SC Yellow Dogs

Who does Jim DeMint represent?

IN DEAD OF NIGHT, JIM DEMINT VOTES TO BLOCK FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TROOPS, MILITARY PAY INCREASES

The Vote Jim DeMint Does Not Want South Carolinians To Know About: Supports Filibuster To Block Funding For South Carolina’s Brave Service Men and Women

At approximately 1:00 am this morning, United States Senator Jim DeMint put partisan politics above funding our troops by voting to support a filibuster of the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report.  Instead of allowing the Senate to move swiftly in providing the funds crucially needed by U.S. troops both at home and abroad, DeMint decided to continue his trend of delay and obstructionism.  Despite DeMint’s attempt at obstructing the Senate from passing funding for U.S. troops, cloture was invoked in a bi-partisan manner, and the Senate will vote on final passage this Saturday.

“Just because the vote happened when most people were sleeping, doesn’t mean nobody will find out Jim DeMint voted against the troops,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director Eric Schultz. “Jim DeMint owes all the brave South Carolina service men and women an explanation as to why he voted against their funding. This morning’s vote is the latest evidence that Jim DeMint is vulnerable next November and does not deserve his seat in the United States Senate.”

Despite Jim DeMint’s attempt at obstruction, the Senate successfully invoked cloture on the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report early this morning, with a vote on final passage expected Saturday.  In addition to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill gives our military a 3.4% pay increase, provides our soldiers with first class weapons and security equipment such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP) as they carry out their missions, and provides nearly $500 million to support military families deal with the separation and stress of war through advocacy, child care, job training, and counseling services.  If DeMint had his way and cloture had not been invoked, the Senate would have had to scramble to find a way to fund U.S. security interests abroad, our soldiers, and their families.  Earlier this year, DeMint also voted against both cloture and final passage of the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report, which authorized the pay increase, the funding for the wars, the equipment provisions and all other measures for which funds were appropriated in the bill he also opposed last night.

Today the DSCC responded to a New York Times article exposing Senator Judd Gregg’s how-to guide for Republicans on how to derail the senate health bill.  Wonder if Senator Jim  DeMint will adopt one of these tactics?

REPUBLICAN SENATOR SPOONFEEDS JIM DEMINT “HOW-TO GUIDE” ON BLOCKING HEALTH CARE REFORM – WHICH TACTIC WILL JIM DEMINT ADOPT?
Leaked Memo Offers A-Z Strategies On Obstructing Health Care – Will DeMint Embrace Or Denounce Tactics That Snub South Carolina’s 707,00 Uninsured

Yesterday, Senator Judd Gregg circulated a “how-to” guide to all his Republican colleagues that outlines how Republicans can obstruct and hold-up needed health care reforms in the Senate.  Judd’s memo details all the archaic procedural tools that Senate Republicans can use in their single-minded attempt to hold-up and attempt to kill health care reform.  Up to this point Jim DeMint has given no indication he is at all interested in supporting health care reforms that would help South Carolinians.  Will DeMint embrace the obstructionist tactics put forth by Gregg or will he do the right thing and denounce these purely political tactics?

“Jim DeMint has a choice to make: he can side with partisan leaders in Washington and use parliamentary maneuvers to block health care reform, or he can show some courage and stand up for South Carolinians,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Communications Director Eric Schultz.  “Gregg’s memo confirms that Jim DeMint and his Republicans colleagues are using every trick in the book to derail commonsense health care reform.  Will Jim Demint continue to go along with these obstructionist tactics or will he muster the independence to stand up to his party and do what is right for South Carolinians?”

New York Times: Memo Tells How to Derail Senate Health Bill
DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
December 2, 2009
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/memo-tells-how-to-derail-senate-health-bill/

Senate Republicans know they face an uphill battle in trying to derail the Democrats’ health care legislation. So Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, has circulated a memo to remind his colleagues of the various parliamentary weapons available to them throughout the debate.

