Who Is Uninsured? More than 1 in 3 Non-Elderly Montanans

by: Matt Singer

Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:22:00 AM MST

Those numbers come from Families USA, a great outfit that advocates on behalf of health care consumers.

The vast majority of these uninsured individuals were working (or are minor children of working parents).

There's no age breakdown for Montana, but the national data is startling:

The likelihood of being uninsured declined among adults as they grew older. The percentage who were uninsured was highest among 19- to 24-year-olds (49.5 percent) and 25- to 44-year-olds (36.3 percent).

I should also note that excluding the over-65 population in these conversations is actually crucial to get an accurate picture. All elderly Americans are insured through Medicare. While in need of some tweaks, Medicare works pretty darn well. The question is what will we do for the rest of us. And just baseline access to insurance is very, very far from reality.

Single-Payer Advocates in House May Draw Line on Public Health Insurance Option

by: Matt Singer

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM MST

White House Looks to Save Students, Taxpayer Money; Republican Freaks Out

by: Matt Singer

Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 17:46:36 PM MST

Student loans is one area where that happened. Many loans currently processed are federally guaranteed, but handled through for-profit companies like Sallie Mae. The fact that the loans are backed by the feds means that taxpayers shoulder all the risk, but private companies rake in fees for, well, not much.

The Obama Administration proposed moving the federal student loan system to one entirely handled through direct loans, which cut out the middle-man. Here's the Republican response:

But there's already been pushback from Republicans. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Education Committee, lashed out against the proposed shift, calling it a "government takeover of the private-sector-based student loan program, taking away options and benefits from students while adding tens of billions" of dollars to the deficit.

Rehberg Sees This Issue From All Sides

by: Matt Singer

Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 16:31:30 PM MST

Dennis Rehberg is so that kid.

Congressman Rehberg held himself a waffle party in Missoula this past Friday.  Montana's lone Congressman attended a news conference at the Poverello Center to claim credit for securing a $285,000 appropriation for the Pov in the FY09 Approps bill.

In a statement, Rehberg said: "I'm happy I was able to secure federal assistance for the Poverello Center."
 
But here's the funny thing, Rehberg voted against the 2009 Appropriations Bill that contained said "federal assistance." Rehberg is not keeping his no vote a secret. His reasoning is spelled out clearly: "Congress is spending too much and racking up a huge debt."
 
If that's the case, why is the Congressman traveling the state bragging about the money he just secured? And since when do politicians vote against projects they claim credit for?

Earlier this month, Rehberg also voted against the recovery/jobs bill.  A few days later, Rehberg tried to justify his no vote while bragging about the bill's benefits to a Montana Rural Water Systems conference in Great Falls.
 
Look, we know he's got a big state to represent, but that doesn't mean he has to talk and vote out of both sides of his mouth, he could just put on his big boy pants and say, "I voted against the jobs bill and the budget for next year -- and against all the spending for those Montana projects -- because I think it is a waste of money."

I mean, his hypocrisy is bad enough that John McCain labeled one Rehberg's earmarks -- $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center -- as the 7th porkiest item in the approps bill.

Have I missed it? Has a member of the Montana press corps already asked Rehberg about this stuff -- especially John McCain peeing on his shoes?

Why is Dennis Rehberg Having Lunch with a Dude with Apparent Neo-Confederate Sympathies?

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:30:51 PM MST

At lunch with Thomas E. Woods Jr. New Yorks (sic) Times bestselling author.

He served as a history department faculty member at Suffolk County Community College in New York until 2006, and is now resident scholar and senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), as well as a member of the editorial board for the institute's Journal of Libertarian Studies.[2] He is also an associate scholar of the Abbeville Institute.

Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South,[3] and has contributed to its newsletter.[4] His past membership in the group has generated criticism,[5] but Woods asserts his involvement was limited.

So why is Rep. Rehberg meeting with this guy?

Much less bragging about it on Twitter?

He Actually Secured the $42.5 Million Before He Voted Against It

by: Matt Singer

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 14:40:09 PM MST

The latest example? A string of press releases crowing about his "securing" of funding for Montana projects in the Omnibus appropriations bill that he just voted against.

This reminds me a bit of his claim to have been a leader for the State Children's Health Insurance Program around the same time he called it "extremist political ideology."

Or maybe it reminds me of how Rehberg voted against retroactive accountability for TARP and then said he wants the bums thrown in jail. Although, to be fair, this may just fit within a larger view regarding Habeas Corpus and executive privilege. Maybe he thinks President Obama already has the authority to just lock up bank CEOs. I don't really know.

Why Can't Scott Mendenhall Be Upfront About His Hatred of Unions?

by: Matt Singer

Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:04:40 PM MST

OK, I don't get it. I don't really get what people hate about unions existing.

That being said, people do hate them. They hate them enough to characterize the Employee Free Choice Act as getting rid of secret ballots for workers when it does no such thing (it simply makes their use a decision of workers rather than management).

And they hate them enough to attempt to prohibit them from engaging in political debates over ballot initiatives. Rep. Scott Mendenhall is carrying a bill, the major impact of which would be to keep organizations like MEA-MFT and MPEA from going to bat for the interests of their members in ballot initiative fights (strangely, there is no similar prohibition on corporate expenditures to ballot initiatives).

