The Hoosierpundit

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T21:35:00.001-05:00

Photo of the Day: Redneck Snowman

2009-12-24T20:54:00.002-05:00

Took a picture of this on my way home from work the other day.

I'm going to have to get myself one of these for next year.

Evan Bayh, WellPoint, and ObamaCare

2009-12-22T01:32:00.001-05:00

Last week, former Congressman and current Senate candidate John Hostettler tweaked Evan Bayh by sarcastically predicting that Bayh wouldn't vote for ObamaCare because it would endanger his wife's access to lucrative stock options as a member of the board of directors of health insurance giant WellPoint.

Well, Hostettler was wrong and he was right. He was wrong in that Bayh did very much vote for the ObamaCare legislation. But Hostettler was correct in that Bayh was not going to let his family's finances suffer from the passage of ObamaCare.

What Hostettler didn't count on was that the legislation itself--damaging as it might be to Indiana's state finances, as much as it might expand government, as much as it allows Federal tax dollars to fund abortions, and for all of its other myriad faults--still contained benefits for WellPoint and thus for the Bayh family.

Evan Bayh didn't need to worry about voting against his family when he voted for the bill. Bayh didn't get anything for Hoosiers in the sell-out-a-thon that came in the mad rush to get this abomination passed, but some things ended up in the bill that benefit WellPoint and thus the Bayh family's finances.

Evan Bayh has his priorities, after all, and it's pretty clear that big insurers like WellPoint (and his family's bank account) are way up there on that priority list. Ordinary Hoosiers, not so much.

As lefty blog FiveThirtyEight notes, the greatest benefit to health insurance companies comes from the insurance mandate contained within the legislation. Everybody must now buy insurance, and the legislation provides $400 billion in subsidies to private insurers to help make that happen. It also expands the customer base for companies like Wellpoint by almost ten percent.

Over the course of the next ten years, the Senate's bill directs about $447 billion in public subsidies to people for the purchase of private health insurance. (This is in addition to another $400 billion or so in subsidies for the expansion of Medicaid).

Another way to look at this is that the Senate's bill will add about 17 million nonelderly members to the private insurance companies' enrollment relative to the baseline case, according to the CBO. As about 177 million nonelderly Americans currently have private insurance, this represents a 9.6 percent increase in their customer base.

WellPoint, as one of the largest insurers in America, is going to get a big slice of that $400 billion pie. It's also going to see its customer base swell by around ten percent as many people who don't currently have insurance (for whatever reason) are forced to buy it from companies like WellPoint.

It's hardly surprising, therefore, that WellPoint stock closed on Monday at a near 52-week high. That's right where Susan Bayh would want it to be if she wanted to exercise some of those stock options as a nice Christmas present.

Democrats howled for years that the Medicare prescription drug benefit was a huge payoff to big pharmaceutical companies. By such simple reasoning, ObamaCare represents a huge payoff to big insurance companies like WellPoint. Moreover, the legislation contains a series of measures that will benefit large insurance firms such as WellPoint over their smaller competitors.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Still, the latest version in the Senate contained some bright spots for insurers, at least compared to potential provisions discussed that required insurers to spend 90% of premiums on health care. This weekend's version set the minimum medical-loss ratio at 85% for large-company coverage and 80% for small group and individual businesses.

"I think 85% for large group is not a problem; that's where they are anyway," said Mr. Borsch, the Goldman Sachs analyst. "Companies are going to have to change their business model to operate in the individual market at 80%," he said, citing commissions for brokers that might have to get cut.

In other words, some of the mandates set by the bill create competitive advantages for big insurers like WellPoint (on whose board of directors Susan Bayh sits) while deliberately placing smaller insurers at a competitive disadvantage.

WellPoint isn't going to have to trim its profits or alter its business model much to meet this 85% requirement. Its smaller competitors, however, are going to have problems meeting their requirements. Advantage: WellPoint.

