That's the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It's not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.
But there's a budget problem (assuming we don't want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.
When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," that's news.
And rightly so, because in America, we're supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one's saying, let the poor get sick and die.
But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.
Rumor has it CO Senator Brandon Shaffer, current candidate for CD4, will be deciding this week whether or not to jump into the CD6 race, abandoning his campaign in CD4. My guess is, he's waiting for CO Representative Joe Miklosi's numbers to come out from the last quarter. For those who have not been paying close attention, Colorado's CD4 became less easily winnable as a result of recent Congressional redistricting.
I respect and admire Brandon Shaffer; he is literally one of my political heroes. Not just that - I am indebted to him. I've even made calls for his race in CD4 very recently.
Loyal readers on Colorado Pols may remember Senator Shaffer's unwavering support of Michael Bennet in the 2010 Senate Race. Not only was Senator Shaffer one of just a few legislators who believed in Michael Bennet from the beginning (add State Representatives Karen Middleton and Daniel Kagan, as well as Congressman Jared Polis to that list), but he also took a lot of grief for Bennet at the Boulder Convention and Assembly. I stood by Senator Shaffer then, and always will.
Rep. Mike Coffman is in The Denver Post today telling us again that he led the charge for the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have, in Coffman's words, held "Congress' feet to the fire with a Constitutional amendment requiring that they, like every family and nearly every state in the country, balance their budget."
Coffman's proposal specifies an exception. Deficits would be allowed during war or serious military conflict. (Families don't get such an exception, in case you're wondering whether your warring family can spend willy nilly.)
But Coffman himself has advocated for another crisis situation during which, he's said, deficit spending by the feds should be allowed.
On KHOW radio, back in April, 2009, Coffman said he "would certainly support deficit spending," if it were "truly stimulative" during the dark years of the great recession, 2009 and 2010.
In February, 2009, Coffman was equally clear on KHOW radio that the recession, which was slamming the country, was "so severe" that Coffman supported more deficit spending to stimulate the economy:
Silverman: So what are you suggesting? That we not do it? That we not have the stimulus package? Because Barack Obama said last night, hey, I didn't come up with this $800 billion figure on my own. This is what the Republicans and the Democrats are talking about. The size of the stimulus package that is necessary given the dire condition that we are in. I like to live within my means. I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money? I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money?
Coffman:I do think that the situation is so severe that it warrants it. And obviously, from my point of view, that the greatest stimulus to the economy is by allowing individuals, small businesses owners, and corporations to keep their money in their pockets. And let the individual spend it versus the government spend it. So they can spend it their way. [BigMedia emphasis]
Now that Rep. Mike Coffman's congressional district is widely regarded as more competitive, reporters should take another look at Coffman's media appearances over the past years, and ask questions where none were asked before.
Of course, the low-hanging fruit is on local talk radio, where questions about Coffman pile up in your head so quickly you start forgetting good ones unless you write them down.
So I'm going to roll out a series of these interviews over the holiday season, to lay out some questions that linger about him.
Coffman has made no secret of his opposition to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, for example, at least for combat troops, who are, as he puts it, "at the tip of the spear."
He's argued, "Interjecting sexuality into a ground combat team potentially creates an emotional divide between Marines that undermines confidence and prevents that interdependent bond from forming, ultimately compromising the combat effectiveness of the unit."
That may sound extreme, but on the radio, mostly with, you-go-dude style enthusiasm from hosts, Coffman has gone further, arguing that combat troops can "just tell" when a fellow fighter is gay.
He dumps the qualifiers, like gays could "potentially" create problems, and goes straight to declarative assertions about the destructive impact of putting gay men in combat situations.
Beauprez: You brought up something that I think is often forgotten. Outward displays of sexuality, however we want to, I guess, let our mind figure out what that really means, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, they create a problem on the battlefield.
Coffman: Well they really do. And I think it's hard for people to understand that. But it's young people. And it's not you punch out and go home at 5 o'clock. And even if it is no overt sexuality, there is an emotional tension there where people can tell.
