So long, farewell, adios, au revoir, auf wiedersehen, shalom.
So long, farewell, adios, au revoir, auf wiedersehen, shalom.

by James A. Bacon

Governor Bob McDonnell’s four-year term in office is drawing to a close. Sadly, it appears that the governor will be remembered mainly for his atrocious judgment in accepting more than $150,000 in gifts and loans from a Richmond businessman. While the Giftgate scandal deservedly dominated the headlines in his last year or more in office, it obscured the many accomplishments, mostly positive, of his administration.

I’ll let others re-hash Giftgate, if they are so inclined. I’ll focus instead on McDonnell’s legislative and administrative track record. With one very big exception — restructuring taxes to raise more money for transportation and pushing mega-projects of dubious merit — he did well. Perhaps his most unsung achievement, despite his reputation as a cultural conservative, was governing as a pragmatist. While there was no ducking the culture wars entirely during his tenure, he downplayed them.

McDonnell focused on pocketbook issues. He kept a tight lid on General Fund spending. He reduced unfunded liabilities $9 billion by restructuring state pensions from a defined-defined benefit program to a hybrid, defined-contribution program. He enacted sweeping reforms of the K-12 educational system. He did more to restore the civil rights of felons than any governor in state history, and his policies drove down the recidivism rate to the second lowest in the country. He invested heavily in environmental clean-up. Finally, he demanded significant reforms to the state Medicaid program before approving expansion of that program under the Affordable Care Act.

For whatever reason, most of these accomplishments garnered little attention. Virginia’s truncated press corps and shrunken editorial hole simply doesn’t allow for the kind of journalistic coverage the issues warrant.

I won’t dwell on the abominable transportation-funding package, which shredded any vestige of the user-pays principle in order to transfer wealth to drivers from non-drivers. And I’ll omit any commentary about the Charlottesville Bypass and the Bi-County Parkway, ill-conceived projects by any measure, and the U.S. 460 connector, a speculative economic development project coupled with Hampton Roads port expansion. Regular readers know that I am no fan of McDonnell’s transportation policy.

Upon entering office in 2010, McDonnell inherited a horrendous budgetary dilemma from his predecessor Tim Kaine. Rather than increase taxes, as Kaine had proposed, McDonnell reined in spending and resorted to a series of budgetary gimmicks — short-changing VRS contributions, accelerating tax collections on retailers — that he has mostly wound down. Since then, he has done a reasonable job of allocating resources within tight General Fund budgetary constraints. He had critics on the left who charge that he has not spent enough on education, mental health, Medicaid expansion, whatever. But those voices will never be satisfied. For the most part, he stood on the side of the taxpayers.

McDonnell has done a commendable job on the environmental front, investing $430 million in water-treatment and combined-sewer-overflow projects and reducing pollution runoff from agricultural and urban areas. Water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, still lamentably bad, turned the corner; oyster and blue crab populations rebounded. The Old Dominion posted a record number of clean air days in 2013. Under McDonnell, Virginia was the first state in the country to convert its vehicle fleet from gasoline to natural gas. And here’s a story you probably never heard: Virginia re-established its native elk herd population in Buchanan County; the goal is to reach 400 animals.

The governor’s most unheralded reforms came in education. Virginia increased the percentage of educational money going into the classroom from 61% to 64% of budgeted resources. The state doubled the number of K-12 STEM academies, enacted scholarship tax credits to facilitate school choice for poor families, established a transparent A-F grading system for schools and set up a failing-school takeover program. McDonnell also effectively eliminated teacher tenure and streamlined the grievance procedure.

The administration did a competent, if not inspired, job on the economic front. Despite sequestration and a slowdown of the federal-spending growth engine, Virginia added 193,000 net new jobs and unemployment fell 1.8 percentage points to 5.6% over his four years in office. Although McDonnell made job-creation a clear priority, he was satisfied to work largely within the antiquated institutional framework — agriculture, tourism, corporate recruitment, overseas trade missions — that has been in place for decades. He did push long-term reforms in workforce preparation, steering funding to programs in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) disciplines. And, using innovative public-private partnerships, he allocated billions of dollars to relieving transportation bottlenecks for Virginia’s ports in Hampton Roads. Less successfully, he tried to open up transportation access to the air cargo sector at Washington Dulles International Airport. McDonnell did very little to support smart growth; indeed, the administration back-pedaled on reforms implemented by the Kaine administration.

All in all, McDonnell will be remembered for his tweaks to existing priorities and institutions. One big reform — setting up the Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships — likely will lead to innovative financing arrangements for all manner of projects, from toll roads to air rights over rail lines and interstates, from privatizing operation of the state’s traffic management centers to leasing out public right-of-way to cell-phone towers. Otherwise, the record has been one of cautious, incremental reform. In the final analysis, McDonnell will leave the state somewhat better than he found it but he did little to increase its long-term competitiveness as a place to live and do business.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

45 responses to “The McDonnell Track Record: Incremental Improvement”

  1. McDonnell will leave a performance that lacked much on the ethics side, which sorely disappointed me. But all and all, I’d give his governing performance a good grade (B). Much of that I draw from the countless bitching editorials from American’s ever-sinking media company, the WaPo. Anytime, any official can get negative commentary from Freddie Hiatt and Little Lee Hockstader, the official must be doing something right.

    I didn’t like all the accounting tricks, but they are used by virtually every governor in every state. I did give McDonnell credit for slowing spending. His transportation tax increase plan will never be displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but did hitch revenues to things that will grow revenues over time. The gas tax is living on fumes.

    I think McDonnell was too close to developers, but both Kaine and Warner were too (especially the Tysons developers who received massive subsidies for ordinary people). The McDonnell economic claims were no more or less bogus than those made by Warner and Kaine.

    Education is a quagmire designed more to meet the needs of the producers, except for teachers, than the consumers and tax payers. The jury is still out on McDonnell’s reforms.

    I’d give McDonnell a solid B.

  2. DJRippert Avatar

    I give McDonnell an A-. He would have gotten an A+ if he would have walked away from the “gifts”.

    He solved transportation funding. Period. He wanted to use off shore oil well revenue. That didn’t work. He wanted to sell the Marxist ABC stores and let the free market distribute alcohol. That didn’t work. So, he bit the bullet and raised taxes. He did what Kaine couldn’t get done – he got more money for transportation.

    The fact that he pissed off The Tea Party is a huge positive in my mind. Too many Republican politicians live in fear of the Tea Party. They sign idiotic pledges regarding taxes. They do all kinds of dumb things. McDonnell saw a tax that, as TMT aptly put it, was “living on fumes”. He didn’t kick the can down the road like Allen, Warner, Kaine, etc. He stepped up and solved the problem.

    Bob McDonnell – Man of Action.

    1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
      Tysons Engineer

      Thank god he did solve transportation. Now I as a Northern Virginian who drives a hybrid less than 3k miles per year can pay the same amount of equivalent gas tax as a hummer driver who does 3 times as many miles.

      Thanks Governor!

