Yes, we realize given most of the political talk this last week that this week's title is a little dubious, but rest assured it's more benign than you would originally assume. But it's apt given the debate in the opening part of today's program between the new DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and RNC Chair Reince Priebus.
The discussion lead off with what the respective players thought on the ultimate fate of Anthony Weiner. The newsworthiness of which is that Ms. Schultz said that even though he needs to resign, it is ultimately up to the Congressman. Mr. Priebus, on the other hand, has called Mr. Weiner a creep on several occasions this week, but deferred from that term on Meet The Press. He said that Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House, didn't call for his resignation. However, that's completely false. Once she learned of his lying, she called for him to resign and an ethics investigation to start. Her position has been very clear. But it's the scandal in and of itself that Mr. Priebus wants people to focus on - the red meat, that Democrats are creeps. The reason is that the Republicans, who are focusing on the economy and which we'll get to shortly, don't have popular platforms to run on. Mr. Ryan's budget proposal changes Medicare to the dislike of most all seniors and now Social Security, which Rick Santorum, former Senator (R-PA), spoke about later on today's program.
Yet, when Ms. Schultz brought up the case of David Vitter, the Louisiana Senator who hired prostitutes and was not called on by any Republicans to resign, Mr. Priebus dismissed it as an old case. Republicans do not answer well, as Mr. Priebus couldn't today, to the double standard obviously at play, but what we have in the present needs to be dealt with. Richard Wolffe, during the round table put it best in questioning, "How can he be at all effective with that level of embarrassment?" And how it will be dealt with, given this weekend's announcement by Mr. Weiner that he'll be taking leave, is something they touched on in the round table as well, which is redistricting. And yes, probably while he's on leave, the Congressman will be redistricted out so that the story will in effect go away.
And for the record, this column hasn't weighed in either way on whether or not Mr. Weiner should resign, but make no mistake that we've gone back and forth about it, weighing heavily. The conclusion, to which we've come and we believe is the right thing is to not make a call on it. What would a call like that from this column do? Nothing, it would have no effect so there's no reason. However, if it turns out that Mr. Weiner may have broken the law in some way, then he should definitely resign - no one is above.... well... (let's not go there.)
As we mentioned above, another large part of the Republican's Atkins diet is the economy, in which Mr. Gregory pointed out that unemployment, debt, and gasoline prices are all up significantly since Mr. Obama took office, whose disapproval rating on the economy is at a bulging 59%, a downright ugly number. Mr. Priebus lead with the loss of 2 million jobs since Mr. Obama took office in his rhetoric. Conversely, Ms. Schultz lead with "we've (Democrats) have turned the economy around."
To which the response is that they're both wrong. The Democrats haven't turned the economy around and we saw today that when Ms. Schultz said it, she reacted to want to pull that one back a bit. It is true however that Mr. Obama's actions saved this country some catastrophic economy pain, actions which Republicans criticize. As for the 2 million lost jobs, those were all lost in the first months of Mr. Obama taking office, a residual effect of the last Administration so laying that at the feet of President Obama is wrong and frankly a weak argument considering that there has been job growth, though modest, for the last 15 months. But it sounds great to the Republican base - it plays as a reassuring fact that Democrats aren't good for the economy and that Republican politicians can do better.
However, when Mr. Gregory asked about a specific proposal that should come from the Republican-controlled House, Mr. Priebus offered small business tax cuts. What is so frustrating about this is 1) Republicans have no other solutions other than tax cuts, 2) the Democrats since Mr. Obama has been in office have passed many tax cut bills for small business already, and 3) over the past 30 years tax cuts have never lead to any sort of respectable job growth in this country - a statistical fact. Small business tax cuts just equal to more roast beef on the plate.
This is all not to mention that Mr. Priebus was on the attack, in a hyperbolic degree, looking up to make the argument, which is body language that speaks of an inherently weak position. Speaking of weak positions, we feel that Mr. Gregory missed a big opportunity during this debate, which was to ask, Mr. Priebus in particular, about the staunch Republican support, all but 4 Senators, for the Paul Ryan budget plan, which would change Medicare in a way that it would be controlled by private insurance companies. Given this, Mr. Priebus is correct when he said that the President has a tough 'road to hoe,' as a CBS poll indicates that he's running even with Mitt Romney, 47% a piece.