“Dear Republican Colleague,” Mr. Gregg wrote in a cover letter, “As we embark on Senate debate of Majority Leader Reid’s massive $2.5 trillion health care reform legislation, it is critical that Republican senators have a solid understanding of the minority’s rights in the Senate.”

As the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, Mr. Gregg, who is retiring after next year, is one of his party’s foremost experts on legislative war games. Party leaders, for instance, tapped Mr. Gregg to draw up their battle plan in the event that Democrats tried to fast-track the health care legislation using a hardball tactic called budget reconciliation, which would potentially allow approval of the bill by a simple majority.

So far, Democrats have said they hope to pass the bill under regular procedures, with full debate. And that means Republicans will have a hefty arsenal by which they can try to slow down debate and force the majority leader, Harry Reid, to miss his goal of completing the bill by Christmas.

“I think that we can all agree that the Democrats’ bill is the wrong choice for our nation,” Mr. Gregg wrote. “We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed debate on the health care legislation – as well as all legislation – coming before the Senate. As laid out in the attached document, we have certain rights before measures are considered on the floor as well as certain rights during the actual consideration of measures. Every Republican senator should be familiar with the scope of these rights, which serve to protect our ability to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans who depend on us to be their voice during this historic debate.”

In case you missed it, the Week in Review section of The Times recently put together its own playbook of parliamentary tactics for both the majority and the minority. The playbook can be found here, along with an accompanying article.

An interesting read from the State:

S.C. lawmakers supportive of Obama

Lawmakers from both parties Tuesday gave President Barack Obama guarded praise for his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but some expressed concern that his time frame for victory is too short.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a military lawyer who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, voiced regret that the troop buildup is necessary eight years after the United States toppled the Taliban government following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“I think every American is disappointed that eight years into this thing, we need to send 30,000 more troops,” Graham told CNN after Obama’s televised address to cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.

Graham questioned Obama’s assertion that “our troops will begin to come home” 18 months after the buildup begins.

“How will the enemy perceive that?” Graham said. “It’s not realistic that we can withdraw a lot of troops in 18 months … My question is – have we undercut our efforts before we start?”

Rep. John Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee, also expressed surprise over the 18-month time frame.

“He’s proposing to send 10,000 fewer troops than Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal requested, and to complete the mission in less time than anyone would have thought possible before tonight,” said Spratt, a Democrat.

“It’s ambitious, for sure, but at least he’s saying that we’re not making an open-ended commitment or taking on an endless obligation,” he said.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint gave Obama his support even as he criticized the president for having taken more than three months to fulfill military commanders’ request for more troops in Afghanistan.

“We must win the war on terror to prevent future attacks like the ones on September the 11th,” DeMint said.

Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett also criticized Obama for failing to act sooner and expressed “concerns that this deployment may not fully meet the needs of our forces in the region.”

Noting his past service in the Army, Barrett also objected to Obama’s talk of when U.S. troops will start leaving Afghanistan. “There may be too much emphasis on creating an exit strategy. Instead of creating arbitrary time lines, our primary purpose should be ensuring that the people of Afghanistan, its surrounding borders and the United States are safe.”

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, noting that his four sons serve in the military, said he hopes Obama will rally congressional leaders behind his Afghan strategy.

Republican Rep. Henry Brown said he supported Obama’s deployment of more troops, but regretted the delay since McChrystal called for more troops.

Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, however, said he appreciated the president “thoughtfully considering all the options. We must be wise and constantly assess our strategies and tactics.”

Today, Senator Jim DeMint turned his back on 252,000 South Carolinians by voting against a procedural motion that allowed the Senate to overcome Republican obstruction and move towards extending unemployment benefits to those hard-hit by the economic crisis.  Despite South Carolina having an unemployment rate of 11.6% and with 252,000 South Carolinians without a job, DeMint showed once again why is he completely out of touch with the South Carolina mainstream by opposing this commonsense measure.  With one American losing their unemployment benefits every 12 seconds, Senator DeMint owes the people of South Carolina an explanation.

