you a $5,000 plan, which his Web site points out will go straight to the insurance company. And then you're going to have to replace a $12,000 — that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer — it costs $12,000. You're going to have to pay — replace a $12,000 plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped. Twenty million of you will be dropped. So you're going to have to place — replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company. I call that the "Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere."The beginning portion of this mass of confusion is simply the same false claim he had made in Pennsylvania in September: implying the plan results in a net tax when it actually results in a net credit. On Friday, the Obama campaign even echoed this assertion with a new television ad showing Biden making this claim in the debate. The ad, like the claim, is patently dishonest.
The notion that Americans would need to “replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check,” meanwhile, ignores the simple fact that the money employers now spend on employees’ insurance belongs to the employees. It is a part of your wages that you never see. If it wasn’t spent on health care by your employer but was given to you as cash wages, you would not be replacing a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check, but rather with something approaching $12,000 in additional income and that $5,000 check. You would pay income taxes on that additional $12,000, but what you would pay would be less than the extra $5,000, so, again, nearly all taxpayers (except those at the very top of the income scale) would come out ahead.Biden is cherry-picking the stats that serve his arguments with these statements. If he were to include the entire picture, he would have no argument at all.
And finally Biden asserts that 20 million people are going to be “dropped” from their insurance coverage under McCain’s plan. It’s hard to be sure just what he has in mind, but it may well be a distortion of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the plan, which says that under the McCain plan about 20 million people would move into the individual insurance market by 2018 (since the plan would make it much more appealing), but does not distinguish between those who would do so by choice to pursue coverage that better suits their health and economic needs and those who would do so because they were “dropped” by their employer. Either way, people would not find themselves in the position Biden describes, since he leaves the effect on net wages out of his description entirely.
There is no question that part of the aim of the McCain plan is to build a more functional non-group insurance market so as to slowly and gradually sever the link between employment and insurance. That would help make health insurance more portable and reliable, and allow people to feel secure about their coverage regardless of changes in their employment and their lives.
Under the McCain plan, workers would get more cash wages, a federal tax credit, and control over their health insurance that would make it more affordable, portable, and reliable. Giving a tax break to individuals and families, rather than through their employers’ payroll, is one crucial element of that approach. Fostering more competition to lower costs and improve quality is another.
Moving on, the McCain campaign put out the following list of what they call lies:
Some of these are more ironclad than others, but the points remain worth illuminating. Now, what about things that don't quite approach the severity of a lie? There were quite a few of those, too. I relay them to you to show that Biden's understanding is either inaccurate or inadequate; either way, it's a warning sign that he's not equipped to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
The Role of Vice President
The short version --- first, he references the wrong article of the Constitution. Then, he displayed that he really doesn't understand that article. Details below...
Biden seemed most upset with the notion that the Vice President is a "member of the Legislative branch," as Ifill put it. Well, technically, I am not sure you can call him a "member" of the Legislative Branch, since the Constitution says that the "Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state." But he certainly is "of" the Senate, since he (or she, I should add) "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." So whether you can technically conclude that he is a "member" of the Senate or not, he is an Office thereof. Indeed, for the last several decades, Congress has treated the Vice President as part of the Legislative Branch, in part. Part of the Vice President's appropriation (more than $2 million per year) has typically, in recent years, been included in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. Vindictive Democrats tried to spike that appropriation when the issue came up recently, but were beaten back. So a large portion of the Vice President's staff are employees of the U.S. Senate, subject to its ethics rules and other regulations. How Joe Biden would deal with this appropriation and staffing issue when he was Vice President remains to be seen.To put it simply:On the Executive side, the Vice President has only those functions which the President wishes him (or her!) to have. Apart from his (or her!) obvious role as President in waiting, there is nothing in the constitution that requires him (or her!) to do anything in the Executive Branch. Certain statutes, such as the National Security Act of 1947, gave the Vice President statutory functions as an adviser to the President, but there is nothing in the constitution that requires the President to accept that advice (and indeed, if the Act were construed to codify non-advisory executive functions in the Vice President, it would be unconstitutional).
Biden's mention of the "Unitary Executive" theory, a favorite whipping post of the Left, is baffling. He argued that, somehow, the Vice President has concocted (out of constitutional text, I suppose) the theory that the Vice President is part of the Legislative Branch in order to a "aggrandize the power of the unitary executive." Huh? So the VP claims legislative power in order to strengthen the Unitary Executive? I don't get that one, Joe. Democrats have never understood the unitary executive theory, which is nothing more than a restatement of the first section of Article II: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." It is a simple "theory" of constitutional law — that the President is the only Executive.
He doesn't have a clue. Palin, on the other hand, nailed it:SEN. BIDEN: Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has -- he has -- the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive -- he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.Article 1 of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the executive branch. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
Hezbollah and Lebanon, Hamas and West Bank (here and here)PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
The short version --- Biden missed several facts (such as confusing Gaza for the West Bank and Syria for Hezbollah), which could simply be a juggling of words - something that just happens in these debates sometimes. But, he then makes a false statement about what he and Obama did in response to those events that simply doesn't match the record. Details below...