Given that, as head of the Republican party, we would have liked to have heard from the chairman himself, as the party defends that when so much of the American populace is against it. For this column, this is a required answer. Another requirement answer is on what to do with Social Security, which leads us to the Rick Santorum interview.
Mr. Santorum described himself and Jim DeMint (R-SC) as Senators running up the Hill to spearhead Social Security reform when then President Bush called for it. The basic premise of which, if you remember, was to put Social Security into private investment firms. The American public was against it and were then proven right when the market and economy taken in September of 2008. Most would have been wiped out. This was the reason Mr. Santorum lost his Senate reelection by 17 points, however, today he turned it into a positive... and he almost made the argument.
He said that we should change Social Security from a wage-based pay system to a price-based system. He continued by saying that when he asked seniors, they would say that they want to be able to cover their cost of living and that by changing the system in this way would save money. Now, we're not experts here but this is our take on that. By moving the system away from a wage-based system, as Mr. Santorum says it is now, would save money by reducing the Social Security benefit to everyone. In a priced-based system, if prices go down so will benefits even if wages stay the same or go up. It leaves no leeway for a senior to have any extra money on hand or any disposable income of significance for basics outside of food, rental, and utilities. It seems to us that when Mr. Santorum asked the question, frankly, seniors didn't understand what he meant or he's twisting the answer to fit his rhetoric. We're not sure.
Mr. Santorum stands by some troubling convictions like that the President doesn't believe in Americans and is... his words... centralizing power in Washington - he uses health care as the example. He explained that Mr. Obama doesn't believe that Americans can make their own choices with regard to health care. This is the Republican rhetoric for their argument to put control of Medicare in private insurance company hands. It's a false argument, but as we said, Mr. Santorum takes the tact that somehow the President of the United States is against the American people - the "he's not one of us" argument.
Mr. Santorum said his loss did not come at the expense of his principles, which he believes are right for all Americans, and that he showed leadership in going down the way he did. Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, during the round table said that he could see Mr. Santorum's realistic path to the nomination citing name recognition and eluding that even though his extremely social conservative views will play well in Iowa, nationally they wouldn't play well.
On the economy, Mr. Santorum that corporate tax rates should be lowered so that major American companies bring back the trillion dollars in assets from oversees. Aside from making our point again about Republicans and tax cuts, whose to say that those companies will bring back the money. If there's no demand here for that investment then why would those companies make it. For that to happen, Republicans would have to legislate their way to lower overall wages for the American middle class for the jobs to come back in the way they think they will. He talked about maufacturing and the need to rebuilt the sector of our economy, how he used to pass the steel mills and smell the smoke and that said to him that people were working. Was it here that Mr. Santorum made a controversial statement? He said that we don't want the smoke anymore, but we want the people working. Mr. Santorum, why do we not want the smoke anymore if you believe that climate change is in no way caused by human activity. If it isn't then the smoke doesn't matter, correct? He needs to clarify that for us. But to be fair to Mr. Santorum on the economy, he did say that he would be coming out with a more comprehensive plan soon. However, there are some positions of his that are complete fringe, and frankly, stupid.
Mr. Santorum said himself that he believes that life begins at conception, when two cells collide (our positional interjection), and that under the Constitution that life should be protected, even in the case of rape or incest. Furthermore, doctors should be criminally charged for performing an abortion. Who is Mr. Santorum to make these judgements, which are solely based on a belief, a belief as an American, that we don't have to share. Mr. Santorum is completely outside the mainstream and also, this position goes against Republican libertarian thinking, and democratic (small d) thinking in that it dictates that one person has control over another person's body. Mr. Santorum knows what's right for a woman's body and mind... hardly.
The other troubling position is his philosophical opposition to public schooling, but not just that, but the entire premise of school children collectively getting together to learn in favor of home schooling. He said that children going to a place for eight hours to interact with children the same age isn't natural and not how the world works. This is insane thinking - it's exactly how the world works. People interact best mostly with other people their own age. How the world works is that everyone has different opinions, cultural traditions, races, religions, et al. and being home schooled, how is an individual supposed to interact in the world without any exposure to things outside the comfort zone? You can not - it's ultimate not healthy for the individual.