The sad fact is that, under Obama, the Federal government is now in the business of picking winners and losers. Evan Bayh didn't get anything for Hoosiers in this legislation. He did get something for himself, though.

He made sure that companies like WellPoint were picked by the Federal government to be winners.

Mitch on ObamaCare at the Brink

2009-12-22T00:59:00.000-05:00

From National Review comes Mitch Daniels' statement on the imminent health care cataclysm:

"I'm discouraged, dispirited, and disappointed. Discouraged that such a backwards, anti-taxpayer disaster of a bill is this close to passage. Dispirited at a gross process of vote-buying and special deals that borders on corrupt. And severely disappointed that any of our delegation would vote for such an anti-Indiana measure.

"Let's nurture the hope that somehow the public will be heard before our nation makes such a terrible mistake."

Peyton's Language

2009-12-22T00:28:00.001-05:00

Harry Reid: If a Senator Didn't Get Something in Health Bill, They're A Sucker

2009-12-22T00:27:00.000-05:00

Doesn't speak well of Evan Bayh's efforts for Indiana in this whole mess, does it?

Politico:

“There are 100 senators here and I don’t know that there’s a senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that isn’t important to them,” Reid said. “If they don’t have something in it important to them then it doesn’t speak well of them.”

He likened the legislation to the defense bill, which is thick with earmarks and other provisions benefitting individual members and even private corporations.

“That’s what legislations all about,” Reid said of the compromises.

With news today that Indianapolis' Wishard wasn't the intended recipient of the mystery hospital money, there doesn't appear to be anything for Indiana or for Hoosiers in this bill.

As we're going to find, though, I think that there was plenty in this bill for Evan Bayh.

Indy's Wishard Not Intended Senate Mystery Hospital, But Qualifies Anyway

2009-12-22T00:08:00.000-05:00

A follow-up on this post from yesterday.

ABC News:

A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.

The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut.

Based on the criteria set out on the bill, it appeared that state-affiliated hospitals in about a dozen states could compete for the funds.

Wishard wants its share of the money, though, according to Jim Shella:

The bill says the money should go to a research hospital at public university that contains a state’s sole medical and dental school.

That description fits Wishard Hospital and, according to a statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, facilities in 11 states overall. It would be up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not Senator Dodd, to determine where the money goes if the provision becomes law.

Meantime, Wishard CEO Matt Gutwein says he will pursue at least a portion of the $100 million.

Hope & Change: Democratic Senator Reelected by 36% Margin in 2004 Now Trails by 22% in Reelect Polling

2009-12-22T00:03:00.001-05:00

No, not Evan Bayh (though this sort of polling should give Indiana's most famous invertebrate serious pause), but North Dakota's Byron Dorgan:

Incumbent Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan may have a serious problem on his hands if Republicans recruit Governor John Hoeven to run for the U.S. Senate in North Dakota next year.

The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of likely voters in North Dakota finds the popular Republican governor leading Dorgan by 22 points – 58% to 36%. Just six percent (6%) are undecided in that senatorial contest.

Part of the challenge for Dorgan is the health care legislation working its way through Congress. Dorgan, along with every Democrat in the Senate, has voted to move the legislation forward and is expected to vote for final approval of the reform later this week. That’s not likely to be well received in North Dakota where just 30% favor the proposed health care reform plan and 64% are opposed.

In 2004, a banner Republican year, Byron Dorgan was reelected in North Dakota by a margin of over 36%. In that same year, Evan Bayh's margin was "only" 24%.

There hasn't been any polling at all on Evan Bayh lately. One can't help but suspect that his numbers have seen some considerable erosion over the past year.

A Historic Passage

2009-12-21T23:52:00.002-05:00

Titanic Legislation

2009-12-21T23:51:00.002-05:00

Is Wishard ObamaCare's Mystery Hospital?

