During the weekend, the New York Post reported that Mitt Romney vetoed a bill to help fund kosher food at Massachusetts nursing homes in 2003. Newt Gingrich, who happens to be courting Jewish and elderly voters in Florida, immediately jumped on the story – and got it very, very wrong in the process:
“[Romney] eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare,” Gingrich said. “I did not know this, it just came out yesterday. The more we dig in, I understand why George Soros in Europe yesterday said it makes no difference if it’s Romney or Obama, we can live with either one.”
It’s a great campaign line for the former speaker, and the addition about George Soros is a nice touch. The problem is, Romney never actually “eliminated serving kosher food” to Jewish residents at state nursing homes, especially not in the way Gingrich describes.
In 2002, cuts in both federal and state subsidies to assisted living facilities, combined with the rising costs of maintaining the facilities, caused a couple of Massachusetts nursing homes to consider closing their kosher kitchens. It was an unfortunate decision, but there was never actually a concern that kosher residents would be forced to eat non-kosher food – the facilities were weighing several options, including busing in the food from other nursing homes or hiring catering services. The Jewish Advocate reported in January 2003:
[Nursing home owner Genesis ElderCare] decided in November to discontinue operating the Coolidge House’s kosher kitchen due to rising costs and decreased state and federal reimbursements. Management said although the kitchen would close, Coolidge House would continue to provide kosher meals either by serving pre-packaged food, contracting with a caterer to prepare and deliver meals, or bringing food over from the Heritage House, GEC’s nursing home at Cleveland Circle. Coolidge House officials say the kitchen will remain open at least through Passover, which starts in mid-April.
The issue was the nursing home had to maintain the kosher kitchen for everyone living there, even though reportedly just a small percentage of its residents actually kept kosher:
For administrators at the Coolidge House, it comes down to the math: Only 30 percent of the 200 residents are Jewish, they say, and only 8 percent now keep kosher. By preparing meat and dairy foods in the same kitchen, administrators say, they would save about $200,000, or 14 percent of annual dining costs.
“We understand the community’s sensitivities, but this is what we have to do to stay in business,” said Larry Lencz, executive director of Coolidge House. “The bottom line comes down to simple economics and changing demographics.”
Some Jewish community groups opposed the plans to bus in food, and instead requested additional state government funding in 2003 to help the kitchens operate. At the time, Massachusetts was struggling with a budget crisis, and Romney was trying to rein in costs by blocking additional spending. The kosher food bill that he vetoed would have provided an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes. Whether you believe he was right or wrong to veto it, this was clearly a position that made Romney appear insensitive to the elderly and Jewish communities.
In the end, the veto was overridden by the Massachusetts state legislature, and the facilities kept their kosher kitchens after all. But Romney’s decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to “eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.” First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney’s decision wouldn’t have cut anything – he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year. Which means Gingrich’s comments have little basis in reality.
And here we have the supposed 'conservative, Newt Gingrich, complaining that government wasn't spending enough… and getting the story wrong in the process. n nHint: it isn't Romney's attacks that are doing in Gingrich, he's doing that to himself.
Romney did move (with his attempted veto) to not prevent the 'elimination of kosher KITCHENS for elderly Jewish residents under Medicaid.' hat Newt said, 'eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare,' is pretty close.
No, eliminating Kosher food was never at issue. The food would be provided from outside the closed facilities. Gosh, I wonder why anti-Zionist comment hosting Huffington Post is going after proxy baptism…..Hmmmmm. So far no deceased Jews have complained. Though yes, baptizing the souls of Holocaust victims was felt to be grossly insensitive. Still, I am not aware that within Jewish religious cubits the concept to "baptize deceased souls" even meets the bar of coherence to merit theological objection. It's sort of along the line of, well "sprinkling magic elfin dust on departed Jews and making them Santa's helpers." Sorta depends on how you feel about that whole fat jolly man, reindeer North Pole thing.
