Category Archives: health care

Climbing Aboard the Hillary Train

20 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Election 2016, health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 4 Comments

I have an admission to make. It isn’t the popular or trendy one (but if you took a look in my closet you would see these are not words that affect my decisions) and it will almost certainly deny me a seat at the cool kid’s table in the cafeteria, but here goes.

Hi, my name is Craig and I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter.

There, I said it. Whew! This was not an easy destination for me. In 2008 I was the furthest thing you could get from a Clintonite. But times change, circumstances change, this isn’t 2008, and despite what the ardent Sandernistas would have us believe, Bernie Sanders ain’t no Barack Obama. And if my support for Hillary makes me a shill for corporations, a tool of Wall Street, a supporter of the oligarchy, a defender of The Establishment, and a lackey for the 1%, so be it. I’ve been called worse. What I do support and defend is reality, arithmetic, facts, and truth. However un-revolutionary that may be.

Unfortunately, I bear a few burdens and carry more than a few battle scars and subsequent lessons learned from this long, strange, trip we call life that lands me in the Clinton camp this time around. In no particular order:

There ain’t no free lunch, and anybody who tells me there is gets a great big ol’ sideways look and an “Unh huh, what’s the catch?” from me. It sounds good to an idealistic, innocent twenty-something—it would have to me many moons ago when I was that age and a babe in the woods of life. Not so much anymore. Everything costs something. And ‘somebody else will pay for it’ smells like 8-day-old road kill. Along this line, simple solutions get a wary eye from me, too. We have problems to be dealt with in this country, for sure. The undue influence of money in politics, access to health care, income inequality, the cost of a college education, to name a few. These are complex issues with many moving parts and the answers aren’t as easy as overturn Citizen’s United, Medicare for All, break up the banks, tax the rich, and free tuition. The fixes also aren’t quick. They will take time and commitment, not just a momentary Revolution!

I have a deep admiration and respect for President Obama. What this man has accomplished in the face of political adversity and opposition has been nothing short of remarkable. That opposition has come from both his enemies and his supposed friends, by the way. From the right because…well, just because that’s what they do, and from the left because of a good case of unrealistic expectations and unicorn hunting. As Democrats are wont to do, they show up for the presidential election and then check out. ‘OK, we elected you, now wave your magic wand and go do everything you promised. Mid-terms? What’s that? We’ll see you in 4 years.’ In spite of that, the list of Obama’s accomplishments is looooooooong. Saving the economy, health care reform, saving the auto industry…..it would take too much space for the entire roll call.

Now if my 2 choices to succeed Obama are one who embraces his accomplishments and his legacy, and promises to build on the foundation he has laid, or one who seldom misses an opportunity to take a shot at Obama, who called for Obama to be primaried in 2012, and who wants to risk tossing away 8 years of progress for a wish list of half-baked, pie-in -the-sky foolishness, that choice would be a no-brainer in my book.

I also carry the burden of having a pretty good civics education in my younger days, and a pretty good knowledge of how politics works from a few decades of observing and participating in the process. Promise all you want, what can you get done? And getting things done in our system requires the ability to form consensus and reach common ground with friend and foe alike. Which generally means first and foremost being a member of, and having a solid base of support in, one of one of the 2 major parties. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, has been a Democrat, has worked with Democrats currently in the Congress, and has the confidence of her fellow Democrats in her ability to not only work with them but with Republicans as well. She knows from experience how the process works because as First Lady she watched her husband get things done despite a Republican Congress, and she was a Cabinet member when President Obama got things done despite a Republican Congress. Hillary also cares about, and has a proven commitment to, Democratic candidates other than herself. So far she has raised over $18 million for the DNC to assist in the down ballot races. Bernie? Zero.

Bernie Sanders never wanted to be affiliated with the Democratic Party until he decided to run for president. Who are the people in the Senate he works with? Here’s a little barometer. Bernie’s 3 big ideas are Medicare for All, free college tuition, and a tax on financial transactions which will (allegedly) cover the cost of not only tuition but his trillion-dollar infrastructure plan as well. He has introduced legislation in the Senate over the last 3 years dealing with all three of these issues. So far those three pieces of legislation have a combined total of one co-sponsor. One. Add that to the number of Sanders’ colleagues in the Senate who have endorsed his run for the nomination and you get—-still one.