      I also got a nice 6% sales tax for christmas, not to mention increases in real estate sales tax and a host of other things. All of that so that Fairfax could receive even less obligatory funding from the state, after all “we have our own money now” and most of that money having to go towards highway projects in order to “prove a reduction in traffic”.

      Yaaaaaaay to stupid policies which are specifically focused on spiting a certain region (one that votes for the opposite party).

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Oh TE … you’re funny.

        If you are waiting for fairness in Virginia you’ll be waiting a long long time. I began waiting for fairness back in 1959 when I was born here. Sometime in the Kaine Administration I gave up. I no longer wait for fairness, I just hope for competence.

        The two faced Republicans in Virginia are the first to scream about wealth redistribution when it is practiced by the Obama Administration. However, they are also the first to cry foul when the money from Northern Virginia stops flowing to their supporters outside the urban crescent.

        Trust me, TE – it doesn’t matter who is in power, the formula is the same: Take money from NoVa and use it to buy votes among your supporters outside of NoVa.

        Now, let’s talk gas tax. It was Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) who last tried to index the gas tax to inflation. This sensible approach was bitterly opposed by downstate members of the Clown Show. You see … their schools, jails, courts, etc should be funded with NoVa money flowing through Richmond but NoVa roads should be paid for by NoVa residents.

        Welcome to Virginia. Home of the rural welfare state.

        1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
          Tysons Engineer

          In all situations of course it is the role of the urban to subsidize the rural, but it is the extent to which it is done between NOVA and ROVA that is the problem, it is greater than that of NYC to NYS.

          I would love to see the days of getting back something in the 30 or 40 cents on the dollar range, which would equate to a windfall of hundreds of millions per year.

          Instead the obligations of the state for education/transportation continue to be shifted onto the backs of Northern Virginians, and all the while the same people doing the shifting demagogue the bond debt that those jurisdictions have taken on in order to do so.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Ahhh … well, I agree with you on the extent. The actual transfers are a well guarded secret but I believe your estimates are in the ball park.

            However, you will routinely hear some people on this blog speak of things like “location variable costs”. These people believe, for example, that people living in houses on large lots should pay the full location variable costs of the decision to live on a large lot.

            Perhaps so.

            However, I would contend that people who choose to live in areas that are not economically sustainable have made a lifestyle choice. They have decided that living where they presently live is preferable to moving perhaps 100 miles away within Virginia to where economic opportunities are better. Note: For European Americans, that relocation would be about 2,900 miles less than their ancestors came in wooden ships seeking better opportunities.

            Oddly, the same people who feel that those living on large lots should pay for their lifestyle choices can’t seem to see how people living in areas with limited economic opportunity should pay for their lifestyle choices, too.

            Now, I have a second home out in the countryside. I fully appreciate why people like to live in rural areas. I’d like to live there full-time. But I can’t get a good enough job to meet my obligations in the rural area where my second home is located. So, I pack up at 4:30 am on many Monday mornings and drive back to Fairfax County where I am able to earn an adequate living.

          2. but you WANT rural Va young people to take jobs in NoVa.. you want them TO BE ABLE to take jobs in NoVa.

            Otherwise – NoVa will continue to subsidize rural Va and just build higher and higher welfare and MedicAid rolls.

            when people come to NoVa from out of state – to take jobs – it’s only further encourages the “take from NoVa and give to RoVa” dynamic.

            this is sort of like the health care issue.

            people are so bound up with someone getting something right now that they cannot see what happens downstream.

            If you want a permanent serfdom in RoVa…then continue to argue that money for schools is hurting NoVa.

            are you willing to pay money now – to reduce the money outflow in the future?

            or are you not willing to do so and willing to accept the longer term consequences of a permanent entitlement-dependent underclass in RoVa?

            don’t listen to your heart. listen to your mind.

        2. no legislator in Va and especially no GOP legislator has an ounce of integrity when they talk about wealth transfer and they allow the MedicAid system for the poor to be used as a wealth preservation system for seniors.

          it’s a scandal. People who own half million dollar homes are getting bailed out by MedicAid and every state legislature in the COmmonwealth knows it and the still hammer the poor for being parasites.

      2. correct. What McDonnell did was convert a user-pays system on life-support into a general tax on everyone.. no matter how much you drive.

        McDonnell essentially threw the user-pays system under the bus – and for that he gets “credit”?

        I urge everyone to go look at our transportation revenues now at:

        http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/tracking_oct13.pdf

        where you’ll see that motor fuels taxes are now but 16%
        of total revenues and the general sales tax is at 22%.

        just 16% of our transportation revenues now come from the fuel tax.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I’d say McDonnell’s claim to fame is that he wasn’t as bad as he might have been. His highlight was restoring rights to rehabilitated felons. He passed a very flawed transportation plan which could have been achieved by raising the gas tax.

    The rest is bad. His denial of Medicaid is harmful and stupid.

    His energy plan went nowhere. He was pushing offshore drilling when there’s no evidence of significant deposits and the U.S. is becoming a net exporter of fossil fuel anyway so the Virginia offshore product — if it is exists — isn’t needed. He always pushed fossil fuel and nukes at the expense of renewables — just go to his “Energy Capital of the East Coast” conferences. He did nothing to make coal viable environmentally. He stacked his nuclear advisory boards with lobbyists and industrialists who don’t have to answer to the FOIA. And, you get a special fine for buying a hybrid car. These shortcomings far outweigh getting some more tardy money for Bay cleanup and restoring elk herds in the mountains. (Talk about lame examples!). He excluded the green community at every opportunity.

    I never could understand why privatizing ABC stores was considered so important. Prices can be bad, but at least you don’t have garish signs blazing “Larry’s Liquors” on every street corner.

    He has been an enemy of public school teachers straining to do a good job with small pay. He cut state funding for education of all types.

    He got some new jobs but didn’t outshine his Democratic predecessors in this regard.

    He’s way late to get on the bandwagon towards fixing mental health — he actually proposed cuts and then races to the head of the current parade.

    He was constantly upstaged by Ken Cuccinelli on all fronts and never could figure out how to outmaneuver him. His promises to Bill Bolling were worthless.

    Defined-defined to hybrid defined? English, please! He did play calendar games with the budget and with VRS.

    I’d give him a C- in policy and an F for his entire term. No matter how supporters want to push the issue away, McDonnell is the most ethically-suspect governor in recent Virginia history. That, unfortunately for the citizens of this state, will be his legacy.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      “He passed a very flawed transportation plan which could have been achieved by raising the gas tax.”

      The gas tax has been frozen since 1986. The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond wasn’t going to raise the gas tax. Not for Warner, not for Kaine, not for McDonnell.

      The permanently frozen gas tax was killing the fastest growing areas in the state. The choice came down to very selective sky high tolls or a transportation funding plan that didn’t include the straight forward approach of raising the gas tax.

      Wilder failed.
      Allen failed.
      Gilmore failed.
      Warner failed.
      Kaine failed.

      McDonnell succeeded.

      Which is one big reason that Bob McDonnell still enjoys a 62% favorable rating.

      By the way … what is Obama’s favorable rating right now?