I must say that, as the campaign goes on, I start liking Newt less and less, and I was a Newt supporter at the outset ! he accuses Romney of dastardly acts and lies and he is rather cavalier with the truth himself….I suspect that the Soros quet is also false.
This is an "anti-Establishment populist" in his latest incarnation. Facts matter to the degree they can be placed within the vibrantly colored mosaics Newt paints in the audience's imagination. Attacks on the wealthy, ultra-expensive and expansive new governmental missions to outer space, saving billions through motivational management or outsourcing initiatives–who knows whether Newt even considers this from some sort of linear logical perspective, let alone literal truth.
Newt is using that Soros quote in a robocall. No kidding, listeners are instructed to take seriously the comments of the mother of all 'establishment elites.' n nAlso, Gen. Petraeus is mentioned as a victim of Soros… but wait, I thought Petraeus was still working for Obama at CIA. n nHelp! I'm sooooo confused. Someone really needs to publish an up-to-the-minute Playbill of 'establishment' characters.
Yes, he does. And Romney does *precisely* the same thing in his robo-calls and ads in a 5-1 ratio of spending onslaughts, so let's just agree to call them both ridiculous for failing to address the merits of their respective policy positions, which are far more important. n nRomney's campaign is known for this – his hands aren't clean, and he's no victim.
Ah, well, if Romney says Gingrich had to resign "in disgrace", it's only fair that Gingrich should claim Romney closed Kosher kitchens.
If your colleagues caused you to resign because you continuously lied to them for a year wouldn't that be considered a disgrace, a cause of shame or loss of respect? If he didn't resign in disgrace how many awards dinners were held for him the week after he resigned by his House colleagues?
If that happened to me, I would. However, that is not what happened to Newt Gingrich, as the historical record makes quite clear.
Bob Dole said as much — that Gingrich resigned in disgrace. That's good enough for me.
If taxes were higher, the problem would not have arisen. nThink of how high taxes were during the prosperous years of the 1960s.
Will Newt provide kosher food on the lunar colony?
Absolutely. The sun reflecting off the aluminum foil covers of delicious Empire Kosher TV Brisket Dinners will bounce off mirrors in orbit and power solar-power cars across the byways of the heartland.
what a puff piece. The FACT is that Romney goes around claiming to be a friend of the Jews but when there was an issue of importance to the Jewish community, Romney just didn't care, showed gross insensitivity, and vetoed it anyway. Yes, the veto was overriden, but only by the legislature going around Romney to do so. Newt got it essentially correct, Newt's point was that Romney is 2-faced about his supposed warmth & friendship to the Jewish community. Of course, now that he's running for president, Romney is our best friend in the world, but somehow when we really needed him, he saw no great need to preserve the ability of elderly & poor Jewish nursing home patients to continue getting their kosher meals. Newt's point is really a larger one, and a correct one, that Romney talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. If you are claiming to be a friend of the Jewish community, then BE one when we need you. Simple as that. And if you're not going to be, then take the heat when you're running for higher office later. That's politics. So if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
Newt is depraved. I mean, really. This is one sick SOB.
So Gingrich would have supported spending an extra $600K to keep underutilized Kosher kitchens open? Wonderful, Mr. Speaker. You, indeed, are a Big Government kind of guy.
Does anybody really care, I didn't know that kosher food was the biggest problem we were facing. Who comes up with this nonsense, certainly not responsible journalists.
There is another aspect to this. Most nursing homes are proprietary, for-profit entities whose revenue comes almost entirely from Medicare, and in this Massachusetts case, Medicaid (it was added Medicaid funds that were sought). The operator mentioned in the Advocate article, Genesis Eldercare, is such a company — part of a much larger company that operates nursing homes and other health care instititions nationally. n nMedicaid-dependent nursing home operators, in particular, have a long history of pressuring state governments through elaborate lobbying for every nickel they can squeeze out (and a history of sharp practices, fraud and lousy patient care, too, but that's another story). It should go without saying that when Medicaid reimburses an operator for elderly care, the cost of meals is covered — that is, the cost of whatever meals might be needed, low-sodium, low-fat and all sorts of other specialized meals. What's more, as a place of public accommodation, under the law, nursing home has an obligation to serve patients regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, etc. and to make reasonable accommodation to religious practices. n nIt seems clear to me that these operators saw an opportunity to make an issue of the cost of kosher kitchens in order to press the state for more money. I'll bet it all went to their profit margin.