I also know this about the average American voter. Socialist Democrat ain’t gonna play in Peoria. Try and explain it the Sanders people can do all they want, the American voter, the vast majority who aren’t political junkies and who begin to pay attention sometime after Labor Day, will hear “socialist” and no further. The Republican nominee and the GOP attack machine will beat that drum from nomination ‘til November and have Americans convinced that Bernie Sanders is a cross between Marx and Mao. What also won’t sell is higher taxes. The last presidential candidate to proudly run on that promise was a guy named Mondale. I believe he carried 1 state in the election of 1984. Want some more buzz words that the average voter doesn’t give two flying figs about? The Establishment, the 1%, Wall Street, oligarchy. These all mean something to political wonks and those of us who follow this stuff daily. The great majority, the people who ultimately decide the outcome of presidential elections…Do. Not. Care.

I also suffer from a working knowledge of arithmetic. Whether on taxes, health care, college tuition, infrastructure, or any other plank of the Sanders platform, the numbers just flat don’t add up. Across the board it is nothing more than the left’s version of voodoo economics. No different than ‘cutting taxes will bring in more revenue, create jobs, and spur economic growth for everyone’, aka trickle-down. We all know how that worked out. Just because the snake oil is being peddled by a salesman on the left instead of the right doesn’t make it any less snake oil.

Age and maturity have also tempered the need for everything to be exciting. “Single payer” gets the adrenaline pumping more than incrementally improving the ACA, “break up the banks” is more sexy than improving Dodd-Frank, and “free college tuition” has much more eye and ear appeal than making college more affordable and reducing student debt. Some have described what Hillary Clinton is proposing as boring and unambitious. One person’s boring and unambitious is another person’s real and achievable. I’ll take 70% of something over 100% of nothing six days a week and twice on Sunday.

Sometimes things just work out right. Hillary Clinton wasn’t meant to be the president to precede Barack Obama. After the Bush years Obama was the right person for the job. The country needed a major shift of historic proportions and we got it. However, Hillary is exactly the right person to be the president who succeeds Obama. The right policies, the right temperament, and a firm grip on reality and what is achievable under the circumstances. We don’t need no stinkin’ revolution.

Advertisement

You Say You Want a Revolution…

31 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bernie Sanders, Campaign Financing, Corporations, Democrats, Election 2016, financial regulation, health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama administration, Politics, Supreme Court, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

…well you know, we don’t need one.
Let me get his out of the way first. I could not possibly care less about who gets the Republican nomination for president. Doesn’t matter one iota to me, I ain’t voting for any of them. No way, no how. I do, however, care who gets the Democratic nomination. Very much. Much has been gained during the Obama administration, naysayers on the left notwithstanding, and much stands to be lost should Democrats nominate the wrong person. The wrong person is Bernie Sanders.

I suppose that by the time one is pushing 60 years of life on this thing we call Earth, one should find very little at which to be surprised. One would be wrong. I find myself surprised at the intelligent, pragmatic, and otherwise generally clear-thinking and practical people who have been and continue to be taken in by the so-called Bernie Sanders revolution.

This isn’t original (read it somewhere but can’t remember where, another consequence of those nearly 60 years) but I wholeheartedly agree with it. The 2016 election isn’t about changing the guard, it’s about guarding the change. We changed the guard in 2008. After 8 years of the utter disaster that was Bush/Cheney, the American people were ready for a new direction–a completely different direction–we got that with the historic election of Barack Obama. Now we need a president who can guard the change. Who can first and foremost protect what has been accomplished and, where possible, make some incremental improvements. That isn’t nearly as exciting and sexy as “revolution” but I’ll take it 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

I suppose the appeal of the revolution is that it sounds so good and so simple. Medicare For All, Break Up the Banks, Overturn Citizens United. Yeah buddy, let’s do it. But drill down a little bit and it isn’t quite that good or that simple. Yes, the cost of health care is still a problem, the power of Wall Street is as well, and the influence of money on political campaigns needs to be addressed. But all these are complex and intricate issues which have reached the point they are now over years and even decades. They won’t be fixed with simple slogans and 8 page plans that don’t take into account the ramifications that would ensue should they be enacted.

