"Death Panels" debunked: Bachmann voted for them in 2008

The old "death panel" distortions raised their ugly heads again when President Obama through legal administrative procedure recently included end-of-life planning between doctor and patient as a service that could be covered under Medicare preventive care.

The term "death panel" is a distortion. Media shouldn't even use it just like we would not use the term priest to describe a Lutheran pastor. Death panel is just not accurate. People on both sides of the political aisle have agreed this is a "hyperbolic" term, the most recent was John McCain's advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer speaking on the issue on CNN a few nights ago.

Though she called it hyperbolic she still argues that the provision puts government in control of one's end of life decision or discussion. One can debate that I suppose, but barely. There is no specific language that says government is involved at all, -- it's between doctor and patient -- and even then its totally voluntary.

But as correctly pointed out by numerous sources, the so called "death panel" provision for end of life counseling was put in Legislation passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress in 2008 and put in place by the Bush Administration after that.

Bush vetoed the 2008 bill but mainly because it removed his planned 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors. He was overridden by large margins of both Democrats and Republicans in the House by a vote of 383-41 and in the Senate by 70-26.

The Bush administration later incorporated the end of life provisions into its Medicare regulations and rules.

Here is the exact language from the Congressional bill tracking system.
"(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 24, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 - Title I: Medicare - Subtitle A: Beneficiary Improvements - Part 1: Prevention, Mental Health, and Marketing - (Sec. 101) Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended by the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, to cover additional preventive services."

 Here is the specific provision.

"Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations."

Link to entire bill summary for skeptics.


Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of it. It might surprise you. Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the people continually using the hyperbolic term "death panels" and expressing her vehemence against them during the health care reform debate voted with all other state Republicans as well as Democrats to override the Bush veto, and approve the Legislation with end of life voluntary planning.


Here's the House vote
Here's the Senate vote

Tax cuts and the deficit: This doesn't make economic sense does it?

Congress passed a year-end tax cut deal that will give lots of folks, everyone nearly, a nice tax cut, but it will increase our federal deficit by 27 percent next year and 50 percent in 10 years.

Which leads me to ask: Does that make sense?

Yes and no. It makes sense because it's an attempt to stimulate consumer demand. If we have a few more bucks in our paycheck, we might go out to eat more, or just buy some more stuff. That's what Congress is hoping.

But what about the debt. Shouldn't we be paying that down? In our own minds we've got to say yes, for all the usual reasons: the Chinese will start to control our debt, and maybe us someday. The investors in U.S. stocks will see this craziness for what it is and your 401(k) will become a 201(k).

Seems risky at best.

But someone smarter than me about world markets and the economy once told me the markets never lie. So, if the stock market still seems to be doing well, and credit markets and other investments are also doing well after the news of debt expansion hits, then there maybe aren't a lot of people with lots of money too worried.

But of course, markets get new information and new feelings every day, so stay tuned.

But that's my 30 second analysis, always subject to change and sometimes even wildly off-base.

That's why we've given you a chance to weigh in on the subject and be a star of The Free Press opinion page. Go here to give us your two cents, or $850 billion worth.

I agree with conservative Phil Krinkie and others

Businesses don't create jobs because of tax cuts, and they don't leave the state because taxes are too high.

Thank you, Phil Krinkie, for being a conservative willing to say that. Krinkie, as you may remember, was a longtime conservative member of the Minnesota House, and chairman of the Tax Committee.

He made the comment to MinnPost's Eric Black in a very interesting story on Tim Pawlenty's tenure as governor. It's very much worth reading.

The job creation argument has been the stuff of political rhetoric, says Krinkie. This comes from someone who worked years with dozens of business leaders, one of whom told him he kept his business in the state because his kids were in high school and it had nothing to do with taxes.

Over and over again, this year, we had those running for office saying any tax increase on the wealthy or business would be a "job killer." It's one of the most unproven statements I've ever seen the media let people get away with.

Another longtime businessman, Myles Spicer of Minnetonka, who also wrote a great essay for MinnPost titled "What Small Business Really Wants." And, according to Spicer, it's not a tax cut, really.

Spicer established and owned several successful ad agencies in the Twin Cities and been in business for 40 years.