Beauprez: Yeah, and that is not a good place for emotional tension.
Coffman: No it's not.
Beauprez: You have enough of that going on.
I wish I could send one of those WTF Jon Stewart faces out of this blog, because reporters should ask Coffman how combat troops know who's gay and who isn't.
And if they think they do, how is that any different from them believing something else about a fellow soldier, like his race, class, or what have you? I mean, soldiers could suspect anything and everything, positive or negative, about fellow soldiers, and either they'd get over it or they'd get disciplined, end of story.
Talk-radio host Michael Brown, of Heck've-a-job Brownie fame, felt no need whatsoever to challenge Rep. Mike Coffman Tues. as Coffman explained to Brown that America should have an "active counter-intelligence effort, to make sure that our [military] ranks are not infiltrated by those sympathetic to radical Islam."
Coffman told Brown, who was filling in for Mike Rosen on KOA, that the United States has "got to do a vetting of people, a counter-intelligence, the same that we did during the Cold War and an acknowledgement that we are at war today with an ideology, and it's cloaked in a religion called radical Islam."
"We need that same mentality today, to have that active counter-intelligence effort, to make sure that our ranks are not infiltrated by those sympathetic to radical Islam, like Major Hasan [Fort Hood], like Private First Class Abdo. And I think that is very important. And I think that it would also help Muslim Americans who are serving, because then those soldiers, Marines, and airmen, serving alongside of them would understand that they have been vetted and that they can be trusted," Coffman told Brown.
I had a inkling that vetting members of the armed forces, based on their religious affiliation, didn't sound kosher in terms of the U.S. Constitution. Criminal activities I can see, but religious?
Kelley let it fly by, but I thought this should have been picked up by journalists, since it came from Coffman, especially given that Rick Perry, who was surging at the time, had just called Social Security a ponzi scheme.
After I posted it on my blog, Coffman's comment was reported by national blogs and, later, by a Post columnist, but not a single reporter asked Coffman to comment further.
Or so I thought.
Unfortunately, I missed an subsequent interview in October with Coffman on Fox 31's Zappolo's People, a weekly interview program that airs Sundays at 10 p.m. on Channel 31.
Fox 31 anchor Ron Zappolo usually asks his guests tough questions, so the show has an underlying edge, but his questions are often sufficiently surrounded with light chatty stuff that his interviewees don't get defensive; they answer with more honesty than they otherwise might, like on a lot of talk radio.
In this segment of the Coffman interview, Zappolo begins by shaking his finger at Coffman and smiling to Coffman and into the camera, as if Coffman were an old friend:
Zappolo: You are never afraid to say controversial things.
Coffman: It's true.
Zappolo: I'll give you just a couple. You went on somewhere the other day and said that Social Security is a ponzi scheme. You've also talked about how all ballots should be in English. Correct?
Coffman: Right.
Zappolo: Do you ever think about, as a politician, some of these things, I might be better off steering away from?
Coffman: You know, no. [smiles] My staff wishes I would. [laughs]
Zappolo: The honesty comes out. [laughs]
Coffman: But I don't. The thing with Social Security. I think it is, although I agreed with ponzi.
Zappolo: You scared people in your district who are 65 and over.
Coffman: I think a lot of people, and I made my best effort to get them to understand. Quite frankly, the program is going to be there for them. It's just the younger generation that it's not going to be there for. And so the sooner we can reform it, and I think if we reformed it it now, I think there are analyses that say for people 55 and older, we can leave it the same. For 55 and younger we are going to have to phase up the age up to age 70 to make it work. And so I think we can certainly make it work.
I like watching how Tea Party radio plays a role in the care and feeding of radical ideas. Here's a small example.
This summer, I had a good honest conversation with Ken Clark, co-host of Grassroots Radio Colorado (KLZ 560AM), about what would happen to kids if the state of Colorado required their parents to pay more for their children's government health insurance.
Clark agreed with me that there's a risk that some kids' health would suffer, but he said there are risks with running up more government debt too. (Sen. Greg Brophy has said the same thing.)