Medicare For All. Does anybody actually believe that the health care needs of a family of four can be covered for $460 a year and paid for by nothing but a measly 2% increase in income taxes? Doesn’t pass my smell test. The state of Vermont found that out with their attempt to implement single-payer. When pencil met paper the result was closer to a 20 percent tax hike and a doubling of state expenditures.

Abolish private health insurance? What about the millions of Americans who make their living working for them? The private insurers aren’t just the few fat cat CEOs who sit at the top receiving exorbitant compensation. There are millions of Americans who work for not only those companies directly but whose jobs are dependant on their existence. Claims, billing, etc. What happens to them if private health insurance goes away? Does the Sanders plan lay out what happens to them should the “revolution” hit health care, and what would be the effects on the economy as a whole should private health insurance be outlawed? Nope.

The way forward is not to scrap the ACA after only 5 years, but to build on it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, none of these were perfect originally, neither is the ACA. But it’s damn sure better than what we had before, and in its infancy and with all its shortcomings has helped millions of Americans. To scrap it for a hastily concocted and not well thought out alternative would be foolish.

Break Up The Big Banks. Okay, then what?

“For example, to break up the big banks sounds good and well but what happens to the customers of those banks that rely on them for their savings accounts? What about small businesses that rely on those banks for loans? What about homeowners who pay a mortgage through the bank? Are all these accounts then shifted toward community banks? If so, which ones? What if this new bank is far away from someone’s home or business?”

And again, what is the effect on the economy of the break up and the loss of jobs sure to follow? As with the private insurers, these institutions are a significant portion of our economy and encompass more than just the guys at the top who get all the headlines. Lots of jobs for people not named Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein depend on Chase, Bank of America, Citi, et al. What happens to those people?

No, we don’t need to take that risk. Dodd-Frank, despite all its imperfections, is doing its job. Could it be stronger? Absolutely. But gradually and incrementally, as boring as that is, is the only way to proceed, both practically and politically.

Overturn Citizens United. This is a recording, it ain’t that simple. The Supreme Court can’t just take it upon themselves to overturn a standing decision. A case must be brought, in almost every situation, after having gone through years in lower courts. This whole “money is speech” and “corporations are people” mess got started with the Buckley v Valeo decision. In 1976. The rotten fruit of that decision became Citizens United. In 2010. For those keeping score, that’s 34 years. Changing the system will take time and a Supreme Court amenable to hearing and reviewing cases brought before it. We don’t have that now, revolution notwithstanding.

Just to be really blunt, Sanders can’t win in November. I know his supporters like to claim that he polls better against Republican candidates than does Hillary Clinton. Two things about that. One, January polls are about as predictive of November election results as Tarot cards and tea leaves. Two, should Sanders be nominated, and once Republicans settle on a nominee and turn all their blazing guns on Sanders, he will be destroyed by months of negative and yet more negative ads. He will go down and take a lot of people and a lot of progress with him in the process.

We can’t afford to let that happen. Change is hard, change takes time, and nobody waves a magic wand. The way forward is to build on the solid foundation laid by what will be the 8 years of President Obama. Given the two choice facing Democratic primary voters (sorry Martin, but it’s true) Hillary Clinton is the right person for that job.

While We Wait, a Prediction

29 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in health care, Supreme Court

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Now that the Supremes have finished hearing arguments and begin to deliberate the fate of the Affordable Care Act it seems to be the time for predictions on how they’ll rule, so I’ll throw in my $0.02 worth.

I see a 5-4 decision to not only throw out the individual mandate but the entire law. The reason being that without the individual mandate the entire law collapses. Justice Scalia said as much when he remarked about the “cruel and unusual punishment” which would be forced upon the Court if they had to go through all 2,700 pages of the ACA and decide what stays and what goes.

Some of the so-called “experts” who have been following the proceedings have opined that the Supreme Court would be overstepping its bounds and ignoring precedent to make such a sweeping move. I would ask those who hold this belief if they were asleep when the Citizens United decision came down. That’s exactly what the Court did in that instance. They ignored 100 years of precedent in campaign finance law and expanded the scope of their decision well beyond the parameters of the original case in throwing out almost all limits and restrictions on contributions and doing away with transparency concerning those contributions.