2009-12-20T22:20:00.000-05:00

Earlier today, the guys over at Power Line began to ask questions about a mysterious and unidentified hospital due to receive a big pile of money under Harry Reid's version of ObamaCare:

There are carve-outs for Nebraska, Vermont, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and a mystery state no one's been able to figure out yet: "$100,000,000 for a 'Health Care Facility' 'at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school'" (p. 328 of the manager's amendment).

They've been digging into the identity of this hospital:

Many readers have written in offering good candidates for the state whose university health care facility will be the beneficiary of the $100 million payday under the mysterious provision at page 328 of the Obamacare manager's amendment that the Senate will be voting on this week. Late this afternoon ABC picked up the scent of the story, as has Politico. ABC quotes the comment of one Republican source: "If taxpayers are going to be expected to sign the check, Democrats should at least let them know who to make it out to."

Is there not a single Democratic Senator sufficiently sickened by this putrid legislation to oppose it? What a revolting farce.

Later in the evening, Power Line heard from someone in the Senate that believes that Indianapolis' own Wishard Memorial Hospital is the mystery hospital due the $100 million allocated in the bill:

GOP Senate staffers speculate that the mystery hospital may be in...Indiana:

A good candidate for the mystery $100 million may be Wishard Memorial Hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. Wishard recently won approval for construction of a new hospital in downtown Indianapolis. If Wishard is not the intended beneficiary, they can make a credible case that they should be eligible for a share of the money.

Under Section 10502 of the Reid Amendment, the beneficiary of the $100 million must be "affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school." Is it affiliated with an academic health center? According to its Web site: "Wishard is proud to be one of the leading providers of healthcare in the city of Indianapolis with physicians of the Indiana University School of Medicine providing a comprehensive range of primary and specialty care services." Are they owned by the University of Indiana? No. Are they affiliated? Looks like they are.

Is IU the only public academic medical and dental school in Indiana? According to the Web sites of the American Association of Medical Colleges and the American Dental Association, it is.

Is the project "essential for the continued financial viability of the state's sole medical and dental school and its academic health center" as the provision requires? According to nine university presidents in Indiana, including the President of the University of Indiana, it is.

Has the state established a dedicated funding stream for the project? Yes. In November, voters approved $700 billion in bonds to fund the project.

Would the federal government provide less than 40 percent of the project? Yes. The proposal provides only $100 million of the $700 million project.

Can we say with certainty that Wishard is the intended beneficiary of this provision? No. But we think it is a pretty strong case they are eligible for the money.

One reader working on the case for us has identified Colorado as the probable beneficiary. He doubts Indiana because the required guberantorial application for the funds suggests the cooperation of an allied Democratic governor, though he concedes that Evan Bayh may have been working his own deal.

Where is the transparency? Do transparent payoffs qualify?

Could this be a pay-off for Evan Bayh?

Nebraska gets the rest of the country to pick up the tab for increased Medicaid costs.

And Indiana? Indiana gets $100 million for a hospital in Indianapolis that most Hoosiers won't even use?

If that's Evan Bayh's idea of being bought off, then he's dumber than I thought.

Quote of the Day

2009-12-20T22:05:00.001-05:00

From Red State:

The question of whether we live in a country ruled by leaders who refuse to listen, but do what they believe is in their own interest, has been answered.

Conservatives hate this bill. Progressives and liberals hate it too. The public is solidly against it.

But it does not matter, apparently. The implications of a country in open revolt against this bill and the elite in the Democratic party giving the public the finger are profound.

The Daily Kos and FireDogLakes of the net could not produce a single Democratic Senator or Independent to vote no. Conservatives could not produce a single Democratic Senate vote against cloture. Neither could the general public. Perhaps the left can still get one of their own to kill this nightmare. Is there not a single Dem Senator who will stand with the public, or is this merely a quaint notion we used to have about our country — that the system responds to the public?

The Democrats must have 60 votes to amend this bill, then 60 votes to defeat the filibuster. They say they have them — we will see.

Senator Nelson, according to a senior Senate staffer, got a huge appropriation for Nebraska — and a state opt-out for abortion funding, as in states can opt-out. Another Democratic Senator bought off with money we are printing to pay our bills.