      1. re: ” By the way … what is Obama’s favorable rating right now?”

        well.. you’re totally correct.

        In Virginia, you can lie your ass off and still get a 62% rating…

        In the USA .. if you lie your ass off… you’re toast.

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Another couple of things to note because my bullshit meter went off.

    Bacon says that the shortage of journalism funding means that the press hasn’t kissed butt and lauded McDonnell’s many accomplishments.

    Huh? A well-funded, vigorous media is supposed to act as a free pR department for a governor? Where are we? Putin’s Russia?

    But the bullshit meter really went off with this gem of Baconese:

    “The Old Dominion posted a record number of clean air days in 2013.”

    What the F#%K? did McDonnell have to do with that? It could very well be that the reason the air is cleaner is that utilities are switching from dirty coal to cleaner natural gas for market-based pricing reasons. It has NOTHING to do with McDonnell who has had ABSOLUTELY initiatives on improving air quality. McDonnell has always fought for coal.

    Who got the air cleaner? Obama, that’s who. And McDonnell and his fellow GOPers fought him every step of the way on new and better air regs.

    To credit McDonnell for cleaner air in the state is simply preposterous.

    Gosh Jim, if you are going to flak for McDonnell at least try to do a reasonable job.

    1. I’ll concede the point on clean air. McDonnell policies didn’t have much to do with the record number of clean air days in 2013.

      But to characterize me as a “flak” for McDonnell is beyond ludicrous, given my consistent criticism of many of his policies, . It’s typical of your argument by ad hominem attack.

      Maybe I should approach your posts this way, “Gosh, Peter, if you’re going to be a rabies-infected attack dog, at least try to do a reasonable job.”

  5. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    Darn I just hate agreeing with Peter…..but we can’t give McDonnell credit for clean air (or Obama either) and the media’s job is to kick ass and take names, not tout a politician of any party.

    Any Governor makes his (or someday her) mark with the scores of direct appointees who actually run the railroad, or don’t. The best compliment to Bob is that McAuliffe seems to be keeping so many of them (Brown, Hazel, Haymore, Jackson) and we’ll see with the agency heads, but my prediction is not that much turnover there, either. I too would give McDonnell an A – if he had not sullied it all by accepting the outrageously obvious bribes from Williams. Crime or not he is guilty of leaving the impression his attention could be focused by gifts, loans and favors.

  6. I took a typing course one time. You got graded on two things.

    1. – how many words per minute you could type

    2. – how many errors you made.

    each error cost you a letter grade.

    I was the fastest typist in the class and I got an F.

    do you know why?

    it’s the same reason McDonnell gets an F.

    you lose all your other credit when you fail on the thing he failed on.

    he will forever be remembered – not for his accomplishments but for his extremely poor judgement.

    there is no way to scale that grade.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      If he is indicted, it will be his legacy.

      If he is not indicted, it will be forgotten.

  7. DJRippert Avatar

    This whole thread further exposes the utterly broken system of governance in Virginia. In 49 other states the governor can run for a second consecutive term. From progressive Massachusetts to conservative Texas every other state in the union knows that effective change takes time. Only Virginia clings to the quaint notion that 140 “citizen legislators” will put aside their own personal agendas and do what’s right for the Commonwealth without the need for a strong executive.

    And please … save the usual jibberish about Harry Byrd. A two consecutive term governor would hardly empower the second coming of the Byrd machine. Rather, it would bring Virginia into the modern era.

    1. Until 1996, the Governor of North Carolina did not have the constitutional authority to veto legislation. A constitutional amendment was approved by voters to change the constitution.

      If Virginia wants to change the constitution to allow consecutive terms by a governor, it cannot include a sitting governor, or it cannot expect any traction in the GA.

    2. are you saying that McDonnell …at this point would be poised for his second term?

      😉

      re: ” unindicted and all is forgotten”

      maybe…

      1. Larry, I’m just noting Virginia is not alone in its weak governor model.

        1. I’m guess I’m totally confused…

          here’s the evidence:

          1. – the first “weak” Gov to pass a gas tax in decades

          2. – the first “weak” Gov who pushes the limits of “gifting”

          3. – a “weak” gov who was strong enough to address pensions shortfalls

          4. – a gov who follows two other Gov Warner/Kaine who were said to have done far more to Va than they should have..

          this is a little tongue-in-cheek… as I’m not sure I’ve seen any recent gov leave office – lamenting that did not get done because there was no opportunity for a second term except for perhaps Gilmore which had there been a second term.. and he was successful.. would maybe have not been good for Virginia. I would have also feared for the likes of Allen.. perhaps… and I’m sure you would have feared for Warner/Kaine!

          Also.. doesn’t the Va gov have essentially a line-item Veto – that strikes me as a very powerful tool not available to all two-term gov.

          how am I doing on making this argument? good. bad. lousy. mediocre?

          1. Larry, the concept of weak versus strong governor relates to the powers of the office versus the legislature and constitutional restrictions. A two-year gubernatorial term, ala New Hampshire, makes a weaker governor. A limit against reelection makes for a weaker governor. A lack of veto authority, ala pre 1996 North Carolina, makes for a weaker governor. The ability of the GA to write its own redistricting plans weakens a Virginia governor.

            I think the inability of a Virginia governor to run for reelection makes the office a relatively weak one. A recalcitrant GA can always wait him out. The ability to rewrite legislation subject to GA approval strengthens the governor’s hand somewhat. But he is still a lame duck once he takes the oath of office.

            Within these systems, individuals can bring skills and experience (or lack thereof) and take advantage of the times (or be taken advantage thereof) and be a strong or weak governor personally. I’m just wearing my old political science hat and speaking institutionally.

            Personally, I say Jim Gilmore, Mark Warner and Bob McDonnell were personally strong governors, as they got much of their programs through the General Assembly. George Allen and Tim Kaine less so. But, institutionally, all five served in a weak governor state.

  8. DJ misses the more germane point which is…

    why cannot the citizens of Virginia bring the two-term idea to a referenda for Virginia citizens to vote on?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      I am not sure there is a referendum process in Virginia. It would have to become a campaign issue for the General Assembly.

      1. there’s not and that’s the point. The “Virginia Way” directs citizens how Virginia will be governed including the single term – and in Virginia, unlike many other states, there is no real way for citizens to assert their desires.

        there is no right of citizens initiating referenda in Va.

        If there were, I suspect citizens would mount referenda on several issues – and the General Assembly would then be forced to address them or stand aside and let citizens make legislation.

        But as far as I know – no existing sitting or past Governor of Virginia nor any elected legislators in the GA have championed this issue which makes me wonder why… because I probably agree with those who would like to see 2 terms though it’s no panacea … just look at how gridlocked a Chief of State can be at the national level – to such an extent that there is virtually nothing he can accomplish in the second term as the other side is just going to wait him out.

        that same thing could happen in a divided Virginia for a one or two term Governor is the chemistry between the Gov and the GA is toxic.