So what will result from overturning the ACA? I would like to think it would be a starting point for Democrats to begin a push toward some kind of a single-payer system, but that would require backbone, something I haven’t seen much evidence of, so I doubt seriously it will happen. The more likely outcome will be that reforming our broken system will be viewed as politically toxic and one will want to touch it for the foreseeable future. Until the foreseeable future meaning the time when the entire for-profit health care system collapses, which it inevitably will.

We’ll go back to the pre-ACA system where premiums skyrocket and coverage decreases every year until health insurance will become one more thing that is limited to those privileged few who can afford it. Those who can’t are just SOL. Insurance will become so costly that employers will stop providing it, the premiums will be so expensive that employees who are dropped won’t be able to purchase it, and those with pre-existing conditions won’t be able to get coverage at any price. The only care available to most people will be by way of the ER, and those will be so swamped with patients and so burdened by the costs that they will be forced to close. That may sound like gloom and doom but I don’t see any other alternative.

With the demise of the ACA and its Medicaid requirement on the states, conservatives and their ‘drown government in a bathtub’ pied pipers will also use the Court decision as a jumping off point to not only do away with that program but Medicare, Social Security and any number of other government programs as well. They will argue the constitutionality of anything that contains any form of government mandate, and if those cases come before this Court I don’t have much doubt that the outcomes will be similar.  Again, sorry to be so pessimistic but I don’t see much reason for optimism.

In closing, I have to make a comment on something James Carville said that just pisses me off, and makes for a sad commentary on the state of partisan politics in this country:

“I think that this will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party because health care costs are going to escalate unbelievably,” said Carville. “Just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better to me than overturning this thing 5-4 and then the Republican party will own the health care system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin.”

No, that’s not spin, it’s stupidity. And it’s not said as a “professional Democrat” but as a professional ignoramus.  It may or may not be a good thing for the Democratic party, Mr. Carville, but will it be “the best thing that ever happened” to the millions who are going to join the ever-increasing ranks of the uninsured because of those escalating costs? What about for those young adults who can no longer be covered by their parents policies or the people for whom Medicaid is their only access to health care?

No matter who “owns the health care system” and who gets the blame sick people won’t be able to get treatment and some will die for lack of care. But who cares about that, it’s more important that political points are scored. That sounds like something John Boehner or Mitch McConnell would say.

.

Useful Idiots

28 Wednesday Mar 2012

Posted by in health care, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

AFP (Americans For Prosperity) sponsored a rally attended by AFP (Astroturf Fools and Pawns) yesterday across the street from the Supreme Court. The speakers at this gathering of people against government interference in health care included Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Steve King, Rep. Allen West, Sen. Ron Johnson, and Sen. Pat Toomey. Notice a pattern there? They all receive government health care.

Here’s a photo of the crowd.


Seems to be quite a few grey hairs in that shot. How many do you suppose are on Medicare?

Much of what the speakers had to say dealt with freedom and liberty:

Allen West: “Thanks for coming out on a beautiful Washington D.C. for liberty, democracy and freedom.”

Michele Bachmann: “We will not wave the white flag of surrender when it comes to liberty and our healthcare.”

Rep. Steve King: “This American liberty is a precious thing, it doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.”

Ron Johnson: “This isn’t about healthcare, it’s about freedom.”

Yes it is all about freedom and liberty. The freedom and liberty of insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The freedom and liberty of insurance companies to cancel your policy when you get sick. The freedom and liberty of insurance companies to jack up your rates 20–30% a year. Your freedom and liberty to be bankrupted by medical expenses.

Idiots. Useful idiots.

Lost in the ’50s

13 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by in Conservatives, health care, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Is this really the hill Republicans want to die on? Didn’t we already have this argument like…I don’t know…50 years ago? Do their campaign strategerists actually think that ‘Keep ‘em barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong’ is a winner in the 2012 race for the White House? What’s next on the GOP agenda? Repeal of the 19th Amendment?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday:

“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”

McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”

…“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”

That would be the legislation proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the Blunt Amendment, which would, according to the National Women’s Law Center:

“[A]llow employers and insurance companies to refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” This creates a huge loophole in the new health care law’s coverage requirements. For example, any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. Such broad, undefined refusals (without any protections for the insured) would result in millions of individuals losing vital health service coverage.”

The NWLC gives a few examples of what that might mean:

“A plan could claim a moral or religious basis in order to refuse to cover HIV/AIDS screenings or counseling.