“South Carolina families need a Senator who is going to stand up for them in Washington” said Eric Schultz, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director.  “If Jim DeMint doesn’t care that every 12 seconds an American loses their unemployment benefits, then he is affirming his status as outside of the mainstream. Instead of helping the people of his state, DeMint would rather play politics.”

7,000 Americans lose their unemployment insurance benefits every day. That’s one American every 12 seconds.  This crucial legislation will extend unemployment insurance by up to 14 additional weeks for jobless workers and extend benefits by six additional weeks for workers in states with unemployment levels above 8.5 percent, which includes South Carolina.  According to an August 2009 National Employment Law Project report, 13,775 South Carolinians exhausted their unemployment benefits by September 2009 and 21,852 will have exhausted their benefits by December 2009.  This extension will bring much needed relief to those looking for work in this tough economic climate.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt issued the following statement on the new deficit estimate released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

“It should be remembered that fiscal year 2009 began during the Bush Administration, which left in its wake the worst recession since the 1930s, including a sharp plunge in revenues. As a result, a large part of the 2009 deficit results from policies undertaken by the Bush Administration, including the cost of the TARP. Much of the rest stems from the cost of efforts like the Recovery Act, which was necessary to keep a faltering economy from becoming an economic meltdown.

“It is counterproductive to balance the budget when the economy is in recession. But today’s figures send us the latest alarm. As the economy stabilizes and starts to recover, we will have to turn our focus back to deficit reduction.”

A very interesting letter to the editor published in the September 18 edition of  The Sumter Item.

Republicans too busy hurting, not helping, Americans

The recent remarks from Rep. Joe Wilson was a “yardstick” that tells us who we are as South Carolina citizens. The Conservative Republicans compare President Obama to Hitler. Could this be that Hitler, being the most terrible leader in history, provided the German people with health care and what does this say about the Republican Party? Hitler in his “warped ” insane thinking thought he was helping the German people. By the same token, the Conservative Republicans’ warped thinking believe that by turning our health care over to the insurance industry, is helping the American people. And we, the American people, in our warped way of thinking believe the Republican Party and insurance industry have our interests in mind.

The recent health plan that came out of “The Gang Of Six” headed by Sen. Max Baucus, a Blue Dog Democrat who is a Democrat in name only, and who received $3 million from the health care industry. The Gang of Six, three Democrats and three Republicans, represent 3 percent of the American people. If the health plan fails it will be the Democrats who make it fail since the Republicans are too busy bringing down President Obama to do anything for the American people. The so called “Blue Dog Democrats” are simply cross-dressing Republicans.

We need a “single payer” health care system or Medicare for everyone. I do believe that this will happen eventually, but in how many years and how many screwed-up lives later. We the people need to use our heads for something other than a “block” to separate our ears.

LEE INGLE

Sumter

Get the facts here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/

We suspect it’s rare that the president gets heckled during a speech to a joint session of Congress, but Rep. Joe Wilson didn’t hold back.

“You lie!” shouted the South Carolina Republican. This was in response to President Barack Obama’s statements on illegal immigrants.

“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants,” Obama said. “This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

So who’s right here? Wilson or Obama?

Incidentally, Wilson apologized for the outbust after the speech, but said he still disagreed with Obama’s statement.

We’ve been monitoring claims about health care reform and illegal immigrants for some time now. Most notably, a chain e-mail claimed that page 50 of the House bill gave free health care to illegal immigrants. That page didn’t say that. Rather, it included a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to “personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” So we rated the chain e-mail’s claim Pants on Fire.

We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2007, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, most states have laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn’t see anything that would change those laws, either.

Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the government-run health care for the poor. We didn’t see anything that would change that.

One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for “affordability credits.” These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.

Still, given all that, we have heard from people who said that other aspects of reform could benefit illegal immigrants.

One of the most detailed responses was from the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, called FAIR. You can read their statement on the matter on their Web site.

Primarily, they argue that illegal immigrants would be permitted to purchase insurance on the national health insurance exchange because the bill does not include a mechanism for verifying citizenship. So illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.