The world will understand America has changed. Our country is now run by elites who are printing money, debasing our currency to throw at massive new spending and deficit creating programs — and actually believe they are both moral and politically smart. Just 19% of the public believes this plan will not increase the deficit.

What comes next is very discomforting to think about. But we have now crossed that line from what our country was into something else, and that something else has nothing whatsoever with the country being a Republic. There will be a reckoning for this, and it will not be pleasant — not for anyone.

The Democrats seem to have convinced themselves in a fit of madness that the reason they lost Congress in 1994 was not because they dared to attempt health care reform, but instead that they failed to get it done.

This sort of deranged thought process assumes that the American people so dislike the proposed health care reform that they will like it better once they have to live with it every day for the rest of their lives.

Such thinking defies all logic and reason.

This is like a man who grabs a live electric wire, gets shocked, and somehow convinces himself later that he should do it again and that there wouldn't have been any pain if only he had managed to hold onto the wire and not let go.

The Democrats have grasped the live electric wire, and this time they're not going to let go.

The Democrats' only hope lies in the American people being stupid enough to forget by next November what Congress has done to them this Christmas Eve.

The State Budget Consequences of Bayh's Vote

2009-12-20T21:55:00.000-05:00

As Evan Bayh stands ready to vote for Harry Reid's version of ObamaCare, it's worth having a reminder of the consequences that program will have for Indiana's budget:

Under the health legislation currently under consideration, Congress is counting on putting 15 million-20 million more people into the Medicaid program albeit with promises of enhanced federal funding. Fresh evidence from the National Association of State Budget Directors (NASBO) demonstrates that states are in no position to accept any increased costs of expanding Medicaid.

The Fiscal Survey of States: December 2009 shows that the budget situation faced by states truly is unprecedented. States cannot afford their current share of the Medicaid program but both the House and Senate bills prevent states from lowering current Medicaid eligibility. Giving Medicaid preferential treatment forces states to make reductions in other program areas.

And, under the proposed Senate legislation, Mississippi would have to find some $200 million a year to support the expansion of Medicaid. Other states, such as Indiana, have predicted full implementation of an expanded Medicaid population in ten years would cost Hoosiers an additional $1 billion a year. Nebraska predicts the cost of expansion will be greater than $450 million over a 10-year period, while Texas will be saddled with an additional$18.5 billion to $24.5 billion over that same time period.

We just found out this past week that Indiana is facing an almost $2 billion shortfall that is going to wipe out the state's reserves.

Now, Evan Bayh is going to saddle Indiana with an additional $1 billion in spending obligations with no way to pay for them short of raising taxes.

Democratic senators with actual brains (and not display mounts that serve only to display blow-dried emptiness) have gotten big concessions for their states, such as putting taxpayers in other states on the hook for ObamaCare's new state Medicaid obligations.

Evan Bayh hasn't been that clever. He also apparently doesn't care about the state budget train wreck that his vote is about to cause.

There's no dodging this one. It's all on him. His vote will decide, and he will be held accountable for it. This vote will likely render his mighty $12 million warchest moot.

A few dozen more private Cher concert fundraisers won't raise enough money for Bayh to make voters forget that he took their health care away from them and put it into the hands of government bureaucrats.

Tweet of the Day

2009-12-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." -- Groucho Marx, predicting the career of @evanbayh

- Jim Treacher, ripping Evan Bayh

They've Got Their Priorities

2009-12-20T21:36:00.000-05:00

Riddle Me This: If Ben Nelson Will Hold Out and Get Bribed, Why Can't Evan Bayh?

2009-12-19T15:04:00.000-05:00

It's true. Ben Nelson sold out the pro-life movement with his decision to vote for cloture on ObamaCare.

But Nelson, inarguably, got something for his state in exchange.

From the Washington Post:

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

A dirty secret of Harry Reid's latest legislative Frankenstein is that it will push the costs of increases in Medicaid off onto the states.