A health plan in the individual market could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
.
A small employer could offer a plan that does not cover maternity care for unmarried women in its plan, claiming that such coverage violates its belief that sex and procreation are permissible only within the marital relationship

An individual could object to coverage of vaccines for children, so the plan could then not be required to do so.

An insurer could refuse to provide coverage of any health care service to an interracial couple because of a religious or moral objection to such relationships.

An insurer could refuse to cover routine sonograms during the course of a pregnancy for a single woman even if routine dental X-rays or PAP smears are covered, due to a religious or moral objection to pregnancies out of wedlock.”

Here’s another one. What if a Muslim employer refused to cover his or her employees unless the plan provided that, based on religious convictions, men cannot be treated by women doctors, and vice versa. Do you think Republicans would defend this Muslim employer’s right to religious freedom? I’ll go out on a limb and guess no.

I like this take from Bark Bark Woof Woof:

“Okay, let’s see; the Republicans have already dissed just about every minority there is: the African-Americans, the Hispanics, the immigrants, the Muslims, anyone who’s not straight, anyone who speaks another language besides English, anyone who believes in science, anyone who believes in climate change, anyone who likes Clint Eastwood, and anyone else who’s held a view that isn’t in line with the white, straight, evangelical Christian male patriarchy. Now they’re going after the majority of Americans — women — and anyone who uses any kind of birth control or contraception, which includes everyone in the above-mentioned list.

So who’s left?”

Remember the Public Option

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Deficit, health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Shortly after the New York Times broke the story yesterday that a so-called “grand bargain” (which if reports are accurate is neither grand nor much of a bargain) had been reached between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, White House spokesmen immediately sprang into action. Press Secretary Jay Carney said “there is no deal, we’re not close to a deal” and Dan Pfeiffer tweeted:

“Anyone reporting a $3 trillion deal without revenues is incorrect. POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues.”

The Times account may or may not be true, we shall see in the next few days I suspect, but reading a post at AMERICAblog this morning reminded me of previous occasions when the White House kinda sorta fudged a bit on the truth, to be generous.

Like when the same Dan Pfeiffer said in October of 2009 that the rumors about President Obama abandoning the public option as part of health care reform were “absolutely false” and that:

“In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.  That continues to be the President’s position.”  

It was later revealed that in July the president had made a secret deal with hospital lobbyists that a public option would not be included in the final legislation. In March of 2010 Paul Hogarth at Huffington Post wrote:

“In other words, while Obama was still saying in September that he supports the public option (which kept us hopeful) – the President knew all along that it would never make it in the final bill. He never said he’d fight to include the public option, and repeatedly said he was “open” to other ways to achieve the same goal. But little did we know, the fix was in.”

I also recall that there was a similar situation with the pharmaceutical industry. The president continued to voice support for drug importation after another secret deal had already been cut with lobbyists that it wouldn’t be in the final legislation either.

FWIW.

Obama Hearts the “Gang of Six” Plan

20 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama was quick to endorse the latest deficit reduction plan, the one from the so-called “Gang of Six” released yesterday, calling it a “very significant step” and “broadly consistent with the approach he has advocated.” This without knowing the details. But the details weren’t really important, because all the major elements are indeed consistent with what the president wants in this deficit reduction shell game.

* Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts.
* Further cuts in the top marginal income tax rates. (So much for that pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire).
* Corporate tax cuts.
* The continuation of Reaganomics and Bushonomics. That would be the supply-side, tax cuts equals increased revenue and economic growth nonsense that we all know works so well.

The broad strokes of the “Gang of Six” plan (and just as an aside I wonder why Sen. Sanders is never included in any of these gangs? Not bi-partisany enough, I assume) are as follows:

An immediate $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction. All spending cuts, all from unnamed programs. A brilliant idea in a recession. The other $3.2 trillion in savings would be decided by various committees at some later date, enforced by spending caps. Congress would be required to get a 2/3 vote to exceed those caps. IOW, when the next recession hits, anybody looking for any assistance is SOL. David Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Simply put, this is a recipe for depression. When the economy suffered and stimulus would be required to increase aggregate demand, the 2/3 vote needed would simply put a stop to it. The New Deal would have been out of order under this regime. Same with the Recovery Act. Any spending from the federal government would be restricted as much as it is in the states. So there could only be the status quo or contraction in fiscal policy in the event of a recession, which is a perfect way to create a depression.”