FAIR also argues for more robust verification measures for the affordability credit and making sure that illegal immigrant parents won’t be able to receive coverage if their citizen children are eligible.

FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don’t see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill “does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently,” the report said.

But it’s worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That’s similar to the current system — we’re not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.

When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are particularly concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we’re curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option — if it passes, and it might not — on the new  health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama’s said “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” which Wilson said was a “lie.” Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn’t apply to those here illegally. We don’t find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama “lied.” We rate Wilson’s statement False.

According to a recent Gallup poll, South Carolina is not a solid red state anymore. In fact it’s not even one of the top 10 Republican-dominated states.  More read about this poll below or click here.

Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in ‘09 So Far
Utah and Wyoming are most Republican
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — An analysis of Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from the first six months of 2009 finds Massachusetts to be the most Democratic state in the nation, along with the District of Columbia. Utah and Wyoming are the most Republican states, as they were in 2008. Only four states show a sizeable Republican advantage in party identification, the same number as in 2008. That compares to 29 states plus the District of Columbia with sizeable Democratic advantages, also unchanged from last year.

These results are based on interviews with over 160,000 U.S. adults conducted between January and June 2009, including a minimum of 400 interviews for each state (305 in the District of Columbia). Each state’s data is weighted to demographic characteristics for that state to ensure it is representative of the state’s adult population.

Because the proportion of independents in each state varies considerably (from a low of 25% in Pennsylvania to a high of 50% in Rhode Island and New Hampshire), it is easiest to compare relative party strength using “leaned” party identification. Thus, the Democratic total represents the percentage of state residents who identify as Democratic, or who identify as independent but when asked a follow-up question say they lean to the Democratic Party. Likewise, the Republican total is the percentage of Republican identifiers and Republican-leaning independents in a state.

The accompanying map shows each state’s relative party strength (the full data for each state appears at the end of the article) in the first half of 2009, which primarily covers the time since Barack Obama took office as president. States in which one of the parties enjoys a 10 or more percentage point advantage in leaned identification are considered solid supporters of that party. States with between a five- and nine-point advantage are considered leaning toward that party, and states with less than a five-point advantage for one of the parties are considered competitive.

As was the case in Gallup’s analysis of 2008 yearly data, most states are currently Democratic in their party orientation, with the greatest number (30, including the District of Columbia) classified as solidly Democratic, with an additional 8 states leaning Democratic.

Meanwhile, only four states can be considered solidly Republican — Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska, with Alabama falling into the leaning Republican category.

That leaves a total of eight states that are competitive in terms of party identification, with none showing a party advantage of greater than two points. These include Mississippi (+1 Republican), North Dakota and Nebraska (even), and Kansas, Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, and Montana (all +2 Democratic).

It is important to note that these categories only apply to a state population’s party leanings and are not necessarily indicative of a party’s electoral strength in that state. Election outcomes are decided on party support (which, as shown here, typically shows a Democratic advantage) but also turnout among party supporters (which typically works in the Republicans’ favor).

The party strength totals for the first half of 2009 are similar to what Gallup reported earlier this year based on 2008 data. Compared to that report, there has been a net gain of two leaning Democratic states and a net loss of two competitive states, but no net change in the number of solidly Democratic, solidly Republican or leaning Republican states.

However, despite the lack of net change, a total of nine states did shift from one category to another when comparing their classification based on 2008 data to their classification based on early 2009 data. Most of the movement was into or out of the competitive category, though two states (Colorado and Nevada) moved from a solid Democratic to leaning Democratic positioning.

Bottom Line

Since Obama was inaugurated, not much has changed in the political party landscape at the state level — the Democratic Party continues to hold a solid advantage in party identification in most states and in the nation as a whole. While the size of the Democratic advantage at the national level has shrunk in recent months, this has been due to an increase in independent identification rather than an increase in Republican support. That finding is echoed here given that the total number of solid and leaning Republican states remains unchanged from last year. While the Republican Party is still able to compete in elections if they enjoy greater turnout from their supporters or greater support for its candidates from independent voters, the deck is clearly stacked in the Democratic Party’s favor for now.