Ben Nelson, at least, sold his vote in exchange for making the other 49 states pay for the cost increases in Nebraska, instead of Nebraska's state budget having to pay for it.

What did Evan Bayh sell his vote for? Do Hoosiers, facing a huge budget shortfall as we do, get a similar exemption?

And if we don't, why isn't Evan Bayh threatening to kill ObamaCare to get similar special treatment for Indiana?

Why would Evan Bayh vote for legislation that will crush Indiana's budget but give a free pass to Nebraska (and, in fact, make Hoosiers pay for Nebraska's free pass)?

Why not be as ornery and contrary as Nelson and, at least, get a free pass for Hoosiers, too?

Why does Evan Bayh value Nebraskans over Hoosiers?

As If There Was Any Real Doubt: Baron Confirms “I’m Running for Re-election”

2009-12-19T14:53:00.000-05:00

The Courier-Journal has the story:

INDIANAPOLIS — “I’m running for re-election.”

Those words are from U.S. Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th district, who has for weeks endured rumors that he’s retiring from Congress in 2010 to run for governor two years later.
Not so — at least not the retiring part.

“I want to go back,” said Hill, who is serving in his fifth term. “We’re working on things like health care and energy independence and we’re now on the brink of getting these things done. But they’re not done to my satisfaction. I want to go back to refine them.”

Hill’s comments came just days after the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out an e-mail about Hill’s so-called “retirement jitters.”

The term actually came from a Congressional Quarterly story about Democrats who are retiring and those in tough districts. Hill was part of a larger list of “Democratic incumbents in competitive districts who will now be closely watched for retirement jitters.”

But Hill says he doesn’t know how the rumors about retiring got started.

He pointed to a story in Howey Politics, on online newsletter about Indiana, that also questioned whether he would run for Congress again or wait to run for governor.

“Do I have a desire to run for governor? I’m honestly thinking about it,” Hill said. But, he added, “I’m having a fund-raiser tonight at my daughter’s and a fund-raiser (coming up) with Wesley Clark” to support the congressional race.

Instead of distancing himself from Washington and its works, he's going to go all-in with Nancy Pelosi and Obama.

There's no turning back now.

There's No Way Baron Would Retire, Right?

2009-12-17T06:43:00.001-05:00

"There's just no way."

That's been my considered reaction to the talk this week about the possibility of Baron Hill retiring and not seeking reelection.

It's hard to conceive of a scenario where Baron would retire even with his gubernatorial (or senatorial) dreams on the line with a tough wave election facing him in 2010.

First of all, it's antithetical to his personality and wouldn't fit with his (rather substantial) ego. It's not in his nature to run away from a challenge, particularly one from people (Republicans, conservatives more generally, people named Sodrel, etc) for which he has rather deep (and demonstrated) contempt.

Second of all, the 2010 results (and the weakness of Todd Young and Travis Hankins) have made him cocky.

Mike Sodrel's measured silence also weighs into this. It's a Catch-22. Baron either faces opponents that are sufficiently weak that he need not be worried (Young and Hankins) or he faces an opponent that is strong enough to give him trouble (Sodrel) but with whom he has so much history that his ego probably won't let him retire quietly to live to fight another day.

No, I don't think that Baron Hill will go quietly into the night. He's going to stay for the fight, because he's either going to have an easy opponent or he's going to be continuing his duel-to-the-death with Mike Sodrel.

Of course, I could be wrong.

The DCCC (the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) on Wednesday put out a list of members of Congress that have committed to run for reelection and have promised that they will not retire.

Baron Hill was not on that list.

Could Baron decide to sit out 2010, enjoy a year or two off the campaign trail, and instead focus on 2012 (for governor or senate)?

It might be easier to run in 2012 if you don't have to go through another bruising round with Sodrel in 2010 (to say nothing of the very real risk of losing, and then having all of your future ambitions and dreams dashed forever).