  9. The one thing that McDonnell could have done was to put some level of transparency into what NoVa generates in taxes and what they get back in taxes for roads and schools.

    that’s would have been a benefit not only to NoVa but to people in rural Va who think they are getting screwed …. instead McDonnell is cutting the cost-of-living supplement to NoVa school personnel – which may well create more commuters from afar.

    I actually agree with DJ on the idea of living where you must to make a living verses living where you’d like to live but no job.

    the folks who double-dip and want both – are those that commute 100 miles a day… and those folks are net recipients of revenue transfers as the state tries to spend money to support their commutes. Those folks want their NoVa salaries but their suburban/rural cost of living.

    the thing that will actually HELP NoVa in this regard is HOT Lane tolls.

    it will encourage more carpooling and at the same time put a fair price on driving SOLO – for both those who want to drive “free” in the untolled lanes and for those who are willing to pay to get a more reliable/less congested trip.

    Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the rush hour congestion in NoVa is commuters trying to get to/from their exurban homes.

  10. I’m having trouble concurring with the “incremental improvement” characterization.

    I see basically one major accomplishment – the transportation tax and on one hand – one has to give honest credit to ANY person who was successful in convincing a general assembly, especially a Virginia General Assembly to approve not only a tax increase but an increase that is historic in terms of size.

    that is something no Democratic Gov would ever have a snowball chance of hell in doing… but a GOP gov only slightly less snowbally in hell…

    so he did some kind of magic and in cases like this – what we don’t know is probably not a plus.

    but what else?

    truly?

    what else did he “incrementally” make progress on?

    did he add to and/or modify the current GA approach to catching up on the pensions?

    it looks to me that he was the beneficiary of an improving economy that put more shekels in the revenue stream and so he did allocate them like any Dem Gov like Kaine or Warner might have done – to the total dismay of the GOP stalwarts who wanted it returned to taxpayers, not spent on more govt.

    so at the end – we end, in my view, not as a triumph of incremental success but instead a whimper… with his own GOP labeling him as YARINO – yet another RINO and the Dem saying: ” well what do you expect from a GOP gov in bed with special interests.

    Unlike others.. years from now when people think about Gilmore, Allen, Kaine, Warner and McDonnell.. I do not think McDonnell is going to be viewed as better than the others.. by a long shot.

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Sorry Jim, I withdraw my flak comment. Just trying to drive home a point.

  12. re:
    ” Larry, the concept of weak versus strong governor relates to the powers of the office versus the legislature and constitutional restrictions. A two-year gubernatorial term, ala New Hampshire, makes a weaker governor. A limit against reelection makes for a weaker governor. A lack of veto authority, ala pre 1996 North Carolina, makes for a weaker governor. The ability of the GA to write its own redistricting plans weakens a Virginia governor.”

    doesn’t the Va Gov have line item veto authority? Can he also not veto the redistricting?

    “I think the inability of a Virginia governor to run for reelection makes the office a relatively weak one. A recalcitrant GA can always wait him out. The ability to rewrite legislation subject to GA approval strengthens the governor’s hand somewhat. But he is still a lame duck once he takes the oath of office.”

    well.. that can happen even in two terms… witness Obama…

    “Within these systems, individuals can bring skills and experience (or lack thereof) and take advantage of the times (or be taken advantage thereof) and be a strong or weak governor personally. I’m just wearing my old political science hat and speaking institutionally.”

    I think that any gov is dependent on the legislature to get stuff through.

    and if you don’t think that is true.. look at Obama and his chance of getting legislation through…. as a Gov or a POTUS – you have to have more than just “power”.. you have to be able to use power to influence enough of the legislature to get them to not only support your legislation but to convince others to.

    otherwise you’re dead in the water as Obama is.

    “Personally, I say Jim Gilmore, Mark Warner and Bob McDonnell were personally strong governors, as they got much of their programs through the General Assembly. George Allen and Tim Kaine less so. But, institutionally, all five served in a weak governor state.”

    the Founding Fathers had some genius when they thought about bi-cameral legislators IMHO. One would be more directly elected by the people and the other more representative … not having to run every two years and able to take positions that perhaps are not popular.. in the short term.

    but even then – for any POTUS or any Gov -you have to convince both houses of the bicameral to move legislation.

    when you think about the Virginia GA and it’s stance on taxes – and how they dealt with Kaine and Warner on tax increases and increased spending and you look at McDonnell.. to me , it’s downright breathtaking.

    No Democratic Gov of Virginia every had a snowball chance of increasing transportation taxes much less in the diverse way they were done by McDonnell – and if Kaine/Warner had even run on increasing transportation taxes, they would have ended up like Creigh Deeds.

    Am I not speaking the truth here?

    to what do you attribute McDonnells ability to first, beat Deeds by saying Deeds would increase gas taxes then later convince BOTH houses of the Va GA to do something they would have never ever done for a Dem gov?

    1. Of course, the GA can refuse to pass legislation proposed by the governor. Witness George Allen’s proposal to cut the individual income tax. The American system of government is based on checks and balances. Each state has a slightly different system. And the notion of two houses in a legislature, with differing terms and constituents, is one of those checks. Even when control is in one party, two houses often work in opposition to each other. I’ve lived in Nebraska, with its Unicameral legislature. I don’t recommend it. It works in Nebraska only because the state is largely rural and conservative.

      Mark Warner triumphed on his overall goals of raising taxes, reforming their application and increasing spending. He did this even after campaigning on campaign of no tax increases. I think part of his success came because he actually cut spending and reduced the state’s payroll. Once the tax increases took effect, he took his foot off the brake and began adding employees. I think Warner had some credibility with many legislators and the public because he at least attempted to walk the talk – I did cut, but we still need more revenue. Warner’s success also hardened a lot of conservative Republicans into saying “never again.” Especially when state revenues absent the tax increases were sufficient to cover the budget. Warner’s partisanship was not overt. He left himself some room to work with the GOP.

      Tim Kaine misread the tea leaves. He thought he could ride Warner’s momentum and hike spending and taxes too. Kaine failed because: 1) Warner’s fiscal projections were overly pessimistic; 2) the feeling among many GA Republicans that Warner played them (never again); and 3) when compared to Warner, Kaine was overtly partisan. Kaine’s ego got in his way and set him on the road to mediocrity as a governor overall.

      McDonnell functioned much like Warner. McDonnell cut transportation as much as possible and still could not free enough money to meet even maintenance. He also tried many approaches that did not involve tax increases (selling the liquor stores, imposing high royalties on offshore drilling). Yet, the need remained. He was able to cobble together a package of tax increases to fund transportation. And he, like Warner, was not overtly partisan. And yes, only Nixon could go to China. Deeds would not have been able to increase taxes for transportation.

      We will need to see what McAuliffe does. He comes with a record of overt partisanship (not that there are no GOP partisans). If he carries that into his term of office, I think he will fail. He is probably politically savvy enough to work across party lines. He also has the added baggage of the Great Democratic Lie – if like what you have, you can keep your (health insurance, doctor, etc.). I think if he pushes for higher taxes in 2014, he will fail. But we will need to see what McAuliffe does beginning the middle of next month.