Huh? No basis in fact? Romney DID veto the bill that would have enabled nursing homes not to have to bus in kosher food. So how can you say the Newt ad has "no basis in fact"? n nAt least Newt's ads are in the ballpark and have some basis in fact, unlike most of Romney's ads.
So having kosher food catered is the same thing as denying it completely? Are you serious? This is your basis-in-fact? To turn "is" into "is not"?
Your magazine seems to be in 'full shill' mode for Romney.
Don't get between a fat man whose campaign consists of a string of restaurant visits and a good kosher meal.
Yes, but he replaced them with kosher chicken tacos and ice cold Corona's. LOL!
I am an Orthodox Jew and I agree with Romney's veto. Overall, I want a President who isn't afraid to cut spending. n nOTOH, replying to Ed, why does the government spend X amount of dollars at all on nurisng home meals? Why not just serve macaroni and cheese every meal seven days a week? What is the standard for food service in a nursing home, and if certain residents won't eat non-kosher food, are you going to let them starve? Are you going to pay for their hospitalizations when they need to be admitted to the hospital for malnutrition? Why should my tax dollar go to pay for hospitalizations for smokers or alcoholics? You can slip down the slope with this one, buddy,
There is another thing that needs to be said here — and it is a combination of federal Medicaid rules, state rules, and the unique nature of social service. n nOverly simplifying things, there is an allowable "Kitchen Supplies" amount per client in nursing home budgeting. You can spend this any way you want to (within the law) and there are checks on quality in terms of health inspectors (I was one once) and in terms of client/family satisfaction. The latter is no where near as solid as it should be for the concept of a competitive market to exist but this is how it is. n nYou want to buy only "fair trade" coffee even though it costs three times as much — you either cut somewhere else or get some donations as you have set amount of money in your budget. You want the Michelle Obama Fresh Fruit & Veggie menu — again, you gotta cut somewhere else because that stuff costs more. n nYou want to have a Kosher kitchen — great — but you have to eat that cost. You have to either get donations or somehow offset that cost from some other line item. Maybe you have some arrangement for rabbinical students to volunteer which cuts your labor costs, maybe you make a public appeal for donations, maybe you don't mow the lawn as often — or look to volunteer labor to do it. You are selling meals at a fixed priced, regardless of your costs, and have to balance the two out, you are running a business. n n(This is McDonalds removing the second slice of cheese from the McDouble so they could still sell it for $1 without loosing money.) n nOn the one hand, any decent person couldn't help but want the elderly, who have been productive members of society all their lives, to have things that are important to them and keeping Kosher is – absent its religious nature – such a thing. It isn't that much money, and as a former health inspector, I would prefer to see people eating from a kosher kitchen than not. n nOn the other, the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean something it was never intended to mean — its intent was to protect the right of each state to have its own religion — Massachusetts remained Puritan (taxpayer support of church) until 1855 even though it took effect in 1789. But I digress. We do not use public funds to subsidize religion, and we have an ACLU out demanding that the 10 Commandments be removed from every single place that someone ever chiseled them into a wall. n nBut the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that government can't be involved in religion and that includes funding it. n nYou simply can't give some people $15/day more in governmental benefits than others on the basis of their religion. No matter why or how important it is to the people involved, it is illegal to make distinctions on the basis of religion — why isn't everyone else entitled to $15/day more too? n nThis is the problem I have — and as we get more into Romneycare if not Obamacare, we are going to be dealing with it more and more.