There is not one study I have seen that shows small businesses cut jobs when their taxes go up or add them when their taxes go down.

But Spicer offers a study of what doesn't happen.

His words: 

 "A sanctimonious — and detrimental — claim
The most egregious of their useless proposals revolve around the current the tax debate — whether to include the top 2 percent in reversing the Bush tax cuts. The sanctimonious claim is "this would hurt small business" — and this suggestion is incredibly wrong and even detrimental.

It is wrong for many reasons, mostly because it is fiction. It would not affect the huge majority of small businesses, to begin with. In a very cogent recent study, Scott Shane, the A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University, plotted the average of all industries and businesses classified as "small business," with the average revenues at a little over $1.5 million annually, and the average income (on which taxes are paid) is about $100,500. This is far from the $250K target for increasing taxes on the wealthy (or small businesses). Moreover, almost all such businesses are classified as Sub-S corporations, and as such they pay no taxes at all (profits are prorated and passed through to the shareholders, of which there could be several or more, further diminishing the likelihood of $250K taxation)."

His credentials in his own words.

"After serving in the U.S. Air Force for three years of active duty, I was honorably discharged in 1957. A friend of mine owned a small Twin City ad agency, and having gone to flight school, he advised me that his largest account sold communications equipment to the Air Force. He asked me to join him. A few years later I became a partner in my own agency, and owned several more Minnesota agencies over the decades. From that day on I have been entrepreneurial, my own boss, and a quintessential small businessman. Additionally, I have owned small businesses in the aforementioned advertising, Twin Cities real estate, health care — and at 77 still own and operate my own successful local businesses today. That gives me well over half a century of expertise to share with you, and the right to point out that most of the proposals today are irrelevant, or worse, and the right proposals are being ignored."

Some facts that are getting lost

News reports I've read would lead the typical reader to believe the recently approved so called Obama-Republican tax deal would had $850 billion to the deficit.

Most people would read that as $850 billion onto the current 2010 fiscal year deficit of $1.4 trillion. So adding $850 billion to current $1.4 trillion, looks like it increases the CURRENT federal deficit by more than 50 percent.

Actually, the projection for the deal adding to the deficit is for the period 2011 to 2020, as this CBO document shows. Go all the way to the bottom and see the recently passed legislation adds about $857.8 billion to the deficit.

So, it's only adding to the debt by about $374 billion next year, only about a 27 percent increase, not the 50 percent the "not exactly" media would have you believe.

Feel better? Well maybe.

The stimulus IS working. Hello!

Whenever I want to get the straight stuff on a political controversy, I ask a small business person.

They'll be straight with you. They stay in business being straight with customers, unlike bigger businesses that have tens of thousands of customers and can afford to lose a few along the way when being straight is sometimes optional to save face or whatever.

So, I found it quite refreshing that a small business person would say the Obama stimulus plan is working.

A Free Press story on Nov. 28 carried a story about the energy tax credit.


Here's what Dale Brenke of Schmidt Siding and Windows in Mankato had to say about the Stimulus

 “ There’s a lot of political controversy about the federal stimulus program that is providing this tax credit,” Brenke says, “ but it has saved thousands of jobs in this sector in Minnesota.”

Two years ago, eight Schmidt Siding and Windows employees were laid off during slow times for specialized remodelers, Brenke says. But since the tax credit program, all those employees have been recalled.

“ We’re just one business,” Brenke says. He cites lumberyards in the area, plus other contractors and remodelers in town. The number of jobs saved or added just keeps growing, he says.

In addition, the companies in Minnesota that make windows and doors are also feeling a huge boost because of the federal energy efficiency tax credit program, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act better known as the Stimulus Act. Among those companies is Lindsay Window in North Mankato, Brenke says.

“ This act has helped a whole host of energy efficiency businesses in Mankato, and across the state,” he says

Thank you Dale!

I'll write this story as many times as Foxnews says the stimulus didn't do anything.


Now some will argue that the stimulus didn't "create" any jobs. But the Obama administration has consistently used the terms "saved" or "created" so even in the above case, if it didn't create any jobs for Schmidt, it indeed did save jobs. 