  13. re:

    ” Mark Warner triumphed on his overall goals of raising taxes, reforming their application and increasing spending. He did this even after campaigning on campaign of no tax increases.”

    how different is that from McDonnell telling people that Deeds and the Dems would raise gas taxes and he would not?

    ” I think part of his success came because he actually cut spending and reduced the state’s payroll. Once the tax increases took effect, he took his foot off the brake and began adding employees. I think Warner had some credibility with many legislators and the public because he at least attempted to walk the talk – I did cut, but we still need more revenue. Warner’s success also hardened a lot of conservative Republicans into saying “never again.” Especially when state revenues absent the tax increases were sufficient to cover the budget. Warner’s partisanship was not overt. He left himself some room to work with the GOP.”

    that narrative seems to assume that McDonnell did not increase taxes and spend more (when revenues increased) – instead of cutting spending and refunding money to citizens when revenues increased.

    let’s do apples to apples .. okay?

    “Tim Kaine misread the tea leaves. He thought he could ride Warner’s momentum and hike spending and taxes too. Kaine failed because: 1) Warner’s fiscal projections were overly pessimistic; 2) the feeling among many GA Republicans that Warner played them (never again); and 3) when compared to Warner, Kaine was overtly partisan. Kaine’s ego got in his way and set him on the road to mediocrity as a governor overall.”

    I always felt that Kaine was a wimp and not as forceful as Warner and was fine if his proposals did not go forward. He actually had to be talked into running for Senate.

    “McDonnell functioned much like Warner. McDonnell cut transportation as much as possible and still could not free enough money to meet even maintenance. ”

    well actually he opened up the rest stops that Kaine closed to “save money”
    that added costs….

    “He also tried many approaches that did not involve tax increases (selling the liquor stores, imposing high royalties on offshore drilling). ”

    if the state runs the liquor stores and gets the profits from them – and can spend those profits for things – then why sell the stores ? what would that have accomplished in terms of additional revenues?

    and when we do the same thing for toll roads – the reaction from those who liked the idea for liquor stores is not the same – why?

    “Yet, the need remained. He was able to cobble together a package of tax increases to fund transportation. And he, like Warner, was not overtly partisan. And yes, only Nixon could go to China. Deeds would not have been able to increase taxes for transportation.”

    so we condemn the Dems for raising taxes or trying and failing to raise taxes and we congratulate people who run as fiscal conservatives who will not raise taxes who then …. raise taxes?

    this sounds like we might be judging Warner/Kaine/McDonnell by different standards.

    “We will need to see what McAuliffe does. He comes with a record of overt partisanship (not that there are no GOP partisans). ”

    Do you say that even as he has carried over several people? How many did McDonnell carry over?

    “If he carries that into his term of office, I think he will fail. He is probably politically savvy enough to work across party lines. He also has the added baggage of the Great Democratic Lie – if like what you have, you can keep your (health insurance, doctor, etc.). I think if he pushes for higher taxes in 2014, he will fail. But we will need to see what McAuliffe does beginning the middle of next month.”

    that IS partisan guy… equating any/all Dems , especially Govs with the POTUS …geeze.. guy

  14. @TMT – you’re already to convict McAuliffe of being a lying partisan before he even takes office?

    geeze guy.

    where is your sense of fairness here?

  15. No Larry, I don’t know what McAuliffe will do and am waiting to see. I laid out some of the possibilities. McAuliffe’s background is business, wheeler-dealing, and fund raising for the Democratic Party. One might expect he would be openly partisan, or he might leave that behind him and simply try working with as many people as he can. I don’t know what he will do. If I did, you’d be paying to read my comments.

    All Democrats will be hit with flak from Obama’s lie about the ACA and the law’s forcing middle class people to subsidize the expansion of health insurance. You might characterize it otherwise, but this will be a major issue in 2014 – from state legislatures to the races for Congress and governors. I don’t suspect McAuliffe will be immune from these attacks. Of course, if he moves to the middle (as he suggested he will), the attacks may well have no traction. On the other hand, if he again threatens to veto any budget without a Medicaid expansion, I think he will take some hits. And those hits may be quite damaging if he is viewed as pushing for Medicaid expansion while middle class people are seeing their policies cancelled, choice of doctors limited, deductibles raised, etc. And while all this is happening to you, Governor McAuliffe wants to expand welfare.

    I can only speculate what he will do. I, like everyone else in the state, will wait to see.

    1. No Larry, I don’t know what McAuliffe will do and am waiting to see. I laid out some of the possibilities. McAuliffe’s background is business, wheeler-dealing, and fund raising for the Democratic Party. One might expect he would be openly partisan, or he might leave that behind him and simply try working with as many people as he can. I don’t know what he will do. If I did, you’d be paying to read my comments.

      “We will need to see what McAuliffe does. He comes with a record of overt partisanship (not that there are no GOP partisans). If he carries that into his term of office, I think he will fail. He is probably politically savvy enough to work across party lines. He also has the added baggage of the Great Democratic Lie ”

      that’s an exact quote.

      can you tell show me his “overt partisan record”? next…. are you saying that all Democrats “lie” because one Democrat did? Do you consider WMD, or “deficits don’t matter” or “I did not take gifts”, to be great GOP lies?

      there ARE… CLEARLY.. partisan guy.

      “All Democrats will be hit with flak from Obama’s lie about the ACA and the law’s forcing middle class people to subsidize the expansion of health insurance. You might characterize it otherwise, but this will be a major issue in 2014 – from state legislatures to the races for Congress and governors.”

      no. this is the great hoped for issue for partisans.. like Benghazi…

      this is funny.. you think McDonnells lies will be forgotten and he’ll get credit for his accomplishments but not a Dem…

      ” I don’t suspect McAuliffe will be immune from these attacks.”

      McAuliffe is going to be accused of lying because the POTUS did? where in the world do you get that beyond partisan wishful thinking about someone who has yet to take office?

      ” Of course, if he moves to the middle (as he suggested he will), the attacks may well have no traction. ”

      TMT – you can still be a good Gov, have accomplishments – and still be a loyal Dem or GOP governing with Dem/GOP principles… “moving to the middle” talk from GOP voters who in all likelihood voted for Ken Cuccinelli is … well.. it’s pretty one-sided… partisan… The “dems” have to move to the middle but not the wack jobs?

      “On the other hand, if he again threatens to veto any budget without a Medicaid expansion, I think he will take some hits. ”

      the simple reality is – OUR MedicAid budget would be REDUCED and our SURPLUS expanded if we did as Gov of other states – both Dem and GOP have stated.

      “And those hits may be quite damaging if he is viewed as pushing for Medicaid expansion while middle class people are seeing their policies cancelled, choice of doctors limited, deductibles raised, etc. And while all this is happening to you, Governor McAuliffe wants to expand welfare.”

      MedicAid expansion has nothing to do with policies being cancelled as a result of the ACA requirement for minimum standard policies for those who have insurance and not MedicAid.

      The battle over the ACA is over. this time next year you guys are going to look like you were talking about Benghazi and other partisan issues.