Of course, Rep. Mendenhall can't just come out and call it the "Silencing Organized Labor Act of 2009." No, it's the "Montana Clean Government Act" and it appears primarily aimed at no-bid contracts. It just defines no-bid contracts as including collective bargaining agreements. It has to specifically do that because no one in their right mind thinks of CBAs when someone says no-bid contracts. It's like if the bill to abolish the death penalty defined the death penalty as any penalties imposed by the justice system. It's absurd. It's bait and switch.

Rehberg's Recovery Plan: More Help to Rich People

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 12:34:21 PM MST

Bad news -- it's more crap economics. Let's take a look at "Rehberg's" bad plan, which is strangely located on Rep. Eric Cantor's website.

The details:

Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:

Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.

This is a bad idea in three ways -- first, it cuts taxes most for people least in need of help; second, it puts the most money in the pockets of people with the least propensity to spend (therefore having a lesser stimulative impact); and third, it continues to lock-in the continuing upward spiral of redistribution up the food chain.

Since the '80s low-income and middle-class earners who primarily pay payroll taxes have been subsidizing the general government operations funded (historically) primarily by the progressive income tax. Cutting income tax rates only exacerbates the extent to which working class Americans keep subsidizing the tax bill of the rich.

The Dems, in comparison, are cutting payroll taxes (e.g. FICA), which means working Americans will start seeing their withholdings drop and their regular paychecks get a bit bigger in a few months. Average is going to be something like $25 a month. Not huge, but definitely some help -- and it adds up to hundreds of dollars a year.

Next piece:

Help for America's Small Businesses:

Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.

The problem is that my sense is that tax rates are not what are limiting production right now. The limit is concern about the economic future. So this tax cut is highly likely to go into savings, awaiting the day when demand returns so that business owners can scale up again.

No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:

The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.

Ignoring all of that, though, the idea that you can stimulate the economy during a liquidity trap without government spending is just nuts. That's how you do it. It's textbook stuff. Macro 101, really.

Assistance for the Unemployed:

Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.

Stabilizing Home Values:

The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.

Let's not reinflate the bubble, eh?

Final Thoughts

I can see where this is half the cost, but it is a really terrible proposal in terms of getting the economy moving again. I'm not sure where their economic predictions are coming from, but I'm guessing they're pretty well cooked.

Matthew Yglesias and Greg Mankiw, a rare man who is both a respected economist and a former Bush White House advisor, have had some back-and-forth lately and Yglesias brings up a smart point at the end. The Democratic Recovery bill is likely not anyone's dream bill. Democrats won't like some of the provisions added by Republicans. I'm not a huge fan of the Collins/Nelson changes, etc.

But there is a difference between understanding this legislation is imperfect and assuming that the alternatives must be good. The Republican plan is terrible. Interestingly, I'm not seeing backing of it by any respected economists of the left or right. More interestingly, the Republican Whip's page that features it doesn't have anything of the sort either.

Rehberg Claiming Montanans Oppose Recovery

by: Matt Singer

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:16:41 PM MST

Time to light up some phones, I suppose:

Washington, DC Office
2448 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC, 20515
phone: (202) 225-3211
fax: (202) 225-5687

Billings District Office
1201 Grand Avenue Suite 1
Billings, MT 59102
phone: (406) 256-1019
fax: (406) 256-4934

Great Falls District Office
105 Smelter Ave. NE
Suite 16
Great Falls, MT 59404
phone: (406) 454-1066
fax: (406) 454-1130

Missoula District Office
301 E Broadway
Suite 2
Missoula, MT 59802
phone: (406) 543-9550
fax: (406) 543-0663

Helena District Office
950 North Montana Ave
Helena, MT 59601
phone: (406) 443-7878
fax: (406) 443-8890

Unless you like recessions, that is.

Nearly 90% of Nat'l Guard Units Rated "Not Ready"

by: Matt Singer

Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 09:30:54 AM MST

Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars' worth of equipment -- jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

The report found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the cobbling together of units and hurt recruiting.

That doesn't make up for the fact that on a broader scale, Iraq has hurt the Guard, undermining recruitment, and causing massive shortages.

This whole enterprise wasn't just a moral and strategic mistake, it has been one executed badly. Pretty damn incredible when you look at the whole enterprise.

Lies and the Lying Liars or Nuts and the Nutting Nutters on Education

by: V

Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:48:25 PM MST

Ridiculous. Sales and other Republicans ran this year on pledges of support to K-12 and Higher Education. Now they've handed off education policy to a guy who would cut Title I, Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, university research, special education, and all other federal money to Montana's children.

I have to admit that I'm not that surprised. While it appears that some Republicans are sticking by their campaign promises, it was Republican who originally gutted education funding in '90s. And what we're seeing now is GOP base exposing itself: nutters who truly want to eliminate public education.

House Republicans better hope that the people of Montana don't wake up and smell the coffee. If they do, these insane proposals will ruin any chance they have at making headway with non-Radicals--including a majority of Montana independents--that don't support total war on public education.

Update (by Matt) -- Outgoing Senator Jeff Mangan (a moderate Democrat) is with us on this one, writing:

With the appointment of extremists to the chair of vital committees (Rick Jore (C) Education, for example) who in the republican party will stand up and truly lead, or are we now seeing an acceptance of the dramatic shift to the extreme right wing of the GOP?