Then my on-air conversation with Clark moved to the bigger picture. He talked about how individual generosity, not government, should replace the safety net in America. That's a theme you hear a lot on conservative talk radio, and often Ayn Rand's name gets tossed in the mix.
Around the same time I had my conversation with Clark, Rep. Mike Coffman published an op-ed in the Littleton Independent taking a similar stand, but pointing to a place where the economy is booming in the absence of the economy-killing safety net.
Coffman refers to the China, which he presents as a model free-market economy, saddled unfortunately with political repression.
The Dover Air Force Base mortuary for years disposed of portions of troops' remains by cremating them and dumping the ashes in a Virginia landfill, a practice that officials have since abandoned in favor of burial at sea.
The Dover, Del., mortuary, the main point of entry for the nation's war dead and the target of federal investigations of alleged mishandling of remains, engaged in the practice from 2003 to 2008, according to Air Force officials. The manner of disposal was not disclosed to relatives of fallen service members.
Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman supported the Bush Administration and their incompetent and malicious war policies almost every chance they got. They should be held accountable for this failure.
And any time a Republican says he supports the troops we should make them prove it with deeds, not the empty words of a cheap politician.
I may disagree with Rep. Mike Coffman about some things, but he has a lot of guts to call for Pentagon cuts, like he's been doing, especially since he represents a district near Colorado Springs.
It's a truism that most politicians who represent communities anywhere near a military facility won't suggest defense cuts, even if the cuts are unrelated to the military activities in their districts. It's one for all and all for one, even if a tiny slice of the defense budget could change the world for millions and millions of people.
Pentagon spending now accounts for about half of the federal discretionary budget, which is the portion of the budget that's the focus of most beltway debate.
WASHINGTON-House Republicans have announced plans to cut heating subsidies for the poor, job training and President Barack Obama's "Race to the Top" program providing grants to better-performing schools, as they unveil a massive spending bill for labor, health and education programs.
The controversial GOP measure also seeks to block implementation of Obama's signature health care law, cut off National Public Radio from federal grants and reduce eligibility for Pell Grants to low-income college students.
With the partisan glow emanating ever more brightly from Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, it's worth taking a moment to think back on another SOS conflict-of-interest brouhaha that spilled out of the Secretary of State's office in Colorado in recent years.
The local media hasn't done much of this, so I'll fill in the journalistic gap a bit here.
On a Denver radio program, "Kelley and Company" Wed., Rep. Mike Coffman called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and aligned himself with Gov. Rick Perry over Mitt Romney and other candidates in the race to be the GOP presidential nominee.
That's news, if you ask me, especially the Ponzi scheme part, but it has yet to be picked up by other media outlets. I think Social Security is a hot topic, being the third rail of politics and all, but journalists could spice up this angle on the topic by interviewing Ponzi scheme experts, like Bernie Madoff. (Maybe not him, but his ilk.) Do they think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?
Here's what Coffman told Steve Kelly, host of "Kelly and Company," on KNUS-710 AM:
I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn't do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive. [BigMedia emphasis]
Unemployment is 9+%. Housing is ready for another wave of foreclosures. Renewable energy programs are under attack. States and localities are cutting programs for the least among us.
Schieffer: The fact is, the Congress has been in session since January and it's done basically nothing.
PELOSI: Well you can talk to Mr. Boehner about that.
SCHEIFFER: So it's all their fault. It's not your fault?
PELOSI: They set the agenda. We have said every day that they're there another day goes by and there's no jobs agenda or jobs bill that has come to the floor. But again, it's about how we can work together to go forward. These issues are bigger than politics, they're bigger than elections. They're about the country that we will live in. And what we will see as we go forward is one vision of America that's encompassed in the Republican budget plan that abolishes Medicare, that makes college unaffordable for nearly ten million young people in our country, that takes us deeper into debt and does not create jobs, or you can talk about an agenda that talks about making it in America, investing in American education, innovation and that's what campaigns are about.
Doug Lamborn's contribution to a jobs agenda? Cut NPR. Never mind the miniscule amount of money that goes to public broadcasting. Talk about oil company subsidies and Lamborn says we should cut NREL instead. For a dim bulb he sure knows which side his bread is greased on.
And on and on with the trite and tivial. Republicans say government doesn't work and are doing everything possible to make it true.
They don't care if you or I are working, productive or contributing to society. They have one goal right now: get that Black Man out of the White House. That is Republicans' Job 1. They couldn't care less who has a job as their tactics to achieve that bald-faced goal are turned into policy.
What did these geniuses, who say they are trying to balance America's budget, 'Nay'?
No major Integrated Oil Company shall be eligible for any tax benefit or relief under the following provisions of such Code to the extent attributable to such tax period.
So they don't want to remove any of the existing tax benefits these oil companies currently receive. There are some who argue that due to extreme market conditions (which always seem to help their bottom line) oil companies should be taxed at "windfall" levels. Though it will never happen that's the policy I'd put in place.
It's doubtful much local or state press has reported the details of this vote; it's too far "in the weeds" they'd say. So these 4 goofs who are representing us will probably never have to answer that question, but it would be nice if someone checked with Coloradans about their views on taxing some of America's and Colorado's most profitable oil companies, and for $3.50 a gallon we should at least get the time of day from the profiteers and their enablers representing us in Washington, DC - most especially those from Colorado.
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman is a co-sponsor of a resolution in the U.S. House that would reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto and encourage the posting of the motto on government buildings and in public schools. The resolution has raised the ire of secular groups who say the resolution is unnecessary and that it is discriminatory against non-believers as well as faithful Americans whose religious traditions do not involve a Judeo-Christian god.
The resolution reads in part, "Whereas the sentiment, 'In God We Trust', has been an integral part of United States society since its founding; Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured; Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction."
Ummmmm, first, "In God We Trust" was put on our MONEY during the McCarthy era, which says enough about both the location and the sentiment.
Luke 17:11-19 On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!" When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they went, they were made clean. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.
Coffman broke his ankle Christmas morning while jogging at Meadow Hills Golf Course with his dog Buckley. The congressman hit an unknown object buried under the snow and fell.
"I successfully tested our health care system," he said, with a laugh. "It works."
[...]
Coffman rushed to an urgent-care center in a strip mall where X-rays showed he had, for the first time in his 54 years, broken a bone. He received a temporary cast and drugs for the pain, and he ponied up his $30 co-pay.
There surely are many more examples like that. Republicans love to play these issues for the pure theater, but like Mario keeps highlighting, they'll probably do nothing to adhere to the true philosophy of Jesus and God. But they don't need to worry, because it's OK if you're a Republican to be a major hypocrite about morals, laws, and the founding philosophy of this country.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R) of Colorado was jogging on Christmas morning when he stepped on something hidden by snow, fell, and ended up on crutches. "I successfully tested our health care system," Coffman said.
"It works."
Of course it does -- for him. Coffman, who has great taxpayer-subsidized insurance as a member of Congress, went for X-rays, found that he'd broken a bone, and received a cast and some painkillers. It cost him a $30 co-pay. A friend of a friend is a specialist, who saw Coffman on short notice and concluded that the conservative lawmaker would not need surgery. The visit to the specialist -- at an exclusive clinic in Vail -- wasn't covered by his insurance, but Coffman, who makes $174,000 a year as a House member, had no trouble paying the $350 out-of-pocket expense.
No one, and I mean No One, should let Coffman pretend he's standing on some kind of principle in this debate. And if he ever does stand on principle, it will be on a Taxpayer-Funded, Well-Healed ankle that tested the system........but only for those who make $174 Big Ones and think everyone else has that very same plan.
Usually a caucus effort is to rally and organize a message and a plan. But what could it possibly be? Is it yelling the word socialist louder? Maybe they'll revive the "M" word like it's something to fight about. Perhaps they could rail against "government interference" while being members of the government AND interfering with things like the census which Bachmann told her constituents to not fill out and then the moron changed her tune when someone told her that would put her job at risk.
As of now, it's just a nasty show of misguided whiteys.