BIDEN: Here's what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know — if you don't, Hezbollah will control it." Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure. And speaking of freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran. It's closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.
As already noted, if we suspend disbelief and give the benefit of the doubt that Biden was talking about Syria, not Hezbollah, being kicked out of Lebanon, the fact remains that Hezbollah was already part of the Lebanese government before calls for Syria's expulsion. In any event, however, Biden wrote an op-ed for the Washington Monthly in May 2005 — i.e., around the time of the events he seemed to be misdescribing last night. It is generally positive about the democracy project, laments the Democrats' failure to support Bush on much of it, and says nothing about blocking elections or calling in NATO.
He's out of touch!
The short version --- he says he hangs out at a restaurant that's been closed for decades in an attempt to look like he's a part of 'main street'. Details below...
[F]or him to go into a deliberate spiel about how’s he’s the man of the people, kicking it at Home Depot, and come on down to Katie’s restaurant on Union Street, and be talking about A RESTAURANT THAT CLOSED 20 YEARS AGO AT A DIFFERENT ADDRESS, is proof that his populism is phony and that’s he’s totally out of touch . It’s not like he garbled the name of some bar in Maumee Ohio, it’s HIS HOMETOWN OF 40 YEARS.Hugh Hewitt keeps a scorecard of both candidates' answers here, if you're interested.
So, what are we to make of this? If you know how to read between the lines, Palin clearly won, and everyone on both sides knows it. First, let's look at the Right.
Powerline says, "In any event, Sarah Palin deserves tremendous credit. Three of the four candidates in this race have been debating off and on for a year and a half. All of them performed quite well in their latest round. Palin was entirely out of the loop until about a month ago. Yet her performance was mostly equal, and in some ways superior to, that of McCain, Obama, and Biden."
And this:
Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog:Toward the end, Loree and I were puzzling about how the Associated Press can try to spin the debate. It's a tough problem for them. There is no way they can pretend that the evening was anything but a triumph for Governor Palin. My guess is that they have a team of people "fact checking" every word that Palin uttered, and that starting some time tomorrow they will crank out articles that in effect continue the debate, taking issue with one or two things that Palin said.
But that won't be very effective; certainly not with the tens of millions of people who saw the debate. The McCain campaign badly needed a triumphant night from Palin to get momentum moving its way. Palin delivered. Now it's up to McCain to keep it going. It's also up to the McCain campaign to make better use of Governor Palin, one of its best assets."
Newsmax sums up the following reviews:Gov. Sarah Palin is electrically fresh. And she is the real deal, an authentic three-dimensional person rather than a blank screen upon which to project our hopes. And the important point confirmed by Thursday night's debate is very simply this: Sarah Palin is nothing less than the instrument through which ordinary, non-mystical Americans may reclaim their national government.
That's why McCain's announcement of her candidacy suddenly changed the entire course of this election. That's why her acceptance speech at the Republican National Commission dropped millions of jaws. That's why millions of voters — including undecideds and independents and swing voters, disappointed Hillary voters, disappointed movement conservatives, even non-voters — who watched this debate are saying to themselves: "Well! Now that was different!"
Over the course of the next month, as the impressions she made tonight are reconfirmed, the seed of affinity that Sarah Palin has planted will continue to germinate. We millions of voters who'd previously imagined ourselves with, at best, a sour taste in our mouths after voting this year suddenly realize that, actually, we can cast a vote for Sarah Palin that makes us feel good about the whole process. Through her, we can be connected again with our national government. Her voice is our voice, and in her we have a new champion who actually isn't just slumming or pretending to be one of us. She doesn't need a focus group to interpret, because she actually is one of us. She doesn't need to write a memoir of her journey of self-discovery because she's always known she's Chuck and Sally Heath's daughter, she's Todd Palin's wife, she's "Mom" to Track and Bristol and Willow and Piper and Trig — and she's the one of us who stepped forward to prove that she has the heart of a genuine servant of the public.
The New York Post cover Friday shared a similar sentiment , roaring: "PIT BULL SARAH SHOWS HER BITE."Even the far-Left DailyKos grudgingly admits it:
The Post began "Sarah Palin used folksy language, winks, smiles and sharp elbows to try to put seasoned rival Joe Biden on the defensive in last night's vice-presidential debate."
The Post's star columnist, Andrea Peyser, offered effusive praise.
"I walked in last night expecting a train wreck from our gal of the moment. Instead, I saw fireworks," Peyser wrote. "Sarah rules," she continued, adding, "In her first, and last, vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin was strong. Articulate. Folksy. And warm."
Even the liberal New York Times had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that Palin scored points in the first and last vice presidential debate.
The Times began its coverage this way: "Gov. Sarah Palin made it through the vice-presidential debate on Thursday without doing any obvious damage to the Republican presidential ticket. By surviving her encounter with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and quelling some of the talk about her basic qualifications for high office, she may even have done Senator John McCain a bit of good, freeing him to focus on the other troubles shadowing his campaign."
