President Barack Obama has instructed the Health and Human Services department to develop new rules for hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding.

The memorandum from Obama to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, made public late Thursday night, orders new rules that would ensure hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors."

Obama says the new rules should require that hospitals not deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay," Obama says in the memo.

Affected, he said, are "gay and lesbian American who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

Cue conservatives to start whining about "special rights for homosexuals," as if there is something extraordinary about visiting a loved one in the hospital or granting your life partner power of medical attorney. I'm glad the president took a stand on this issue.

I'm curious to see how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reacts to this executive order. I don't know whether Catholic hospitals are more likely to have rules in place preventing visitation by gay or lesbian partners, but I would expect religious conservatives to complain about the government nullifying such rules. I wonder whether there is even grounds to challenge Obama's order in court, if hospitals could demonstrate that their visitation bans are grounded in religious principles.

Repeated abuse of public funds. Refusal to debate substance. Tanking polls.

As Jerome highlighted earlier this week, Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo's campaign for Senate is falling apart at the seams. Attorney General Jack Conway has pulled into a dead heat with Mongiardo in the state’s Democratic Party, cutting the latter's lead from 45-27 to 35-32 in just five weeks, according to SurveyUSA. In addition to that poll, Conway won the Kentucky Young Democrats straw poll 57-37.

Conway’s surge is attributable to a number of reasons. Bloggers and the MSM alike have paid the most attention to Mongiardo’s opposition to health insurance reform. His language about the bill – a bill not a single one of the Senate Democrats he hopes to call “colleagues” opposed – is virtually identical to that of Repub Leader Mitch McConnell.

But the tightening in this contest may actually have more to do with alleged corruption than health care. Mongiardo’s campaign has been a haphazard train wreck for weeks now. For starters, Conway has won just about every debate against Mongiardo, of which there have been several. At the most recent, Conway said Mongiardo should return his $30,000 housing allowance given that he’s been living with his in-laws and used it to purchase land zoned for subdivision development. Mongiardo refused to address the substance of Conway’s challenge, saying only that “Jack Conway is a desperate man. He’s not done the work it takes to build a winning campaign, and now with five weeks left to go, he finds himself down by 18 points, and this is what he’s got.” No, sir. Three points.

As that exchange indicates, Mongiardo’s been caught red-handed in several scandals. The housing flap is just the beginning. As the Lexington Herald-Leader reports, “Mongiardo outspends Conway while traveling on public’s dime.”

Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo has spent more than four times as much in taxpayer money on travel expenses as his primary opponent in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, Attorney General Jack Conway.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reviewed travel-expense documents obtained under the state’s Open Records Act covering more than two years since the two men took office. They show that Mongiardo billed the state $33,000 for trips, including conferences and visits across the state. The Kentucky Democratic party reimbursed the state for one $4,000 trip. It cost at least $23,600 more for state troopers assigned to Mongiardo’s security detail to go with him.

There's more...

Iowa Democrat Roxanne Conlin raised more money than five-term incumbent Senator Chuck Grassley in the first quarter. She gave her U.S. Senate campaign $250,000 during the first three months of 2010 and raised nearly $630,000 from other donors. (She is not accepting any PAC contributions). Grassley raised $613,577 in the first quarter and has over $5 million cash on hand, compared to just $1 million for Conlin. Still, she has now raised "more than all of Grassley's past challengers combined," according to a campaign press release. More numbers from that release:

FACTS:

No PAC or Washington lobbyist funds.

81 percent of donors are Iowans.

78 percent of contributions are $100 or less.

Breakdown:

Campaign to date raised: $1,483,191

First Quarter 2010 raised: $629,615

Candidate contribution: $250,000

First Quarter PAC Money: $0

First Quarter Federal Lobbyist Money: $0

First Quarter 2010 total: $879,615

Cash on hand: $1,000,455

Those are impressive numbers for a challenger, especially since Grassley is not considered one of the most vulnerable Senate incumbents. Grassley's last Democratic opponent, Art Small, only raised about $136,000 during the whole 2004 campaign, and about $70,000 of that total came from the candidate himself.

I knew Conlin was holding a lot of fundraisers, but I am surprised that she was able to out-raise the incumbent for the quarter even if you don't count her own large contribution to the campaign. While she won't be able to match Grassley's spending, she will have the resources to run a statewide campaign, assuming she wins the June 8 Democratic primary. I haven't seen first-quarter numbers for the other Democratic candidates, Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen, but at year-end Fiegen had about $400 on hand, and Krause had about $3,500.

At Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock covered a recent dustup among the Democratic candidates over debates before the primary. I hope we will see some debates in addition to candidate forums, and I hope the final weeks of the primary campaign won't become too divisive. I plan to vote for Conlin, whose work I have long admired and who is best positioned to make the race competitive. Not only has she raised money, she will have a strong volunteer base. Just in my own precinct I know several Democrats who are not inclined to volunteer for Governor Chet Culver but will knock on doors or make phone calls for Conlin. By next Monday she will have held campaign events in all 99 Iowa counties.

Rasmussen's polling sucks, they've jumped the shark, and look at that House Effect!?&#$!

Oh wait, this is PPP, a Democratic pollster who finds that Obama has landed squarely behind:

He trails Mike Huckabee 47-45 and Mitt Romney 45-44, ties Newt Gingrich at 45-45, and leads Sarah Palin 47-45.

PPP gives the rationale, and its basically that Obama is now owning it (ie, the job, the economy and the brunt in this partisan atmosphere):

It's not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly popular, or even that Obama's approval numbers have declined. But whereas in previous months a good number of the voters disapproving of his job performance weren't ready to commit to voting Republican in 2012 yet, now 85-89% of them do in each of these hypothetical contests. That suggests that even if Obama's overall unpopularity has not increased, the intensity of it has.

Watching the unfolding of the HCR trainwreck, the misidentification of the Tea Party as the target, and the readily apparent tone-deafness of DC, is misery enough without having to pretend that its working.

On the GOP side, a real shocker with Bunning getting even, by endorsing Paul in the race. Trey Grayson said that Sarah Palin was not qualified to be President... thanks Trey for that piece of wisdom, you're toast now in the Republican primary.

[Update by Nathan Empsall:] I'm going to interview Jack Conway tomorrow. Let me know in the comments if you have suggestions for questions.

 

Although most Americans say their income taxes are fair, today is "Christmas in April" for Republican politicians trying to stir up resentment about the tax burden. As I mentioned yesterday, last year's stimulus bill contained tax cuts for 98 percent of American families and particularly helped lower and middle-income families. Gail Collins commented,

Thanks to the tax credits in President Obama’s stimulus plan and other programs aimed at helping working families, couples with two kids making up to $50,000 were generally off the hook this year.

Naturally, anti-tax groups held rallies to thank the president for doing so much to reduce the burden on the half of the country least able to pay. Not.

One of the biggest tax breaks in the stimulus bill reduces taxes owed by $400 for individual filers and $800 for married couples filing jointly, but reportedly this credit and the accompanying "Schedule M" have confused many people.

Here's a truly disturbing trend mostly ignored by the media. Annie Lowrey reports that in recent years the IRS has shifted toward more audits of mom-and-pop businesses and less scrutiny of the big corporations that "can defraud the federal government for much more vast amounts than their smaller counterparts."

At today's anti-tax rallies, some speakers will argue for a "flat tax," meaning that the income tax would be set at the same level regardless of your income. That's a bad idea, which hasn't worked in countries that have adopted it.

Other conservatives, such as Representative Steve King (IA-05) and presidential contender Mike Huckabee, will repeat their support for a "fair tax," which would replace the income tax with a huge consumption tax. That's a terrible, horrible, no-good very bad idea.

Speaking of conservative fantasy-land, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa decided to make stuff up during a conference call with reporters yesterday:

Grassley spoke of his belief that America is sliding toward a European-style economy. Actually, he said the Obama adminstration is moving the country in that direction, so he envisions President Barack Obama will ask for a tax increase via a value-added tax, since he can’t politically backtrack and increase income taxes on middle income people.

“They are going to need European-type taxes to maintain it, and that’s where the value-added tax comes in,” Grassley said. “...They just can’t get enough money from taxing wealthy people, to do all the things that they want to do. So you can add a value-added tax, and it is a hidden tax, because it is built into the price of the commodity you’ll buy. So, they can increase taxes on middle income taxpayers, contrary to what they promised in the election.”

Riiiight.

Today's rallies will surely generate a lot of media coverage, as well as some controversy over how significant the "tea party" movement is. News Corpse is skeptical about the political strength of tea partiers.

I'm watching several upcoming Republican primaries as a test of the tea party in Iowa. We have four-way primaries in Iowa's first and second Congressional districts and seven declared Republican candidates in the third district. I expect establishment favorites to win all three of those primaries, but each race has at least one candidate trying to fill the "tea party" niche. If any of them do surprisingly well despite a financial disadvantage, that will be a sign of real grassroots power for the movement here.

Share any thoughts about taxes or tea partiers in this thread. I'll be back later to comment, after waiting in line at the post office for who knows how long to mail my return (note to self: get this done earlier next year!).

I was disappointed by some compromises made to pass the stimulus (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) in February 2009. I felt President Obama made too many concessions in the fruitless pursuit of Republican votes, and that too much of the cost went toward tax cuts that would be slower-acting and less stimulative than certain forms of government spending.

