MoveOn, according to its own webpage, has a PAC "to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates." That has never included LV Congressman Charlie Dent.
On the 2010 election cycle, this non-local PAC spent $62,303 in an unsuccessful effort to replace Dent with Johnny Casino.
37 comments:
I wonder what the Moveon assholes and Johnny think of General Betray Us' prominent position in the Hopey Changey Administration?
will be a drop in the bucket compared to this year...
Less than .02 of what Mayor callahan raised...big deal...
Money well spent by MoveOn - I wish they had wasted more.
Dent beat Callahan by 14 percentage points - a margin that would have been higher without a third candidate taking 8 percent of the vote (those 8 percent weren't going to vote for Callahan).
MoveOn was obviously very influential in this race. :)
Well, the Democrats will have another easier crack at it in 2012 since Representative Dent is on record as wanting to eliminate Medicare.
More bullshit.
Does that include what MoveOn pays Jon Geeting or is that just direct expenditures?
That's not intended to be a smart-ass question, that's a pretty big loophole if you can pay someone to blog and post all over the place and not have it a reportable expense.
What's bullshit? Dent did vote for the Ryan plan which would effectively replace Medicare benefits with a voucher that may or may not be enough to buy a private policy. So anyone under 55 that was looking forward to have secure healthcare benefits should vote against Charlie Dent. He has his lifetime medical plan. He doesn't want to pay for yours.
It is virtually impossible to defend yourself from accusations like these. I get them, too, but I'm supposedly being paid by the other side.
I have a full disclosure tab at my sidebar listing all my sources of income.
I doubt very much Geeting is getting paid. First, I believe he would disclose it. Second, I think he is sincerely stating what he thinks. Third, I would not pay for preachy and shrill messages like the ones he prepares. They are ineffectve.
9:18, Your comment is a distortion. It was not a vote to end Medicare, but a vote to reform it. As Dent told Bloomberg, it's a choice between "doing something or doing nothing, which means bankruptcy and cuts in current benefits for current beneficiaries.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/republicans-to-hone-medicare-pitch-after-new-york-election-loss.html
Of course it was a vote to "reform" Medicare. But that reform means replacing what we know of Medicare today, the program that cares for our mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, and changes it to a voucher system. A means-tested voucher system at that. That is not a distortion and it is exactly what Dent voted for. I know the Repubs will try and spin their way out of that very clear vote but the record is the record.
Patrick you need to look at voter turnout models and polling. No way Dent was getting 100% of the third party votes and without the overwhelming Rebublican turnout (compare the last three Dent races to verify) the race was not so cut and dry. Now with some of the really dumb votes being made by the party in power congressionally they are setting themselves up to lose some seats. I'm not saying Dent specifically, but he tries to play the middle of the isle but really is killing himself with votes over the past year. Supervoters are not fooled easily and Dent will have to do more than brush off his inconsistencies.
Seamus
Bernie I don't see how you can defend Dent's vote to end Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer program that directly pays for health care for people over 65. Dent wants to give them a coupon whose value falls further and further behind the cost of care. CBO says it will double health care spending for the typical senior. Whatever this thing is, it's certainly not anything anyone would recognize as Medicare.
Contra Dent, "doing nothing" would result in a balanced budget. All the "something" Dent wants to do increase the deficit - repealing the tax on medical devices, repealing IPAB, raising Medicare reimbursement rates to match private insurers' overpayments. The best thing that could happen to Medicare's financial outlook would be for Charlie Dent to go home for the rest of this legislative session.
Jon,
First, I do not consider Dent's vote a vote to end Medicare, but to reform it. Second, I am not sure I agree with his vote. I will have to know much more before agreeing or disagreeing.
looking at your link, it clearly states the moneys were against dent it does not however state they were spent pro callahan. The money could have been used against Dents position on something that MoveOn disagreed with.
To take it one step further if you look on the same website it states they spent $118 on the Mayors behalf against the NRA. Man you skewed that headline didn't you?
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/2010/candidate/john-callahan
" Man you skewed that headline didn't you? "
Not at all. I said that money was spent in opposition to Dent, and it was.
True, good point. It wasn't till the second paragraph that you skewed it...lol
Bernie,
The vote Dent made on the Ryan plan was not a vote to reform Medicare, but a vote to end the medical safety net that Medicare was designed to provide. An example of reform would be adding means-based testing to determine one's cost to be in the program. The Ryan plan just pushes us back, over time, to where we were pre-1965. With the big caveat that anyone 55 and older gets to keep the current system while those of us younger get to pay for it.
And the plan Dent voted for does nothing for the next 10 years. That would be exactly ZERO savings for the next decade. Then, it puts the burden on the individual to get insurance.