Plus, any Sodrel campaign down in southern Indiana will have an very real impact on Baron's standing in the rest of Indiana. There will be ads running against Baron in the Indianapolis media market, and those ads will hammer Baron's liberal record and (almost certainly) they will hammer his more egregious statements of late ("political terrorists", "my town hall meeting," "my Congressional office", etc).

Even if Sodrel were to run and not win, the air war his campaign would wage with such ads (probably with the help of the NRCC) will probably cause serious damage to Baron's name ID and favorable-unfavorable numbers in the Indianapolis media market. I'm not sure that Baron would want that.

I really don't think Baron will decline reelection in 2010 for the reasons outlined above, but at this point nothing would surprise me.

I would have expected Baron Hill's name to have been at the top of that DCCC list, and it wasn't.

Supreme Court Rejects Chrysler Appeal

2009-12-17T06:10:00.000-05:00

Missed this the other day.

From the Indy Star:

The Supreme Court has declined to take another look at Chrysler's bankruptcy.

The justices today turned down an appeal from the state of Indiana pension funds that earlier challenged the automaker's bankruptcy proceedings. The bulk of Chrysler LLC's assets were sold to Italy's Fiat.

The court previously rejected the pension funds' effort to block the sale.
In the latest appeal, the funds argued that the arrangement worked out with Fiat, and approved by federal courts, violated federal bankruptcy law. The pension funds said they were not trying to reverse the bankruptcy sale, but instead wanted to recover money for themselves and other Chrysler creditors.

It's disappointing, to say the least.

Jim Shella Doesn't Get It

2009-12-17T05:59:00.001-05:00

From his blog:

John Hostettler’s first press release is an attempted attack on Evan Bayh that’s a little tough to follow. Hostettler first assures voters that Bayh will vote against health care reform.

His argument is that Bayh will vote for his own economic self interest because Susan Bayh serves on the Wellpoint board of directors. Then, Hostettler says he would vote no, as well, but for the right reasons, apparently. Those would include doing what Hoosiers want.

Is that a distinction that will get you elected?

If you expect one press release to constitute the entirety of a campaign against someone with perhaps the Senate's largest campaign warchest, then--obviously--no, a distinction made in just one press release is not something that will get you elected.

But Shella, almost certainly deliberately (you can just see the mustached doyen of the Statehouse reporters looking down his nose as he says "attempted attack"), is missing the point of Hostettler's press release, to say nothing of its sarcasm and its irony.

Apparently, also, Shella has no concern whatsoever with the interesting correlation that has been proven--by folks inside (and here) and outside (also here and here) of this state--to exist between Evan Bayh's voting habits and his wife's financial interests as a member of the various boards of directors on which she serves.

It's interesting that Hoosier newspapers, for example, can (rightly) busy themselves with endless editorials railing against the close relationship that the General Assembly has with lobbyists and special interests, but can then be almost completely silent about the relationship that Indiana's junior senator has with special interests courtesy of his wife. Maybe Hostettler's efforts will wake them up.

I suspect that Hoosiers will be concerned with this interesting aspect of Bayh's finances. It's good that Republican candidates challenging Bayh are making an issue out of these sorts of things; his opponents never bothered to highlight such shadiness before, and most newspapers in the state have tip-toed ever so delicately around the subject of Bayh's votes relative to Bayh's wife and their family's financial interests.

And as for voters punishing elected members of Congress for their party's sins, as opposed to their voting records, they have a habit of doing that. Evan Bayh could vote against ObamaCare and still find Hoosier voters punishing him for its passage (or just for the President's folly in attempting it).

Irony of ironies, John Hostettler voted against most of the most unpopular policies of the Bush administration (the Iraq war, spending, government expansion, etc). Hoosier voters sent him packing anyway. It would be an interesting irony of history for Evan Bayh to meet the same fate.

Dianne Feinstein: It's “Morally Correct” for Taxpayer Dolllars to Fund Abortions

2009-12-17T05:39:00.000-05:00

From CNS News:

As the Senate was debating the Nelson amendment Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: "Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?"