      We talked about this a long time here and it’s been pointed out – and you agreed – that some people in our society get tax breaks and subsidizes for health care and others do not – and the reasons why are arbitrary. The people who want to keep that system – are going to lose.

      If we were talking about subsidized flood or crop insurance in the same context – the claim would be that something is being “taken away” from there with the implication being that they deserved it to start with… like people who have employer-provided tax-free health insurance deserve it or people who get MediCare for 100.00 a month deserve it but people who don’t have MedicAid or other insurance don’t deserve it.

      that’s ultimately a losing argument for while some people are truly selfish and don’t give a damn about others or the fairness in our laws and policies – others do.

      and when you equate health insurance for people who don’t have it to be “welfare” and don’t similarly classify the subsidies and tax preferences that others get for health care – you’re wrong. Why if MedicAid is welfare MediCare is not or even employer-provided is not? what would happen to employer-provided health insurance if we treated it as taxable income? Isn’t it right now – a government “welfare”, i.e. a benefit from the govt that people did not pay for, (using your definition)?

      I can only speculate what he will do. I, like everyone else in the state, will wait to see.

      I see an issue where there are fundamental inequities – much like there were with same-sex marriage that had tax and benefit penalties – that many people thought were wrong – even people who did not care for homosexual behavior.. and guess what happened?

      the same thing that happened in the sixties with civil rights… for blacks.

      this is a civil rights issue.. and after all is said and done – we’re going to continue to provide health care to everyone – like we do right now – but we’re going to reform the system so that people don’t have to go to ERs to get care at 3 times what it would have cost had they gotten regular care.

      you will lose – trying to support the status quo, arguing against ObamaCare and putting nothing serious on the table as a competitive alternative.

      basically you support a system where the rest of us pay for people to get care at the ERs …. but you characterize it as essentially “free” because the argument is that by providing them with MedicAid – we are “taking away” from others.. forcing them to pay – as if they are not paying right now.

      this time next year – that position is likely to be just another artifact of being on the wrong side of history as many were on the civil rights and same-sex marriage issue… either you support change or you support the status quo. when you don’t support meaningful change and just oppose without an alternative – that’s de facto support of the status quo.

      it’s not about “the Lie” (that I do agree was/is), – that’s a distraction to the fundamental issue of the worst health care system in the OECD world … where some people get de-facto Cadillac care from their employer and others die long, expensive deaths, of easily treatable diseases like diabetes but not before the rest of us pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in a vain attempt to try to keep them alive after we refused to help them when treatment could have been effective.

      to ignore this issue is fundamentally wrong – morally, fiscally and politically.

      ObamaCare has some major warts. They can be fixed. The people who are opposed to it AND opposed to fixing it totally lack any commitment to do anything other
      than defend the status quo – giving credits and subsidies to some while being willing to stand by and watch those without them – be harmed.

      you cannot win like that. Even some of the folks who don’t like ObamaCare are not going to go back to the previous system. the opponents are going to be dragged kicking and screaming to reform.

      1. Obama is down to a 39% approval rating, mainly because of Obamacare’s failures and lies. Just as he intended, millions of people are receiving cancelation notices from their insurance companies. Pick up the phone and tell them that this is just a part of the fix. And that it’s “morally, fiscally and politically wrong” if there is no extension of health care benefits. The middle class is NOT willing to pay more and receive less to expand insurance coverage. Maybe we can get Michelle Obama to give them a lecture. She can tell them that they had been receiving an unfair tax break. And then she can lecture people in their 70s and tell them LBJ lied, they didn’t earn their Medicare. Obama can tell them they need to suck it up, pay more, and accept less in order to give affordable coverage to someone else.

        And if Obamacare and Medicaid expansion is really gone to cut costs (unlike Massachusetts, where health care spending is up significantly), mandate reductions in health care premiums and cut state funding for indigent health care. But that won’t happen, Obama’s policies will just increase spending on health care. Obama holds the middle class in contempt. They cling to their religion and guns.

        1. ” Obama is down to a 39% approval rating, mainly because of Obamacare’s failures and lies. ”

          nope. he dropped after the lie… not the “failure” as the country is split on what to do (or not) about health care.

          “Just as he intended, millions of people are receiving cancelation notices from their insurance companies. Pick up the phone and tell them that this is just a part of the fix. And that it’s “morally, fiscally and politically wrong” if there is no extension of health care benefits.

          calling them “cancellation notices” is a lie also as everyone’s insurance goes year to year and they”cancel” then renew – often with different terms. It happens every year to virtually everyone he has insurance.

          when your wife gets her annual paperwork – does it often show changes and a start date for the new terms?

          ” The middle class is NOT willing to pay more and receive less to expand insurance coverage. ”

          do you mean if we cut their flood insurance subsides they’re not willing to pay more? How about if we cut their tax-free status for insurance? how about if we increase taxes on them to pay for people not covered by MedicAid that go to the ER? how about if the premium on your current health insurance went up every year prior to ObamaCare – not willing to pay that?

          “Maybe we can get Michelle Obama to give them a lecture. She can tell them that they had been receiving an unfair tax break. And then she can lecture people in their 70s and tell them LBJ lied, they didn’t earn their Medicare. Obama can tell them they need to suck it up, pay more, and accept less in order to give affordable coverage to someone else.”

          and what you just said takes away all pretense of you not being partisan on this.

          “And if Obamacare and Medicaid expansion is really gone to cut costs (unlike Massachusetts, where health care spending is up significantly), mandate reductions in health care premiums and cut state funding for indigent health care. But that won’t happen,

          do you realize that under ObamaCare that uncompensated care reimbursements to hospitals is being cut substantially and these reimbursements were paid for by taxpayers?

          do you realize that one reason insurance premiums have DOUBLED in ten years BEFORE ObamaCare was because hospitals were charging the insured more so they could pay for the uncompensated care?

          ” Obama’s policies will just increase spending on health care. Obama holds the middle class in contempt. They cling to their religion and guns.””

          right. and you are willfully ignoring facts about health care costs that were there long before ObamaCare so you can sustain your partisan views reflected in the above comments… would you LIKE ME to list out a ton of DUMBASS statements made by Bush and other GOP POTUS during their terms?

          why do you focus on these things ONLY for Dems? both sides make dumb statements – it’s part of politics. why do you only focus on one side?

          1. re: ” and tell them LBJ lied, they didn’t earn their Medicare.”

            people DID earn their Medicare Part A. they paid into it at the same time they paid into SS.

            but people DID NOT earn Medicare Part B. they paid not a penny into it.

            it’s a heavily subsidized program supported by taxpayers where people who earn 85K in retirement income are provided with full coverage, no lifetime limit health care for 100.00 a month courtesy of younger taxpayers.

            If we want to talk about “taking away” from people.. consider who the “takers” are with Medicare Part B and who the money is being “taken away from”.

            If we cut the subsidy for Medicare Part B for people who make 85K and up in retirement income, that subsidy could provide equivalent health insurance to people who would benefit from the MedicAid expansion.

