Surprise, surprise, surprise! Come on guys (Greespun & Co.), you could only find 2 Legislative candidates who are not Democrats? Out of 40 local offices and 44 overall you endorsed only 2 Republicans. This works out to 5% local and 4.5% overall. We all know you lean (way) left, but this is a little much. By contrast your Judicial endorsements are 40% conservative. To be fair, some of your Judicial endorsements are for seats where only liberals (I am choosing to define liberal as being listed on the Clark County Democratic Party's website as 'candidates') are running; removing those endorsements changes your conservative endorsements to 55.6%.
Your only competitor seems to be a little more realistic. The RJ's Legislative endorsements stand at 61.8% conservative (as of this post the RJ has not published County Commission endorsements). On the Judicial side the RJ stands at 44% conservative. After removing seats where only liberals are running it changes to 57.9%. Somewhat more consistent, don't you think?
What this tells me is you want liberals making the law but you don't trust them enough to enforce and possibly interpret the law. I just find this to be very odd. Hopefully someone can provide some guidance here.
Dan Wollam
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Health Care Mailers From the Nevada Democrats
Please, will those in charge at the Democratic Party of Nevada (DPN) get your facts straight? Or, at the very least, be fair and present all of the facts.
The two issues that seem to be occupying almost every mailer from the DPN seems to be the following:
1) "McCain says he gives you a tax credit for health care, but his own website says the credit goes directly to your insurance company, not to you, leaving you to pay the McCain health care tax on your own."
2) "McCain's plan would make it more expensive for business to offer health care - putting employees at risk of losing their coverage."
ISSUE #1
The DPN is using John McCain's website: www.johnmccain.com as it's source. I would consider this a cowardly citation. When I visit the site they cite, it is merely the home page. I must click through to find the item that most closely matches the claim of the DNP (http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868). Come on my friends, why not pinpoint where your source comes from? The reality of this issue is that it is basically a wash. Yes, it seems as if we may be taxed on a health benefit received from our employers; but that is what the tax credit is meant to cover. Using the chart at the above address as an example, the lowest bracket would have a net tax benefit of $3,800; while the highest bracket would be $800. Please explain how this is a bad thing. AS for the credit going directly to the health insurance company, the AP says,"Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer." It seems like this would be a great convenience for the taxpayer as they would not have to spend time making sure health insurance premiums would be paid on time, in the right amount and to the correct insurer. Thus, leaving more time to enjoy the refundable tax credit!!!
ISSUE #2
Again, be specific! As best I can tell, this address provides links to three articles from the date in the DPN's citation (http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2008). After reading all three articles I could find no pasage even closely resembling the claim in the mailer. But I did fond that McCain's plan would give a greater tax benefit to the less well-off than a 'tax cut for the rich" as is so often spouted in the media. This is a direct quote from the article: "Senator McCain uses a combination of uniform gross subsidies (for example, $5,000 per family) and removal of the insurance tax subsidy that leads to reduced net subsidies to the well-off and larger net subsidies for the less-well-off".
My last question the DPN is this: Why are you not quoting what the other article from that date states about Obama's Plan? Again, this is a direct quote: "The health reform plan put forth by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) focuses on expanding insurance coverage and provides new subsidies to individuals, small businesses, and businesses experiencing catastrophic expenses. It greatly increases the federal regulation of private insurance but does not address the core economic incentives that drive health care spending. This omission along with the very substantial short-term savings claimed raise serious questions about its fiscal sustainability. Heavy regulation coupled with a fallback National Health Plan and a play-or-pay financing choice also raise questions about the future of the employer insurance market." Wow, it doesn't seem like Health Affairs is fond of Obama's Plan either.
I have called the DPN to discuss these claims; they took my name, phone number and address and said someone would call me. I have yet to hear from them. How shocking!
Come on DPN, explain!!!
Dan Wollam
The two issues that seem to be occupying almost every mailer from the DPN seems to be the following:
1) "McCain says he gives you a tax credit for health care, but his own website says the credit goes directly to your insurance company, not to you, leaving you to pay the McCain health care tax on your own."
2) "McCain's plan would make it more expensive for business to offer health care - putting employees at risk of losing their coverage."
ISSUE #1
The DPN is using John McCain's website: www.johnmccain.com as it's source. I would consider this a cowardly citation. When I visit the site they cite, it is merely the home page. I must click through to find the item that most closely matches the claim of the DNP (http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868). Come on my friends, why not pinpoint where your source comes from? The reality of this issue is that it is basically a wash. Yes, it seems as if we may be taxed on a health benefit received from our employers; but that is what the tax credit is meant to cover. Using the chart at the above address as an example, the lowest bracket would have a net tax benefit of $3,800; while the highest bracket would be $800. Please explain how this is a bad thing. AS for the credit going directly to the health insurance company, the AP says,"Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer." It seems like this would be a great convenience for the taxpayer as they would not have to spend time making sure health insurance premiums would be paid on time, in the right amount and to the correct insurer. Thus, leaving more time to enjoy the refundable tax credit!!!
ISSUE #2
Again, be specific! As best I can tell, this address provides links to three articles from the date in the DPN's citation (http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2008). After reading all three articles I could find no pasage even closely resembling the claim in the mailer. But I did fond that McCain's plan would give a greater tax benefit to the less well-off than a 'tax cut for the rich" as is so often spouted in the media. This is a direct quote from the article: "Senator McCain uses a combination of uniform gross subsidies (for example, $5,000 per family) and removal of the insurance tax subsidy that leads to reduced net subsidies to the well-off and larger net subsidies for the less-well-off".
My last question the DPN is this: Why are you not quoting what the other article from that date states about Obama's Plan? Again, this is a direct quote: "The health reform plan put forth by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) focuses on expanding insurance coverage and provides new subsidies to individuals, small businesses, and businesses experiencing catastrophic expenses. It greatly increases the federal regulation of private insurance but does not address the core economic incentives that drive health care spending. This omission along with the very substantial short-term savings claimed raise serious questions about its fiscal sustainability. Heavy regulation coupled with a fallback National Health Plan and a play-or-pay financing choice also raise questions about the future of the employer insurance market." Wow, it doesn't seem like Health Affairs is fond of Obama's Plan either.
I have called the DPN to discuss these claims; they took my name, phone number and address and said someone would call me. I have yet to hear from them. How shocking!
Come on DPN, explain!!!
Dan Wollam
It Has Been Too Long And I Apologize
While there has been no shortage of topics and issues to blog about, family concerns, vacations, etc. have kept me from fresh posts.
With the monumental election less than three weeks away I will be expanding my posts to include more than Nevada Politics.
Thank you to all who have or will read and/or post, I look forward to much colorful discussion.
Dan Wollam
With the monumental election less than three weeks away I will be expanding my posts to include more than Nevada Politics.
Thank you to all who have or will read and/or post, I look forward to much colorful discussion.
Dan Wollam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)