But who is going to take on insuring a class of people who consume more healthcare dollars than they pay for? Probably not United Healthcare, Cigna, or any service provider that cares about profits. And if they do, they will surely only take on the "healthiest" seniors or make it so cost prohibitive for those with problems. Think about the 75 year old who is overweight, with high blood pressure and diabetes.
Now Bernie, think about your current state of physical fitness (or lack there of). Now I may be wrong, but you do not look very fit, and certainly look like someone who has or is likely to have future health issues. And from what you have stated on tis blog, you are not independently wealthy. Are you comfortable with a $7k voucher to purchase healthcare covering most of your insurance cost? Is that "reform," or is it getting rid of the safety net? Your safety net?
If you believe that the Ryan Plan is truly reform, then you should believe that it is reform that should be extended to everyone of every age. Why should only people under the age of 55 be allowed the "freedom" to chose? If you cannot honestly say that you agree with my last statement than you cannot honestly say that a vote for the Ryan plan was a vote for reform.
Publius
Jon Geeting
US National Debt $14.4T
Total US Debt $55.3T
Total Unfunded Liabilities $114T
Medicare Liability $79T
Social Security $15T
Part D Drug Plan $19.7T
Are you sick of the politicos and the stinking parties yet?
Explain to me how you pay these bills and keep in mind that the unfunded liabilities are not on the books. If we don't get rid of these stinking entitlement programs, and I am a receipient of Medicare and SS, we will be a ruined nation. Add in the three wars we are in, also off the books, and you just might get it. We have to work ourselves out of the entltlement programs and back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I know you really want to stay home with mommy and daddy but your really need to get your behind out of the house. Think abut becoming a COWBOY not and hangeroner.
Publius
You make some interesting points. However, there are additional things that must be done. First and foremost think tort reform. Think education--we spend $13 thousand dollars a year to educate each student. I would think that they should be able to select a proper health care plan. Think allowing lots of insurance companies to come into the Commonwealth--its called oompetition. Think coops for those who have a pre-existing condition where they can get a good deal on insurance. Or we can roll over and suck our collective thumb.We have allowed a pile of political scum to turn us into helpless babies unable to take care of ourselves.When you consider all the things are ancestors, recent and long ago, survived we really come up looking like a bunch of sissy girls.
Obamacare guts Medicare. It has to. His plan doesn't work if competitors exist in the marketplace. Obamacare requires that Medicare go away in order to complete the lower premiums-for-more subscribers deal he made with Big Insurance. Of course, none of this works if Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with SCOTUS conservatives. If he sides with liberals, Medicare is replaced with Obamcare, period.
If Dent voted for to means test Medicare in order to save it vs. Obamacare, he's remarkably in tune with the district's and country's voters. The NY state Congressional race was more about a third party Moveon plant who spent $2M of his own money to split R votes. Well played and very Machiavellian. But the D's victory wasn't about trotting out the usual Mediscare tactic. We'll all play along if they'd like, though.
Cicero,
I agree we have much more that needs to be done, but we probably don't agree on exactly what. Tort reform is a small part of it. Change to a system like England where if you sue someone and lose and I think we would get rid of most frivolous lawsuits. Education spending is essential. But, take a look at the school budgets and there is a lot in those budgets that are not specific to education. Like the debt burden, childcare, law enforcement, etc.
And I agree that we all need to take personal responsibility. I know I do.
As for more competition for health insurance, I don't think it will make a difference. The problem is we have an aging population and a population that generally does not take care of itself. The result is that we have more people using more services from health providers. "Competition" among insurers won't make a relevant difference.
But you are missing that personal responsibility piece. What would make a difference is to give financial incentives to people to take care of themselves. Actuaries can quantify the cost of poor lifestyle choices like smoking and obesity.
And if someone is a smoker and/or obese they should pay more - a lot more - than I do for health insurance. Your personal choices have real world consequences and costs. If someone chooses to overeat and not exercise, I should not have to pay more for my health coverage because of other peoples poor life choices. Just as my car insurance is based on my driving record and my life insurance premium is based on my personal risk factors.
I would suggest that you read a book called "The Healing of America" by TR Reid. Mr. Reid gives a comprehensive look at how other developed nations have addressed healthcare. What he reveals is quite interesting.
Publius
Cicero,
Regarding your response to Jon Geeting, we do need to take personal responsibility, but there are some easy fixes to a big portion of the debt problems before we fix the entitlements (which I agree need to be reformed, not eliminated). The problem we face in the short-term is political. The Dems don't want to touch entitlements and the Repubs. never saw a tax that couldn't be lowered or eliminated. Until both sides come to the understanding that they are both wrong, nothing will be fixed. So what can we do:
1. Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Liybia, etc. When we attacked Iraq almost a decade ago we were told to go to the mall, not pay for a war. Really, really stupid and totally unjustifiable war.