Also in the down payment would be the institution of chained CPI, aka a cut in SS benefits, and repeal of the CLASS Act, which was a part of health care reform that the insurance lobby fought tooth and nail. From the New York Times, December of 2009:

“The Class Act, which the late Sen. Ted Kennedy considered his legacy, would allow people to buy long-term care insurance through payroll deductions and to receive cash if they’re later disabled, regardless of their age or of a previous health condition. “This is the best chance the baby boomers have to protect themselves from impoverishment if they need long-term care,” Mr. [Jim] Firman [president of the National Coalition on Aging] said.”

That is Part One. Part Two calls for an additional $200 billion in “healthcare savings,” aka Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and an $80 billion cut in the defense budget. That’s $80 billion over ten years, pocket change for the Pentagon. Gotta love that shared sacrifice.

In Part Two, the Finance Committee…

“…would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent…”

And this little goodie for corporations as well:

“…tax reform would cease taxation of overseas profits.”

The corporate behemoths had been lobbying to get the tax on overseas profits reduced, allegedly under the guise of returning these profits for use in job creation, but that’s not how it worked before:

“Congress and the Bush administration gave companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment.

While the tax break lured 800 companies into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that was used for dividends and stock buybacks, according to the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to 15 of the largest U.S. multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.”

So let’s just eliminate the tax entirely. Nice.

More on the tax “reform” aspects of this plan:

“Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens. He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.”

I’m not sure how that works. How is $1 trillion in revenue increases scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut? But I know for sure how this works, it doesn’t:

“It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.”

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform Not Meaningless At All

20 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, health care, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My first inclination is to call the Republican vote to repeal health care reform yesterday meaningless, since it’s unlikely to even come up for a vote in the Senate and faces a certain presidential veto even if it did,  but it actually wasn’t meaningless at all. It told us everything we need to know about today’s Republican party. Since they offered no alternative, only a “no” to the current law, the message was loud and clear.

Republicans are in favor of denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are in favor of Americans going bankrupt because of medical expenses. Republicans are in favor of insurance companies cancelling your policy for any reason, real or imagined, as soon as you get sick. Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit. Republicans will lie about, distort, and ignore facts and figures that don’t support their positions.

Here it is straight from the horses mouths. Steve King sees the pre-existing conditions provision as a “minor thing”:

“Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed Wednesday that he wasn’t worried about eliminating the popular preexisting conditions provision of the health care bill through the current GOP effort to repeal the law…This is too many pages, it’s too cluttered, it’s too big an argument to allow it to turn on one or two minor things.”

Phil Gingrey brushes aside the HHS report which says that up to 129 million Americans have a pre-existing condition that would deny them coverage, saying that number must include people with “hangnails and fever blisters” and that “if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.”

Gingrey is only following his leader. Speaker Boehner on the CBO report which says repealing health care will increase the deficit by $230 billion:

“…Boehner told reporters: “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.” The budget experts are “entitled to their opinion,” added Boehner.”

The “job-killing” part of the statement is a distortion of another CBO report on whether or not health care reform would lead to job losses. But Republicans have never been ones to let facts get in the way of a good lie, See “death panels” and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

Paul Krugman gets down to the nitty-gritty:

“The key to understanding the GOP analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do. And it’s not about the money…the modern GOP has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

Axelrod in Wonderland

24 Friday Sep 2010

Posted by in financial reform, health care, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Axelrod in yesterday’s Washington Post:

“Pundits will spend a lot of time predicting who will win in November. But more is at stake than the fate of Democrats or Republicans. What’s at stake is whether the powerful corporate special interests will go back to writing our laws or whether our democracy will remain where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.”

What color is the sky in the land where unicorns run free, Dave? “Go back?” They never left. Former insurance company lobbyists and executives wrote the lion’s share of health care “reform.” Your boss cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure their monopoly remained intact. Did the big banks get broken up by so-called financial reform? Hell no. Is too big to fail still around? Hell yes. Does the military-industrial complex still get the same blank check that they’ve always had? Absolutely.

FYI, Mr. Axelrod, we no longer have a democracy in America. The correct term is oligarchy.