            But what I’m hearing is that when we give seniors with 85K in retirement income a $400 a month subsidy that it cannot be reduced because we’d be taking away something they “earned”.

            same deal with people who own 1/2 million dollar houses and use MedicAid to pay for their nursing home care instead of getting the money out of their house to pay for it.

            what I’d ask is – have we become a nation – not of low-income “parasites” but a nation of middle income “parasites” who would watch those less fortunate be sick, injured or die rather than share an equivalent resource with them?

            these are the folks who are opposed to ObamaCare? the “haves” who are not about to share with the “have nots”?

            that says terrible things about us as people in my view.

            I’m a fiscal conservative. I’m opposed to subsidies. I’m not advocating that we blow up our deficit/debt with more subsidies.

            I’m saying that we lavish subsidies on some of us and deny them to others not as fortunate and we oppose any effort to make our system more fair – and more fiscally responsible.

          2. Larry, do you really think Middle America is ready to pay more for their health care insurance, accept higher deductibles, give up their family doctor to expand health care? Can they be shamed into supporting Obamacare? Even Obama has not tried to do this.

            And neither party is willing to step on the toes of those with mega-wealth. What’s Obama done about this? What’s Mark Warner or Tim Kaine done about this? The same thing the GOP has done – absolutely nothing. But at least, the GOP is not coming at me. Obama is. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-27/moguls-rent-south-dakota-addresses-to-dodge-taxes-forever.html

            I’m focused on one side because Obama told the biggest lie in the history of the presidency, something that’s wallpapered with fib after fib since GW was president. Obama and the Democratic leadership knew the Democratic Congress would not approve the ACA in the face of overwhelming opposition from the middle class. Had the middle class been told it must pay more (higher premiums, new taxes and fees); switch to a plan that was designed to garner subsidies for the older and sicker among us – plans that might well have higher deductibles, fewer doctors — there would have been overwhelming opposition from the middle class. Remember the insurance company commercials during the Clinton administration?

            So Obama and others, including Mark Warner, lied. They told the very people who would be forced to pay the subsidies necessary to provide coverage to the older and sicker people without coverage that they would be left alone -they could keep what they had, which, by definition, did not generate sufficient revenue to provide the subsidies needed to expand coverage. But Obama and the Ds were generous — generous with other people’s money, health care and lives.

            I understand the argument about uncompensated care. Clearly, there is some and part of it is passed along to premium holders and taxpayers. Quantify them; post them as a surcharge on bills (medical, insurance premiums; and tax bills); then come up with a plan to reduce these expenses to zero and require all the savings to be passed along to consumers, insured and taxpayer. If I saw this, I might not be so opposed to the ACA.

  16. I’d be the first one to admit that ObamaCare is a mess. But others would be not honest to admit that our current health care system is, itself a mess and that virtually anything we do – GOP or DEM in an attempt to reform it – is going to cause disruption…

    this is why the GOP is AWOL on the issue. They basically are cowards to step up and propose a real legislative alternative and spend their time as individuals talking about “ideas” … while they oppose and while they have done nothing to address the issue -before ObamaCare, not now, and more than likely not in upcoming candidacies.

    they are hoping in the upcoming elections that all they have to do to win is
    to oppose ObamaCare and promise to repeal it if elected – and little more as there is no GOP alternative that they’d promise to support.

    you cannot win on this issue this way. You might even succeed in crippling ObamaCare but in the end – we still have health care costs that are skyrocketing and while the GOP blathers on about 1/7th of the economy – they totally ignore the fact that it IS 1/7 of the economy IN THIS COUNTRY and no other country.

    so you can’t reform 1/7 of the economy and the idea that it is 1/7th of the economy when ever other country it’s about 5% of their economies.

    our workers have not got a raise in a decade… because every penny of their increased productivity – has gone to pay for increased health insurance premiums and yet the narrative is that ” you can’t take things away from people” – but yes.. you can stand off to the side and watch a dysfunctional and wasteful system take things away from people – like their compensation for better productivity.

    it’s just downright nutty when many agree our system is a massive cluster f___ but they oppose trying to fix it.

    and we say that our politicians are feckless. But the truth is, they are feckless… because we are.

  17. ” Larry, do you really think Middle America is ready to pay more for their health care insurance, accept higher deductibles, give up their family doctor to expand health care? Can they be shamed into supporting Obamacare? Even Obama has not tried to do this.”

    I think they already do and the propaganda attempts to convince them otherwise. We already pay. The issue is can we do it more cost-effectively.
    I don’t think “shame” is the correct term… I think we’re dealing with willful ignorance and ideology.

    “And neither party is willing to step on the toes of those with mega-wealth. What’s Obama done about this? What’s Mark Warner or Tim Kaine done about this? The same thing the GOP has done – absolutely nothing. But at least, the GOP is not coming at me. Obama is. ”

    When the Republicans passed Medicare Part D did they worry about making the middle class pay for it or stepping on the wealthy toes?

    Warner and Kaine HAVE principally supported far more than the GOP has on the issue – you just don’t like what they supported and want to talk about that rather than what the GOP has not supported, right?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-27/moguls-rent-south-dakota-addresses-to-dodge-taxes-forever.html

    TMT – I thought you were talking about the middle class.. but now the wealthy?

    “I’m focused on one side because Obama told the biggest lie in the history of the presidency, something that’s wallpapered with fib after fib since GW was president.”

    5000 young people lost their lives over Bush’s lie. right? and another 50,000 came home sliced and diced and needing lifetime entitlements to care for them, right?
    is there a double standard on Bush vs Obama “lies”? yup.

    “Obama and the Democratic leadership knew the Democratic Congress would not approve the ACA in the face of overwhelming opposition from the middle class. Had the middle class been told it must pay more (higher premiums, new taxes and fees); switch to a plan that was designed to garner subsidies for the older and sicker among us – plans that might well have higher deductibles, fewer doctors — there would have been overwhelming opposition from the middle class. Remember the insurance company commercials during the Clinton administration?”

    yup. but not everyone is paying higher premiums. Many are paying lower premiums and many more have got insurance that they never could get before.

    are you looking at only one side here? This time next year how many people are going to have insurance that the GOP is going to promise to take away?

    “So Obama and others, including Mark Warner, lied. They told the very people who would be forced to pay the subsidies necessary to provide coverage to the older and sicker people without coverage that they would be left alone -they could keep what they had, which, by definition, did not generate sufficient revenue to provide the subsidies needed to expand coverage. But Obama and the Ds were generous — generous with other people’s money, health care and lives.”

    No more than Bush did and we ended up with a huge military entitlement cost for turning our young into cannon fodder – for a lie.

    “I understand the argument about uncompensated care. Clearly, there is some and part of it is passed along to premium holders and taxpayers. Quantify them; post them as a surcharge on bills (medical, insurance premiums; and tax bills); then come up with a plan to reduce these expenses to zero and require all the savings to be passed along to consumers, insured and taxpayer. If I saw this, I might not be so opposed to the ACA.”

    that would be the job of opponents who claim there is a better way than ObamaCare.

    you cannot oppose ObamaCare with “ideas”. you have to have a real legislative alternative than the GOP supports and will campaign on.