Eight people who didn't have jobs, got them back. I'm guessing they don't care if you describe them as "created" or "saved."

The bottom line: they were earning money again, off unemployment and boosting the economy.

The stimulus worked.

Emmer concedes: the buzz, the take

I, like two thirds of Minnesotans, thought it was time for Tom Emmer to concede.

He obliged us Wednesday. Like other media observers, I thought he went out with a lot of class. He made the concession from his home in Delano with family and friends around.

It was a close election, no doubt. And here's hoping that both sides are finally realizing people want both sides to cooperate and solve problems. An election is almost never a mandate in Minnesota.

The Republican Party needs some patching up, and as I mentioned in a previous post, some healing or fixing of the public and media relations machine.

Although Dayton may have underwhelmed a lot of people, even those who voted for him, he'll likely bring a real different set of tools with him. It's been a while since he's been an executive, but he seemed capable of that at the one debate I hosted with him.

He's thoughtful, and seems to have a real plan in place for compromising with Republican Legislature.

There will be new relationships all around, and that should be good for taxpayers. Sometimes old relationships carry with them old baggage that the two sides just can't let go of.

Good Republicans: please get a tourniquet

To the good people of the Minnesota Republican Party, and there are many, please suggest a more strategic public relations plan to your party's leaders.

Oy Vey.

First a poll comes out showing two-thirds of the people think your contesting and protesting gubernatorial candidate should concede, and at almost the same time the party proceeds to heap on the bad publicity by ousting members of the party for voting for the last of the great "Independent" Republicans Tom Horner for governor.

I've never seen an organization bury the needle so quickly on a pile of good will they just garnered for state reps and senators in the recent election.

A look at the people they ousted looks like a who's who of the Minnesota Republican Party, the one that actually came up with solutions to the state's problems a few years back.

Among the ousted: Former governors Al Quie and Arne Carlson (historically two of the best Republican governors.) Sen. Dave Durenberger, one of Minnesota's most intelligent senators who still is making an impact on health care policies.

Bill Schreiber, longtime leader of House Republicans and a staunch, staunch supporter of small business know how. Schreiber was the kind of guy who didn't play politics as much as get something done for small business in Minnesota.

I'm surprised they weren't stomping on former Republican Gov. Elmer Anderson's grave for being too level headed and compromising.

Here's what some of them told the Star Tribune after their public flogging.

"I was never Republican enough for them, anyway," said Lynne Osterman, a former Republican House member turned lobbyist, in reacting to the ban. "I find it ironic, and somewhat telling, frankly," she said, "[that] ... for all their ballyhooing about freedom, protecting rights for our country, blah, blah, blah ... [they] would see fit to vilify fellow citizens for exercising their rights."

Said Durenberger: "I'm still a Republican, but it doesn't feel like a very welcoming party ... my reaction was to smile."


Current Republicans defended the action - kind of. Again, more from Star Tribune.

Mike Boguszewski, a Republican House district chair from Roseville, said he voted for the Saturday resolution "after a lot of consideration." Boguszewski said the issue "went beyond" allowing Republicans to freely support the candidate of their choice.

He said the active support for an opposition party's candidate, "just takes it to a level beyond disagreement about policies ... very simply, [their] actions bring consequences."


Phil Krinkie, a former Republican legislator and president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, said he was "a little surprised to see that they actually took this step to bring it to a vote." But he added: "It's a public rebuke, and that's all it is."

Krinkie criticized Carlson, who in 2008 supported President Obama, a Democrat. "At what point," asked Krinkie, "do you [in effect] turn in your membership card?"

Pat Anderson, the former state auditor who ran unsuccessfully for the office last month as a Republican, downplayed the significance of the resolution and said Democrats and Republicans have had similar feuds for decades. "I don't think you have a bloodletting going on," she said.

Schreiber, the former Republican legislator who was among those banned, said Republican party leaders "would be more productive in focusing on issues, rather than people."
However, he said, "Am I going to lose any sleep over it? No."


I can't find a positive P.R. message in all of this. The P.R. messages that go out are:

New Republicans are disrespecting their elders, many of whom deserve respect:

Don't disagree with our dogma or you'll pay a price.

This is not the party of discussion. This is the party of repression.