Feinstein said: "Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her."

CNSNews.com asked: "So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?"

Feinstein responded: "Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well."

The Lobbyist Days of Christmas

2009-12-17T05:33:00.000-05:00

The Princess and the Health Care Bill

2009-12-17T05:32:00.000-05:00

Hostettler Takes Aim at Bayh's Shadiness

2009-12-16T08:14:00.002-05:00

It seems that John Hostettler hasn't wasted any time in taking aim at Evan Bayh, and at the shady doings of Bayh's wife (which have been fodder on blogs left and right for months now).

The release:

HOSTETTLER: BAYH WILL VOTE "NO" ON OBAMACARE;

John Hostettler is assuring Hoosiers today that Senator Evan Bayh will not support a federal government takeover of the nation's health care system as the measure moves toward a vote in the U.S. Senate.

"Even before I announced my intention to run for the Senate, people were telling me how concerned they were about a government takeover of their family's health care. I can confidently assure Hoosiers that Indiana has one, rock-solid "No" vote on this issue. Evan Bayh will not vote for the Senate health care bill.

"The reason is simple: he cannot afford to alienate the health insurance industry.

"A vote for President Obama's most important legislative initiative will create a clear conflict of interest at home, literally, for Indiana's junior senator. The fact is that his wife, Susan, serves on the Board of Directors of one of America's largest health insurance companies, and she has been paid more than $1 million since first being named to that Board shortly after Senator Bayh's reelection in 2004.

"Bayh will not vote against the clear economic interests of his family. In the midst of these trying economic times – with nearly one in ten Hoosiers out of work – it's understandable that Senator Bayh cannot not endanger such a significant source of income to his own household."

Hostettler concluded, "I do not support the Senate bill or any other government takeover of the best health care system in the world. Though I oppose the Senate bill for other reasons, I am nonetheless encouraged that Senator Bayh will listen, if not to his constituents, to his family's economic interests."

In late October, Senator Bayh said he would consider joining Republicans to filibuster the health care bill. According to Forbes.com, Susan Bayh has received $1,068,352 in compensation since joining the Board of Directors of WellPoint, an affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield, in 2005.

John Hostettler is a resident of Blairsville, Indiana and is seeking the Republican nomination for the 2010 election to the United States Senate from the state of Indiana. John Hostettler was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1995-2007 serving the Eighth District of Indiana.

Things just got even more interesting.

Sodrel Decision “in the Next Few Days”

2009-12-16T00:51:00.000-05:00

From the Howey Report:

Former Congressman Mike Sodrel says he will declare his intentions for the 9th CD “in the next few days.”

In an e-mail to Howey Politics Indiana on Wednesday, Sodrel explained, “That announcement will include the ‘why.’”

Several influential 9th CD Republicans tell HPI they expect Sodrel to run. If so, it will be his fifth race, winning in 2004 while losing to U.S. Rep. Baron Hill in 2002, 2006 and 2008. As one high ranking Republican explained of Sodrel’s appearance at the 9th CD Christmas party in Scottsburg last Saturday, “Mike wasn’t there for the eggnog.”

Or as Sodrel put it, “I’m really not very fond of eggnog.”

As for the Tea Party movement that Sodrel supported with an appearance in Corydon last month, Sodrel explained, “I sincerely hope that the Tea Party influence is felt in political races nationwide. If the Tea Party is able to agree on a platform, remain independent of either party, stay out of primaries, and support the general election candidate that best represents their platform, they could bring America back from the brink of full fledged socialism.”

Sodrel warned, “If they just compete as a third party, they will likely just split the conservative vote, and hand the election to the liberals. The good news is that not since the civil rights marches of the ‘60s have so many people been willing to stand up publicly for their liberty. If this energy can be channeled into positive efforts it could change American politics, and America, for the better.”

Many party observers in the 9th agree that if Sodrel enters the race, he will be highly favored in a contested primary.