Michael Goodwin, writing in the New York Daily News, declared Palin had a "slim" victory over Biden.
"She sometimes sputtered nonsense, seemed like a Thanksgiving turkey stuffed with facts and was no match for his knowledge and experience on foreign affairs," Goodwin wrote. "But Sarah Palin demonstrated a remarkable political skill Thursday night: She looked into the camera and talked to people as one of them, while Joe Biden talked mostly to the moderator as a teacher to a student.
"On her ability to connect with the audience, and because the expectations for her were so pitifully low, Palin was the victor."
And Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "Appearing assertive and confident in her national debate premiere, Palin battled Sen. Joseph Biden on a broad range of issues - the Wall Street meltdown, taxes and spending, Iraq, foreign relations, which candidate best represents change - and more than held her own."
Sarah Palin won! Actually, she survived, since she had no "deer in headlight" moments.Being one of the most hyper-partisan far Left organizations in the world, this is as close as they'll ever get to the truth. Even this much of an admission probably made them throw up, so they continued the article with their usual diatribe of insults. Still, it's indicative of just how well Palin did.
Some observers were so in the Obama-Biden tank that they chose to hammer the most stupid details, even though logic should tell them it's an empty argument:
Yes, it’s that slavering Chris Matthews at it again. His leg was not tingling last night. His mouth, however, was itching to tear down Sarah Palin.
Her sin? Looking into the camera (via Newsbusters):
You know what I think of people when they come on “Hardball,” and they look at the camera, I think they’re dolts.
If you watched the first presidential debate, then you noticed how much time Obama spent looking into the camera. The NYTimes praised him for it:
The differences were in no small part stylistic and visible with a glance to the stage: a 47-year-old black man who has been in the Senate for nearly four years standing at one lectern, facing a 72-year-old white-haired fixture of the Senate standing across from him. In many ways, Mr. Obama was a very different candidate than he was during the primary battles. He answered questions directly and affirmatively, typically looking right into the camera as he spoke.
Ask yourself: if this is the worst thing they can say about Palin, how badly could she have done? So, if Palin did so well, why are all the MSM polls showing that Biden 'won' the debate? I would question the accuracy of those polls (especialy in the light of my recent blog post on slanting polls), but this may also have something to do with it:
I think that the most indicative response of the night comes from Frank Luntz, a non-partisan poller who has a patented method of measuring reactions to debates. Take a look:Looking around the web this morning, we see a whole lot of silly, meaningless Internet polls asking who won last night’s debate—and in quite a few of them, Joe Biden seems to be doing quite well, even coming out ahead of Sarah Palin.
Curious, isn’t it? Why would Biden be ahead of Palin in so many Internet polls? Were we just imagining that she crushed his hair-plugged head in ways it has never been crushed before?
No. The answer is simple, and it’s the same reason why Ron Paul did so well in online polls while totally failing to reach the general public. The “progressives” and the Kos Kids are going around the web and stacking every poll they can find, in an organized effort to skew the perception of the debate as much as their little blank hearts can manage.
Daily Kos: CALL TO ACTION! ’FREEPING FOR JESUS’: THE VP DEBATE.
As you can see, this response is overwhelmingly positive. I believe that is how the majority of Americans received the debate.
If you apply the same logic as the Left applied to the McCain-Obama debate last week (Obama/Palin is the underdog, so just avoiding making big mistakes means he/she wins), Palin still came out on top.
Biden appeared very confident in his forceful statements, but the facts don't support most of what he said. Palin looked equally confident, and her statements have the backing of facts and statistics. In addition, she made her connection with voters again, and I think we'll see another surge of support because of it. She had a great command of the voting record, as well as an acceptable level of understanding of the nuances of many tricky issues, including taxes and foreign policy. She put to rest the suggestion that she's unready to play in the big leagues. The only negatives I have against her performance is that she left a couple of HUGE issues on the table (who caused the bailout, deregulation, etc.), but it just seems that McCain doesn't want to make those attacks yet. I think that's a mistake, but he's not asking me. :)
One final thought - Gwen Ifill, the moderator, seemed to play things pretty straight down the line. The intense scrutiny on her clearly biased position probably made her behave better than she may have otherwise. The only thing I would say about her specifically is that her omissions may have spoken louder than anything she could have said. Case in point: why did she not ask about abortion? Palin is a high-profile pro-lifer for her decisions with her son Trig, and Biden has been hammered by the Right for his statements about abortion being murder but that he'd support it anyway. Oh, numerous Catholic bishops have condemned Biden's statements, too. Given the high-profile nature of both candidates on this issue -- which is also a VERY big issue for many voters -- you'd think that at least one question would have been asked about it. Did Ifill avoid it because she knew Palin would absolutely kill Biden on it? We'll never know, but it seems suspicious to me.
Any, there's my debate roundup! Hope you found it useful!
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment