Another Lie: Medicare Costs

[subgenius]

Let me be the first to say it: Clinton did it too.
Let me also say: that don't make it right.

___________________

March 17 — Late one Friday afternoon in January, after the House of Representatives had adjourned for the week, Cybele Bjorklund, a House Democratic health policy aide, heard the buzz of the fax machine at her desk. Coming over the transom, with no hint of the sender, was a document she had been seeking for months: an estimate by Medicare's chief actuary showing the cost of prescription drug benefits for the elderly.

Dated June 11, 2003, the document put the cost at $551.5 billion over 10 years. It appeared to confirm what Ms. Bjorklund and her bosses on the House Ways and Means Committee had long suspected: the actuary, Richard S. Foster, had concluded the legislation would be far more expensive than Congress's $400 billion estimate — and had kept quiet while lawmakers voted on the bill and President Bush signed it into law.

Ms. Bjorklund had been pressing Mr. Foster for his numbers since June. When he refused, telling her he could be fired, she said, she confronted his boss, Thomas A. Scully, then the Medicare administrator. "If Rick Foster gives that to you," Ms. Bjorklund remembered Mr. Scully telling her, "I'll fire him so fast his head will spin." Mr. Scully denies making such threats.
................

But Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who was also a negotiator, said on Wednesday that he did not learn of the higher estimates until January, when he attended a Republican leaders' retreat. An aide to Mr. DeLay said Joshua B. Bolten, President Bush's budget director, presented the $534 billion final figure at that meeting.

"The leaders about took his head off," said the aide, Stuart Roy, adding, "It was very clear that none of the leaders in that room had ever heard those numbers before."
.....
But Mr. Foster's figures do have significance. The Medicare bill was President Bush's highest legislative priority going into the election year, and Congressional forecasts about its cost were highly uncertain. At the same time, conservative lawmakers were up in arms over the expense, and were threatening to vote against the measure.

Ultimately, the legislation squeaked through the House by a final vote of 220 to 215, but only after Republican leaders kept the roll call open for nearly three hours while they twisted the arms of recalcitrant party members. Had the cost estimates been higher than the Congressional Budget Office figures, lawmakers of both parties say, it is possible the Republican-backed bill would have been doomed, or at least significantly altered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/politics/18MEDI.html

____________________

And what's interesting was that the lie was to influence conservative Republicans.
The White House is alienating a lot of their own party in Congress.

[subgenius]

The run-up to the Iraq war was more hype than lie. Medicare is a clearer example of dishonesty and corruption at high levels

The Medicare story is a clearer example of dishonesty and, yes, corruption at high levels. As former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill's statements make clear, the lying about budget numbers began early in the administration, when the White House falsely claimed that the government could not use the surplus to further draw down the debt. It continued after 9/11, when an assistant Treasury secretary complained that the administration was squandering the national consensus by insisting on tax-cut projections that weren't real. But the most shocking deception took place in the run-up to the signing of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit on Christmas Eve.

Recall how that bill squeaked through Congress only after some heads were cracked. A retiring Republican from Michigan, Rep. Nick Smith, even charges that supporters of the bill offered him a bribe in the form of financial support for the political campaign of his son. The bill was priced at the time at $400 billion over 10 years. After the deed was done (the specifics of which amounted to a huge giveaway to the pharmaceutical and health-care industries), it came out that the real cost will be at least $551.5 billion—a difference of $150-plus billion that will translate into trillions over time. Now we learn that the Bush administration knew the truth beforehand and squelched it. Rick Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, says he was told he would be fired if he passed along the higher estimates to Congress. "I'll fire him so fast his head will spin," Thomas Scully, then head of Medicare, said last June, according to an aide who has now gone public.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4571136/

[shanek]

The only thing amazing is that this actually surprises some people.

Harry Browne called it (yet again). When will people start listening?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek
The only thing amazing is that this actually surprises some people.

Harry Browne called it (yet again). When will people start listening?
Doesn't seem like anybody cares, much less is surprised.
Is it just too complex to understand?

[TillEulenspiegel]

You know Sub that's the bad thing. In the post Watergate world apathy seems to rule and we tend to expect the worst from our politicians. They seem more then happy to accommodate us.

[crackmonkey]

So... if both parties engage in this kind of thing, what would be a solution? Having some kind of impartial auditor assess the fiscal impact of policies? Isn't that what the GAO does anyway?

[WildCat]

What I don't understand is why the Dems are making an issue about this. After all, their main complaint is that the bill doesn't go far enough!

Isn't it fair to say that the Dems would rather spend more on Medicare? And if it is, why the complaining?

Seems to me that the Republicans should be more upset over this than the Dems.

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So... if both parties engage in this kind of thing, what would be a solution?

A third party principly dedicated to eliminating this kind of thing. A third party that realizes that government DOESN'T work, and this kind of thing will ALWAYS happen once you give government any kind of new power. With the Medicare issue, this is hardly the first time this has happened; it's been happening ever since the introduction of Medicare itself.

This isn't abuse of the system, or corruption of the system, or the system gone horribly awry; it's just the system and how it works. The only solution is to not give these people the power in the first place.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by WildCat
What I don't understand is why the Dems are making an issue about this. After all, their main complaint is that the bill doesn't go far enough!

Isn't it fair to say that the Dems would rather spend more on Medicare? And if it is, why the complaining?

Seems to me that the Republicans should be more upset over this than the Dems.
Actually they are. The lies were to swing Republican votes.
Hastert has basically stopped talking to the advisors because he gets funny numbers all the time. I'll try to find a similar story about the numbers game on a highway bill that ticked him off big time.

[subgenius]

Gotta love that Google.

"Hastert said he wasn't receiving "straight numbers" on the highway bill from Bush's "people" and said, "I don't deal with his people anymore."

http://www.enr.com/news/transportation/archives/040315.asp

[subgenius]

The Republicans are p.o.'d about it:

Federal officials who misled Congress or pressured others to do so about the cost of the Medicare drug benefit should be fired, U.S. Rep. John Sullivan said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has called for an investigation into concerns that Medicare analyst Richard Foster believed Tom Scully, the former head of the Medicare agency, would have fired him if he shared his cost projections of the Medicare bill with members of Congress.

Sullivan and other lawmakers think they may have been deceived about the actual cost of the Medicare bill, which passed in 2003.
....
Sullivan said if the investigation shows wrongdoing it should lead to termination.

``I think they should be punished for that. I think it's wrong,'' the Tulsa Republican said. ``That person should be dismissed.''


http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpage=1&id=59560

The ends, once again, do not justify the means.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
A third party principly dedicated to eliminating this kind of thing.

Or not. It's easy to stick to your guns when elections are pretty much academic exercises. If the Libertarians were to become mainstream, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me they wouldn't become every bit as corrupt and irresponsible as the rest.

Democrats and Republicans aren't corrupt because that's inherent to the parties; they're corrupt because they're (at the moment) on top, and thus attract the opportunists and con men.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Or not. It's easy to stick to your guns when elections are pretty much academic exercises. If the Libertarians were to become mainstream, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me they wouldn't become every bit as corrupt and irresponsible as the rest.

It's possible, certainly. But at least with the Libertarians you have a chance, whereas with the Demopublicans you KNOW you're getting a corrupt and irresponsible government.

Democrats and Republicans aren't corrupt because that's inherent to the parties; they're corrupt because they're (at the moment) on top, and thus attract the opportunists and con men.

What you need to do is start examining the system that is in place; then you'll see that it is the system itself that is corrupt no matter who is in office. The solution is to dismantle that system and take these power away from government. As Michael Cloud said, "The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse."

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
What you need to do is start examining the system that is in place; then you'll see that it is the system itself that is corrupt no matter who is in office. The solution is to dismantle that system and take these power away from government. As Michael Cloud said, "The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse." [/B]

Agreed. But I don't think the solution will be anything as simple as getting a new party into power. In fact, I don't know what the solution is. The problem is socially-based: it just doesn't occur to most people that politicians can be anything other than self-serving liars. That being the case, it will always be easy for self-serving liars to weasel their way into office, no matter what party they ostensibly belong to.

So, it will require a social solution. Those are notoriously slow and even more notoriously difficult to engineer. It may be that we have to wait until the lives of a large percentage of the population are obviously and unacceptably affected by the drain.

To put it another way: have you ever heard of a government becoming less bloated and top-heavy as time goes on? My experience is limited, but it always seems to end with the dissolution of the government itself, one way or another.

Jeremy

[subgenius]

Stop with the derail. There is a lesser of two evils. Always.

Bush's Medicare dream turning into a nightmare

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/medi22_20040322.htm

[subgenius]

When your only weapon is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek


A third party principly dedicated to eliminating this kind of thing. A third party that realizes that government DOESN'T work, and this kind of thing will ALWAYS happen once you give government any kind of new power. With the Medicare issue, this is hardly the first time this has happened; it's been happening ever since the introduction of Medicare itself.

This isn't abuse of the system, or corruption of the system, or the system gone horribly awry; it's just the system and how it works. The only solution is to not give these people the power in the first place.

I have a lot of respect for the Libertarian viewpoint. But; why, oh, why, do your candidates sound like they wear tin foil helmets to keep the satellites from reading their thoughts?


The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.
Michael Badnarik (http://www.badnarik.org/issues/speech_on_iraq.html)


His idea for national security is to bring home all US troops immediately from everywhere and blow up the UN. His plan to restore Iraq after we blew the crap out of it? ... private voluntary charity.

:crazy:

[toddjh]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I have a lot of respect for the Libertarian viewpoint. But; why, oh, why, do your candidates sound like they wear tin foil helmets to keep the satellites from reading their thoughts?

The problem with third party candidates these days is that they shoot for the moon. Going for the U.S. presidency right away just makes them look completely naive and dumb. They should first focus exclusively on state legislatures and local offices, without even fielding a presidential candidate. Then, when they've made some progress there, run for governor and seats in Congress. Finally, if they enjoy wide support, then aim for the oval office. Slow and steady wins the race.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I have a lot of respect for the Libertarian viewpoint. But; why, oh, why, do your candidates sound like they wear tin foil helmets to keep the satellites from reading their thoughts?

I have no idea. Perhaps you could cite some quotes by, for example, Harry Browne (all sorts of material at www.harrybrowne.org) showing this?

Actually, our NC Senate candidate, Tom Bailey, has a great speech about why he's not paranoid of government anymore, and to show why he goes into detail about all the stuff he used to be paranoid about government doing have actually happened. It's a great speech.

His idea for national security is to bring home all US troops immediately from everywhere and blow up the UN. His plan to restore Iraq after we blew the crap out of it? ... private voluntary charity.

What's so crazy about stopping the international meddling that fosters anti-American sentiments, getting us out of a world organization that is siezing too much power for itself, and private voluntary charity?

That actually reminds me of a great campaign commercial Browne had. There's a closeup of the IRS sign outside their building, and the voiceover: "Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for President, has big plans for the IRS building." Then it cuts to footage of a building being imploded. The best part was the last shot, showing a hunk of concrete with a piece of rebar sticking out, and a sign that reads, "For Sale: Genuine piece of the IRS building. Proceeds to pay off the National Debt."

Oh, one thing about Badnarik: He used to be a JFK conspiracy junkie. After a bunch of us pointed him to various pieces of evidence, wearing out all of his points, he finally concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman and was not part of a grander conspiracy. He changed his mind upon seeing the evidence, openly and without hesitation. That's class! How many candidates do you know that have done something like that?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, one thing about Badnarik: He used to be a JFK conspiracy junkie. After a bunch of us pointed him to various pieces of evidence, wearing out all of his points, he finally concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman and was not part of a grander conspiracy. He changed his mind upon seeing the evidence, openly and without hesitation. That's class! How many candidates do you know that have done something like that?

With Republicans and Democrats, that's called flip-flopping.
:)

[Ipecac]

So both Libertarian candidates discussed in this thread used the image of blowing up buildings as part of their campaigns.

Geez, I wonder why people think they're nuts?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
So both Libertarian candidates discussed in this thread used the image of blowing up buildings as part of their campaigns.

Geez, I wonder why people think they're nuts?

Geez, I wonder why people think non-Libertarians don't have a sense of humor and irony?

Browne's commercial was clearly humorous. Badnarik's is clearly ironic because it was largely these intrusive foreign policies which benefitted the enemies of these terrorists which made them target the WTC and the Pentagon in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Evolver
With Republicans and Democrats, that's called flip-flopping.

I know you're joking, but just in case someone takes you seriously, flip-flopping is when a politician switches positions back and forth as it becomes politically convenient; witness John Kerry's ever-shifting stance on war. Badnarik was convinced that a position he had held before, and rather passionately at that, was just plain wrong, based on the evidence that was presented to him.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by shanek
Geez, I wonder why people think non-Libertarians don't have a sense of humor and irony?

Browne's commercial was clearly humorous. Badnarik's is clearly ironic because it was largely these intrusive foreign policies which benefitted the enemies of these terrorists which made them target the WTC and the Pentagon in the first place.

Sense of humor and irony? After Oklahoma City and 9/11, a politician using the idea of blowing up a building to try to get votes is just clueless. I don't care what party they're from, this doesn't speak well of their intelligence and judgment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Sense of humor and irony? After Oklahoma City and 9/11, a politician using the idea of blowing up a building to try to get votes is just clueless. I don't care what party they're from, this doesn't speak well of their intelligence and judgment.

Okay, first of all, if you'd bothered to actually think about it you would have seen that Browne's campaign ad would have had to be the 2000 campaign, so it was before 9/11. Also, Badnarik is making a corrolation between the two events to make an ironic point, and you can hardly do that with an event that hasn't happened yet.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, first of all, if you'd bothered to actually think about it you would have seen that Browne's campaign ad would have had to be the 2000 campaign, so it was before 9/11. Also, Badnarik is making a corrolation between the two events to make an ironic point, and you can hardly do that with an event that hasn't happened yet.

I had thought about it. Browne's campaign making a joke out of blowing up a federal building post-Oklahoma City was in bad taste. Same with Badnarik's ironic point.

The Libertarian party has a problem because many people consider them to be radical, anti-government kooks. These types of ads do nothing to dispel that image. Surely you can agree that these types of images are not going to attract mainstream voters?

[shanek]

Well, I guess by that argument, any movie or TV show or commercial showing a sinking ship is in bad taste since the Titanic, any showing train wrecks are in bad taste since the Great Crush Collision, and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are in bad taste since the death of Karl Wallenda.

Give me a break!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, I guess by that argument, any movie or TV show or commercial showing a sinking ship is in bad taste since the Titanic, any showing train wrecks are in bad taste since the Great Crush Collision, and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are in bad taste since the death of Karl Wallenda.

Give me a break!

Umm...uhh...you do realize that timing is the important factor here? That WWII or Vietnam computer games are popular now when they would've been in incredibly bad taste 20 or 40 years ago? That the fact that something is fresh in peoples' memories might be in some small way relevant here?

Jeremy

[subgenius]

The problem I have is that if every thread gets turned into a debate about Libertarianism then there are no issues discussed.

Could we have one big Libertarian debate thread?

This one was about the Republican party lying to their own people to pass a bill.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius
This one was about the Republican party lying to their own people to pass a bill. It wouldn't have happened in the Libertarian Party! :) Sorry, you asked for it ...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek

I have no idea. Perhaps you could cite some quotes by, for example, Harry Browne (all sorts of material at www.harrybrowne.org) showing this?


You mean the one with this disclaimer?
While Harry Browne supports the Libertarian Party and the American Liberty Foundation, his views are his own and do not represent the official policies of either organization.

He's not running for office, is he?

Actually, our NC Senate candidate, Tom Bailey, has a great speech about why he's not paranoid of government anymore, and to show why he goes into detail about all the stuff he used to be paranoid about government doing have actually happened. It's a great speech.
Er. Don't know him, sorry. Paranoid was the best album that Black Sabbath ever put out.

What's so crazy about stopping the international meddling that fosters anti-American sentiments, getting us out of a world organization that is siezing too much power for itself, and private voluntary charity?
Is that what kicking the U.N. out and blowing up the building would do? Why didn't we think of that before? America will not turn into Switzerland in our lifetimes and we all know it. Nothing is wrong with private voluntary charity unless you call upon it to rebuild a country that our government declared war on and made a promise to rebuild.

That actually reminds me of a great campaign commercial Browne had. There's a closeup of the IRS sign outside their building, and the voiceover: "Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for President, has big plans for the IRS building." Then it cuts to footage of a building being imploded. The best part was the last shot, showing a hunk of concrete with a piece of rebar sticking out, and a sign that reads, "For Sale: Genuine piece of the IRS building. Proceeds to pay off the National Debt."
See what I mean? If a candidate from any other party used something like this for a campaign, could you imagine the media fallout?


Oh, one thing about Badnarik: He used to be a JFK conspiracy junkie. After a bunch of us pointed him to various pieces of evidence, wearing out all of his points, he finally concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman and was not part of a grander conspiracy. He changed his mind upon seeing the evidence, openly and without hesitation. That's class! How many candidates do you know that have done something like that?

That's class? Most politicians instinctively know that talking about fringe conspiracy theories is political suicide.

What I'm talking about is that I think Libertarians have some darned good ideas (or should I say ideals?), but your candidates really should learn how to play the game, and they also have to realize that they aren't going to turn over what has been established in the last 200 years or so in one term. It takes time and patience to effect any real and lasting change. Libertarians just seem a bit too eager to me to start tearing everything down and start over from scratch (my perception). AFAIK tearing everything down and rebuilding IS the right thing to do, but it just won't happen.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
The problem I have is that if every thread gets turned into a debate about Libertarianism then there are no issues discussed.

Could we have one big Libertarian debate thread?

This one was about the Republican party lying to their own people to pass a bill.

Yeah, and we're not happy about it, okay? Got any alternatives? Please don't say John F*ing Kerry. :p

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by toddjh
The problem is socially-based: it just doesn't occur to most people that politicians can be anything other than self-serving liars.

Please tell me this is a joke. Everyone in Europe realises that is the definition of politicians.

[subgenius]

Enough of the derail, now back to the topic:

WASHINGTON, March 24 — The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, told Congress on Wednesday that last June he provided the White House with data indicating that prescription drug legislation would cost 25 percent to 50 percent more than the Bush administration's public estimates. That information did not make its way to Congress for six more months.

Mr. Foster said he had shared his cost estimates with Doug Badger, the president's special assistant for health policy, and with James C. Capretta, associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. But he said that Thomas A. Scully, who was then administrator of the Medicare program, directed him to withhold the information from Congress, citing orders from the White House in one instance.
...
Mr. Foster was calm and even-tempered in his testimony. "I did not especially want to be fired, but I was not afraid of it," he said. Last summer, he said, "I ultimately decided to resign in protest." But he added, "the staff talked me out of that."

Mr. Scully denies threatening Mr. Foster, but confirms having told him to withhold certain information from Congress.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25MEDI.html

There's a clear pattern. Fast and loose with facts. Get people to tell you what you want to hear. Ends justify means.
EPA report. Highway bill. WMD. Medicare bill.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Umm...uhh...you do realize that timing is the important factor here? That WWII or Vietnam computer games are popular now when they would've been in incredibly bad taste 20 or 40 years ago? That the fact that something is fresh in peoples' memories might be in some small way relevant here?

Are you saying that OKC was "fresh in people's minds" when Browne ran his 2000 campaign commercial? I'd love to see evidence of that...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Are you saying that OKC was "fresh in people's minds" when Browne ran his 2000 campaign commercial? I'd love to see evidence of that...

Enough that depicting the demolition of a federal building is probably not the best idea. 9/11 will be over three years old by the next election, and it will sure be in people's memories. The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't on the same level as the WTC destruction, of course, but as far as I know no one is <strike>depicting</strike> threatening the collapse of landmark New York buildings in their campaign. Well, except Badnarik of course.

There's a substantial difference between five years ago and thirty, sixty, or ninety years ago. In general, it's a good idea to make sure your target audience won't be old enough to have been personally affected by the type of event depicted. Really, this seems like common sense.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
You mean the one with this disclaimer?

He's not running for office, is he?

He was a very prominent Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000; he broadcasts a very successful libertarian radio show, will speak at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, and is involved in a prominent libertarian organization. Perhaps you'd like to stop evading and answer the question?

He's just one example, BTW. Feel free to select others; Gary Nolan, for example, since he seems to be the one who will likely win the nomination in May.

America will not turn into Switzerland in our lifetimes and we all know it.

Uh-huh. Nice argument. Brief, but riddled with fallacies.

Nothing is wrong with private voluntary charity unless you call upon it to rebuild a country that our government declared war on and made a promise to rebuild.

As much as I agree that we have a responsibility for what happens in Iraq, what could we really do there that won't end up making the situation worse? I think if we had any sense we'd make Iraq a Republic with states drawn along ethnic lines and equal representation in a small central government. But that's not likely to happen.

See what I mean? If a candidate from any other party used something like this for a campaign, could you imagine the media fallout?

No, not really. It's the IRS building. It's not like it's a hospital or a daycare center. It's something that people really wouldn't mind seeing go.

That's class?

Yes, admitting that you're wrong when confronted with the evidence is class. But apparently you don't want to give any Libertarian even an inch.

What I'm talking about is that I think Libertarians have some darned good ideas (or should I say ideals?), but your candidates really should learn how to play the game,

If we do that, we would betray those good ideas and ideals you just mentioned.

and they also have to realize that they aren't going to turn over what has been established in the last 200 years or so in one term.

No one's saying they will. And it's really what's been established in the last 50-100 years.

It takes time and patience to effect any real and lasting change.

And we're doing that, having the patience and taking the time to build the movement from the grass roots up, instead of cheating like the Reform or Green parties and running a celebrity as a candidate, which gets you media attention but doesn't really help get your ideas to the public or get elected. Rarely do you get a Jesse Ventura, who has the celebrity status and the idea, but you can't depend on that.

[Ipecac]

Shanek,

Just to clarify.

You don't see anything inappropriate, questionable, or ill-advised with a presidential candidate running an ad depicting the willful destruction of a federal building within a few years after Oklahoma City?

On the practical side, do you think such an ad would be effective in garnering votes? Is there a downside to the candidate airing such an ad?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
You don't see anything inappropriate, questionable, or ill-advised with a presidential candidate running an ad depicting the willful destruction of a federal building within a few years after Oklahoma City?

Considering that the ad got a huge response the few times it aired, with hardly any complaints at all (if any), I'd have to say, "No." His "Battered Voter Syndrome" ad got a LOT of complaints, but his IRS ad didn't. Neither did his Social Security ad.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by shanek
Considering that the ad got a huge response the few times it aired, with hardly any complaints at all (if any), I'd have to say, "No." His "Battered Voter Syndrome" ad got a LOT of complaints, but his IRS ad didn't. Neither did his Social Security ad.

Please clarify "huge response" and "hardly any complaints". A link would be appreciated. Thanks.

[subgenius]

I would ask you gentlefolk to take the derail debate elsewhere.
Nightline tonight featured the Medicare numbers fraud story, and I'd like to continue with the topic of the thread.
Is that unreasonable?

[subgenius]

Bribes were offered by Republicans to Republicans.

[subgenius]

The Medicare Scandals
Accusations of Bribery, Lying, Intimidation Cloud Bill’s Success
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/medicare_040325-1.html
....
On this issue, however, he said, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "openly strong-armed members. It's a gross violation of the normal role on the speaker."

Moreover, Hastert was joined on th floor of the House by Secretary Thompson. That Thompson was there "is just an enormous breach of the standards of the House," Ornstein said.
....
"This vote has now been held open longer than any vote I can remember," Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, fumed. "Democracy is about voting. But just as you cannot say on the Tuesday of Election Day, 'We'll keep the polls open for 15 more hours until we get the results we want,' we ought not be able to do it here."

"The three-hour vote will enter the realm of dark legend," Moffit said. "This was not good government's finest hour, shall we say."

Added Ornstein: "There is simply no question here that what Speaker Hastert did in the name of winning at all costs stained his speakership and stained the House of Representatives in a way that will last for a very long time."
...
Investigators are focusing on the tactics used against Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., who refused to buckle and voted no on the bill.

In December, Smith — who has largely kept away from the media since then — described the scene to a local Michigan radio station, WKZO-AM in Kalamazoo. "The arm-twisting was probably as strong as I've ever seen it," Smith said. "They threatened — here's what they did. They started out by offering the carrot." Smith is retiring this year, with his son Bradley running to replace him, "so the first offer was to give him $100,000-plus for his campaign and endorsement by national leadership. And I said no, I'm gonna stick to my guns on what I think is right for the constituents in my district."

The carrot having failed to work, Smith said, out came the stick. "They said, well, if you don't change your vote — this was about 4 a.m. Saturday morning — then some of us are going to work to make sure your son doesn't get to Congress." Smith says he "told them to get the heck out of there and I mighta used a different word besides heck."

Ornstein said "that, by any reasonable standard, is a bribe, and we're now in the middle of investigating it."
...
And as if these three fairly major controversies weren't enough, still others have appeared.

Medicare Administrator Scully received an ethics waiver so while he was negotiating the Medicare bill he was able to simultaneously negotiate with various companies for his next job — companies representing health-care interests that stand to make millions from the actual bill.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also been pilloried for using taxpayer dollars to fund a $9.5 million TV advertising campaign about the new law that the General Accounting Office
...
But right now, the aggressive steps used to pass this bill seem to have snatched a political defeat from the jaws of victory.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/medicare_040325-1.html