That said, the tax cuts in the stimulus will help tens of millions of American families, particularly those with working-class or middle-class incomes. Citizens for Tax Justice has calculated that "the major tax cuts enacted in the 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals." In terms of the number of Americans who benefited, the stimulus bill was the biggest tax cut in history.

In addition, "the estimated $282 billion in tax cuts [from the stimulus] over two years is more than either of the 2001-2002 or the 2004-2005 Bush tax cuts or the Kennedy or Reagan tax cuts." George W. Bush's tax cuts were more costly to the U.S. Treasury over a 10-year period, but as Anonymous Liberal noted last year,

The Bush tax cuts were skewed dramatically toward the wealthy. In 2004, 60% of the tax cuts went to the top 20 percent of income earners with over 25% going to the top 1% of income earners. Those numbers have increased since then as the cuts to the estate tax have taken effect.

Tomorrow is the deadline for most Americans to file their tax returns, and Republicans will try to harness the tea party movement's anger at what they view as excessive taxes and spending. However, many ordinary people may be shocked to learn how large their refunds are this year. According to the White House, "the average tax refund is up nearly 10 percent this year."

Democrats should not be afraid to vigorously defend the stimulus bill during this year's Congressional campaigns. I wish the recovery act had been larger and better targeted, but the bottom line is that Republicans voted against the largest ever middle-class tax cut.

The White House website has this Recovery Act Tax Savings Tool to help people find benefits to which they are entitled. The White House press office released this fact sheet with much more detailed information on April 12. Note: if you have already filed your taxes, you can amend them after April 15 to collect on any credits from the stimulus bill that you missed.

Enjoy.

• Dems Urge Holder to Stay Strong on 9/11 Trial. (Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st)


• Restore Fairness on an alarming trend in Is the person next to you being racially profiled?


• Action on climate change has stalled because no one will lead, writes nhavey in The Dirty Energy Proposition (Part I).


• April 14: The Next Landmark Day For Immigrant Equality. (The Opportunity Agenda)


• Chuckie Corra details corporations putting proffits above the lives of miners in Coal Firms Fought to Keep Mines Unsafe.


• We have accepted the false dichotomy that in order for one tribe to prosper another has to decline says Forgiven in The Ugly American.


• Heather Taylor - Miesle NRDC Action Fund wants to know What are Mark Warner and Jim Webb Waiting For?


• The Media Consortium's Weekly Audit: Congress Must Get Tough On Wall Street.

The Republicans made their case against healthcare reform to voters in the days and weeks leading up to yesterday's special congressional election in Florida -- and lost badly.

Republican backlash over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul had little effect in the nation's first U.S. House race of 2010.

 

Florida Democratic state Sen. Ted Deutch handily won Tuesday's special election to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler after his underdog GOP opponent attempted to make the contest a referendum on the massive health care bill.

The district, Florida's 19th, leans strongly towards the Democrats, so the overall 62 percent to 35 percent spread in favor of the Democrats means less than the numbers underlying it. Here's First Read's take:

Yet perhaps the biggest news here has to do with seniors, who heavily populate that Broward/West Palm Beach district. That seniors -- the demographic group Obama has struggled with -- overwhelmingly stuck with the Democrat is pretty significant.

If the Republicans think that they have the House locked up in November, they may want to think again. Don't get me wrong, yesterday's election doesn't mean that the Democrats are ensured of victory in the upcoming midterms -- but that also doesn't mean that all the naysaying about the Democrats' chances isn't all a bit hasty.

Former Governor George Pataki has decided not to run for Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand this year, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

Instead, he said in an interview Tuesday that he would create a new national organization aimed at building support to repeal the recently enacted health-care overhaul.

Mr. Pataki's decision to bypass the Senate race marks another major coup for Ms. Gillibrand, who has been enormously successful in knocking out competition on both sides of the aisle despite appearing to be vulnerable politically.

I agree with Phillip Anderson of The Albany Project blog; it sounds like Pataki wants to run for president. He must be delusional if he thinks he has a chance in a GOP primary with his relatively moderate record as governor.

A year ago, Gillibrand seemed less than secure for the 2010 election, but various potential high-profile challengers have declined to take on this race. (New York's other U.S. Senate race has always been in the safe D category with Chuck Schumer.) Taniel of the Campaign Diaries blog noted yesterday that with Gillibrand no longer threatened, the last Senate seats that could still become competitive are Washington and Wisconsin. I think three-term incumbent Patty Murray would prevail even if the GOP's best candidate, Dino Rossi, got in the race. Ditto for Senator Russ Feingold against the GOP's dream recruit, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson.

UPDATE: Unintentional comedy alert as new Republican enters race against Gillibrand. He is David Malpass, who was chief economist for Bear Stearns from 2001 until the company collapsed in 2008.