    What we have right now is opposition – and wildly diverse “ideas” that the GOP as a party cannot even agree on themselves to be “Replace”.

    The opponents of ObamaCare are …responsible for ObamaCare. When you have no alternatives you end up with the worst plan.

    1. Am I looking at one side? Darn right, I am. It isn’t hard to see that some people are getting something they didn’t have due to the ACA. It’s not hard to select winners. The ACA does that. It expands insurance coverage to people who didn’t have it and provides more coverage for some people also.

      But even in Washington, D.C., you cannot give away something unless you collect that something somewhere else. Insurance is risk pooling. The expansion of coverage to older and sicker people without insurance and the expansion of coverage for others creates a bigger revenue requirement. Who is going to pay that. Like any other program from the Ds, taxpayers must step up and feed the kitty. So must younger and healthier people. But I think we’ve all agreed, most of them won’t sign up for coverage that includes big cash subsidies for others. Anyone who buys insurance and makes no claims or claims less than the premiums paid, subsidizes others. That, in and of itself, is not wrong. It’s what insurance is all about.

      But the ACA doesn’t stop there. Despite the president telling the American public they didn’t need to join ACA pools, the federal government is making people buy coverage and pay premiums that include not only the risks they bring to the pool (even a 25-year-old can have a stroke), but include the risks of sicker and older people (who are more likely to have strokes and need more care for their strokes) as well as subsidies for lower-income people. With full disclosure, this is not wrong. But we not only didn’t have full disclosure, we had the President and countless Democrats telling people they didn’t need to worry about the ACA as they could keep what they had if they so desired. This means “you don’t have to subsidize the sick, elderly and poor unless you want to join an ACA pool.” Why is this virtuous?

      I can do good by paying rent for low income people. That’s probably virtuous. But if I do so by embezzling money from DJR, am I still virtuous? The ACA works only when both winners and losers join the pool. Anyone can bring in the winners. But when the losers are included based on fraud, simply stopping the ACA is virtuous.

      1. ” Am I looking at one side? Darn right, I am. It isn’t hard to see that some people are getting something they didn’t have due to the ACA. It’s not hard to select winners. The ACA does that. It expands insurance coverage to people who didn’t have it and provides more coverage for some people also.”

        it expands insurance to people who were already getting health care at 3 times the price it should have been – and we are paying for it.

        when I say one-sided – I mean are you being fair-minded or partisan?

        “But even in Washington, D.C., you cannot give away something unless you collect that something somewhere else. Insurance is risk pooling. The expansion of coverage to older and sicker people without insurance and the expansion of coverage for others creates a bigger revenue requirement. ”

        again, you’re assuming that the older/sicker were not already getting health care. DO you know why we pay more than twice as much as other countries?

        “Who is going to pay that. Like any other program from the Ds, taxpayers must step up and feed the kitty. ”

        TMT – have you honestly looked at where the money is coming from ?

        “So must younger and healthier people. But I think we’ve all agreed, most of them won’t sign up for coverage that includes big cash subsidies for others. Anyone who buys insurance and makes no claims or claims less than the premiums paid, subsidizes others. That, in and of itself, is not wrong. It’s what insurance is all about.”

        they are the same ones that force people like you and me pay for extra auto insurance coverage so if we are run into by an uninsured – we’ll have insurance, but we have to pay for it – not them.

        young and healthy gamble on insurance not only for health care but for accidents. They never think they’re going to have an accident but they know when they go to the ER with 15K worth of injuries that you and I will pay for it.

        “But the ACA doesn’t stop there. Despite the president telling the American public they didn’t need to join ACA pools, the federal government is making people buy coverage and pay premiums that include not only the risks they bring to the pool (even a 25-year-old can have a stroke), but include the risks of sicker and older people (who are more likely to have strokes and need more care for their strokes) as well as subsidies for lower-income people. With full disclosure, this is not wrong. But we not only didn’t have full disclosure, we had the President and countless Democrats telling people they didn’t need to worry about the ACA as they could keep what they had if they so desired. This means “you don’t have to subsidize the sick, elderly and poor unless you want to join an ACA pool.” Why is this virtuous?”

        this is blather. this is the very same blather we hear with respect to Medicare… which was opposed by the same kind of folks for the same reasons.

        we now have truly ignorant people – who receive Medicare – who oppose the same deal for folks two years younger than them… because they “believe” they “earned” Medicare and the other folks will take money from others to get health insurance.

        If we can COVER ALL people 65 years of age and older for $500.00 a month – why can’t we cover younger people for that amount?

        “I can do good by paying rent for low income people. That’s probably virtuous. But if I do so by embezzling money from DJR, am I still virtuous? The ACA works only when both winners and losers join the pool. Anyone can bring in the winners. But when the losers are included based on fraud, simply stopping the ACA is virtuous.”

        they’re already taking your money TMT. you’re already paying their rent.

        your wife’s insurance premiums if they are like others has about doubled in 10 years.. why do you think it doubled?

  18. The US health care system is a rabbit warren of dysfunctionality starting with the idea that employers should offer health insurance much less than the government should subsidize it.

    The 21 century and job mobility rendered employer-provided pensions – as obsolete – and really harmful to both companies and recipients as companies that paid pensions became uncompetitive to younger companies who offered none or minimal. Tying pensions to employment is what has put many States into unfunded liabilities.

    Health insurance suffers from the same job mobility issues and companies that offer retirement health insurance – are uncompetitive against companies that do not.

    and smaller companies with smaller numbers of employees risk financial disaster trying to offer health insurance to their employees and even one employee with a serious illness can blow up their premiums.

    so we have this obsolete and harmful approach to health insurance – but we continue to cling to it – even as more and more people lose their insurance when they change jobs… which is becoming the de facto standard for employment in the 21st century.

    Those who continue to cling to that health insurance model – and make it a political issue about their own self interest no matter what is happening to others – are not exactly righteous. Sort of like the retired geezer who makes 85K in retirement income and says ” keep your filthy hands off of my 100.00 a month taxpayer-subsidized insurance”.

    Or the guys that owns two homes and an RV and says “keep your stinking” hands off my RV mortgage deduction and my subsidized flood insurance.

    this is why the GOP is AWOL on these issues. Someone has to be honest enough to tell people that tax deductions and subsidies unfairly benefit some of us while grotesquely penalizing others.. for no good reason – just arbitrary treatment.

    you cannot have a country successfully operate this way. No other OECD country on the planet earth does this – and for good reason – it’s arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and expensive.

    we pretend otherwise. we pretend that our system which just lets people essentially die early while others get Cadillac care is because those with Cadillac care “deserve” it and those who die early – also “deserve” it.

    we pretend we don’t pay for the ones that die early .. but we do.. and we end up paying MORE than we would if we had a more fair system that was also more cost-effective.

    You can blame people for supporting Hillary-care or ObamaCare or RomneyCare but do you reward those who oppose and offer no alternative other than “keep your damn hands off my subsidies”?

Leave a Reply