Gallup.com’s “State of the States” series reveals state-by-state differences on political, economic, and well-being measures Gallup tracks each day, based on data collected between January and June 2009. To see all stories published in the midyear 2009 series, click here. New stories will be released throughout the month of August.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 160,236 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 2 – June 30, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

The margin of sampling error for most states is ±3 percentage points, but is as high as ±7 percentage points for the District of Columbia, and ±6 percentage points for Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Hawaii.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

There is currently a lot of discussion and debate surrounding healthcare reform. The following op-ed is written by a South Carolina physician who believes there is a need for healthcare reform in our country. Do you agree with Dr. Meadors?

The time for health care reform is now
By MARSHALL L. MEADORS
Guest Columnist

Have you ever had to use the doctor at your local hospital emergency room as your primary care physician? If you answered “no,” consider yourself fortunate. The local ER is the only health care option for thousands of South Carolinians who lack health insurance. They are not the only ones.

Approximately 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. An estimated 16.2 percent of South Carolinians (more than 700,000) are uninsured. Considering these facts, it is fair to say that one of the greatest challenges we face as Americans is health care.

Skyrocketing health care costs have taken a toll on American families and small businesses. Families’ benefits are eroding because they cannot keep up with higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Seniors are choosing to cut their medications in half or go without medications due to the high cost of prescription drugs. And parents are skipping doctor visits for their children because it is just too expensive.

Yes, our health care system is broken, and the problem only promises to get worse if lawmakers do not do something to change it. For years, many elected officials in Washington, including some representing our state, have been more devoted to special interests than actually improving the quality of the lives of their constituents.

Thankfully, President Obama is bringing much-needed change to Washington and is dedicated to beginning the process of repairing our broken health care system. He understands that health care reform is not something that can wait.

The president recently laid out his three principles: reducing rising health care costs for families, businesses and government; allowing all patients choice in their coverage and their doctor; and ensuring that high-quality, affordable health care is available to all Americans. To do this, he has promised to work in an open, inclusive and transparent manner where all ideas are encouraged regardless of political stripes. He also is committed to working with Congress, hospitals, doctors, businesses and unions to make sure we enact effective and comprehensive health care reform.

Working together, we can reduce long-term growth of health insurance costs, guarantee choice of doctors, invest in prevention and wellness, eliminate barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions and ensure all Americans have access to the health care they need and deserve.

This is more than a social issue. It is an economic issue as well — and over the long term, reforming our health care system will lead to faster economic growth, higher take-home pay for workers, greater employment opportunities, a more level playing field between small and large businesses and deficit control.

Make no mistake: Achieving comprehensive health care reform will not be easy. Controlling cost growth cannot just be a lofty goal; it must become a reality. America needs reforms that reward prevention and wellness, emphasize quality over quantity and encourage patient involvement. These reforms are vital to the economic stability of our nation and South Carolina.

There is a lot of work to be done before our health care crisis is solved. It will take the concerted efforts of many to be successful. I am appreciative of the Obama administration’s health care reform efforts. So are the thousands of uninsured South Carolinians who visit the ER this week.

The Democratic National Committee has released a new web ad “Survivor: GOP” highlighting the continued disunity and infighting among Republican leaders over control of the party.  Even as the GOP attempts to rebuild, they continue to be stymied by internal squabbles over who should lead the party and in what direction.  While the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin face-off against Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, Michael Steele continues to face off against, well, everyone.  Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich continue to pine for the good old days – defending a string of failed economic and foreign policies that they advocated for over the past two decades.  All the while, GOP moderates, what’s left of them, are treated like the skunk at the garden party.

Last week, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe pointed out in the New York Times after Arlen Specter switched parties that “It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of ‘Survivor’ — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe.”

As leading Republicans including Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh continue to wage self-interested battles to shape the future of the Republican Party in the way that best serves their own political aspirations, Americans are voting themselves off the island, and out of the Republican party.

Watch “Survivor: GOP” by clicking here.