2. Go back to the tax levels of the Clinton years. Tax revenues in 2009 and 2010 were 14.9% of GDP, the lowest level since 1950 (which was an anomaly). The lowest they got during the Regan years was 17.3% in 1984, and the post-war average is 18.5%. To say we are overtaxed is just factually incorrect. All details are on the CBO's website.
3. Reform Social Security. I like a means test where if you make x amount in retirement (maybe $165k) you don't take a benefit. The way I look at it, if I am doing that well in retirement I shouldn't need it AND I have done well because of the country I live in. By not getting a social security benefit I would be giving back to my country for all it has given me.
4. Reform Medicare - see my previous post.
I could go on, but that's a good constructive, start.
Publius
Yes by all means let the United States adopt the heathcare system of Somalia. We must stop mollycoddling these old geysers.
Hell, if an 85 year old can't tell the difference between the insurance she needs and what the salesperson wants her to have that is her problem. She is the one that is weak and old. I say why should we even give her that 20% off voucher coupon that will replace medicare. Who the Hell is picking up the tab for that 20%.
You don't see anything about healthcare in the Constitution do you. If you have not put enough aside for your future medical needs, at least have the decency to off yourself before you become a burden to society.
I applaud Mr. Dent, he sees the future and much like Cicero, it will be dominated by the big dogs not the sissy girls and girly men.
If you can't keep up get out of the way or be run over. Don't matter much to us, either way you are part of the problem and deserve to be left behind.
That is what made this country great. Individualism is the key. If I do something it happens, if I don't want it to happen get the hell away from me.
Guys like Donald Trump worked long and hard for their money and should not have to give it to the weaklings who are dumb and lazy.
God bless America and the Founding Fathers who understood that only the strong should survive.
If you don't like it move to Canada.
Rebel Patriot!!
Sorry, but unless Medicare changes it will not be available for ANYBODY.
The Ryan plan merely announces that the needed changes are coming, so that people can anticipate the change. It does not change anything for those 55 and older.
If you really want to discuss a plan that changes Medicare as we know it or that guts funding for seniors NOW ON MEDICARE (to the tune of HALF A TRILLION dollars), that would be the disasterous health care bill foisted on us by Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Nice try Patrick...better delete this misinformed post Bernie. It's not factual unless he knows more than the CBO.
O'Hare will let any post that defends Charlies vote to end medicare stand.
Anons 5:12 & 10:25 -
Which part of my post do you think is wrong?
Is it the FACT that ObamaCare cut 1/2 Trillion from Medicare (and that affects those currently receiving Medicare) or the FACT that the Ryan plan only affects those currently NOT ON Medicare?
Merely repeating your leftist talking points isn't sufficient. Back your posts up with facts.
Patrick,
Fact is any cuts in Medicade are covered by efficiencies gained in the "reform" (actual reform, not gutting the program). The CBO report states that the reform bill cuts the deficit by 1.3 trillion over 20 years and is 95% paid for on top of that. The only real score Keeper in this game is the CBO yet the Right wingers refuse to agree with them, unless it suits their agenda.
I cannot believe any rational person would try to make our seniors (55 and over now or 10 years from now) shop for coverage. How many unscrupulous insurance companies exist now, can you imagine the expansion when the very people who worked so hard to make this country great are now put on the spot and told to take their voucher and get your coverage...see you later...it’s unconscionable. Even the great ones lose their edge later in life, and not everyone is as logical or able minded as you or I.
Seamus
thats 95% coverage
Seamus -
The CBO didn't have the info it needed when the estimate you cite was made. They used 10 years of tax revenue but only five or six of benefit payments. Even common sense would tell you that the math didn't add up.
The myth that ObamaCare cuts the deficit was abandoned by even the democrats over a year ago. Even the best of their liars (and they have many) couldn't continue to say it with a straight face.
You need to keep up.
Believe me Patrick I'm up to date, and the final CBO score showed that there was a net savings in the long run and felt the gains would be even greater (though not measurable) for the preventative care portion.
I'll never get you to change your mind, but the fact is healthcare reform has happened and it's the law of the land. This happened without republican votes (but with great republican input) including the moronic rallying cry for tort reform (Thank you charlie and gang) which accounts for less than 2% of total healthcare costs.
Check out the NY times article....I know it's no Morning call, you know because they report news instead of creating op-ed pieces...
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
Seamus
Seamus -
You are sticking to an abandoned DNC talking point that everyone - Democrats included - know is false. Good luck with that.
ObamaCare did strip half a trillion from Medicare and it will bust the budget - you can't change those facts.
As to the dated New York Slimes article, they lost any credibility they had a long time ago. If you and others think you're getting news there, God help us.
Dude I don't do talking points (though it speaks of your motivation). I tell it the way it is.
Yes the NYT and Wash posts are rags...lets get spoon fed by the morning call
Post a Comment