Please... Mr. Santorum speaks well and declarative on his positions, but his are the type that the founding fathers (We're purposely throwing this out there to prove a point.) sought to free themselves from.
Round table: Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D), GOP strategist Mike Murphy, MSNBC's Richard Wolffe, and the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
5.29.11: Riding the Rails
Before getting into the interview with Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-KY), we have to say this on the budget, and as a comment of Mr. Ryan's budget plan - The Democrats need to have a plan, and that has to come from the President since the House agenda is controlled by the Republicans.
One more thing. The 2010 mid-term election that saw Republicans make historic wins was won partly on the platform that Democrats were going to make cuts to Medicare through the Affordable Health Act, derogatorily nicknamed "Obamacare." Now, the Premium Care plan in Paul Ryan's budget gives a set amount to a private insurance company on behalf of an individual and any costs differences have to be made up by said individual but the cost of the policy is dictated by a private insurance company. It's technically not a voucher because the money isn't given to the individual.
Mr. McConnell is 'comfortable' with the Ryan budget, he said. He did indeed vote for it, but he didn't rally his colleagues though he is the minority leader. And the fact that he didn't answer the 'third rail' question with regard to Medicare basically indicating that the answer is 'yes.' (There are a lot of rails in America, for certain.)
But Mr. McConnell is correct in quoting Erskin Bowles in saying that this fiscal crisis is the most predicable crisis in American history, and the Senator insists that Medicare has to be part of the solution. On this latter part, he's only half right.
It is essential for Medicare to be reformed, however, it should not be a part of this year's budget plan. In the short term, it should be left as is, and then the Congress should try to fix the budget from there. Once that's completed, additionally saving will come from a plan to reform Medicare, but do it separately. The Medicare plan should be worked on while the budget debate is going on so that there is a short lag time between proposals. Americans like to see plans, it shows the product of labor, it proves you're doing something.
Where Mr. McConnell takes things too far is that to get his vote, he said definitively, on the debt ceiling, Medicare has to be part of the cuts. This stipulation is strictly for political gain and is not in the best interest of the American people. It just isn't.
And to balance the budget, as the clip of former President Clinton showed, a tax increase somewhere has to be part of the solution. A three percent increase on those making over a million dollars would help. See where that gives us as part of the solution. How could an everyday Republican be against that. Most people are middle class, Democrat and Republican, so how would that negatively effect them in any way. It wouldn't.
With all that, it's not surprising to know that Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues are not enthusiastic about Elizabeth Warren and the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, saying that it would be a 'serious threat', yes he said threat, to our financial system.
The little most subtle rail for the Republicans is regulation, and Ms. Warren's agency flies directly in the face of that. The impetus for the agency's creation was the run-away unregulated credit industry and the fine print on those contracts that basically gave creditors unmitigated control of the rates. Say what you will about the commission, but this scenario encourages lawlessness on the part of the credit industry so there needs to be a check on those balances.
Today's foil to Mr. McConnell was senior Senator from New York, Democrat Charles Schumer who was in a very uncompromising mood, which is always notable considering it's a wide belief that the Democrats always back down. However, Mr. Schumer firmly stated that the Medicare provision in the Ryan plan must be scrapped and if not, the Democrats will walk away from the negotiations. As we've stated before in this column, the Congress should not play politics with the debt ceiling, and there is a bit of it on both sides, but Republicans rightly carry the heavier burden for the situation.
As a part of a plan for Medicare, Mr. Schumer did outline a few measures the Democrats are in favor of, with regard to price controls. He said that Democrats are for reforming the program, but also preserving it. He used the prescription drug plan installed by the Bush Administration as an example. "Providers get too much," Mr. Schumer said. And in the case of the pharmaceutical companies, this is true. With the government unable to negotiate the price of prescription drugs as mandated in the Bush plan, big pharma sets the costs and the government has no say. When Republican candidates for President says that they know how to run a business and therefore is their key qualification of why he or she should run this instead of President Obama, we would ask them to explain that. It's just bad business. Being the largest client for these companies and you give away all your leverage to discount a bulk buy, for example?
The other sensible proposal he put forth was with regard to the Cost Plus System, in which doctors get paid for every single treatment they administer. That means every pill they prescription, every temperature taken, every heart beat checked gets paid on separately. On the face of it, that sounds insane so a set reimbursement for doctors should be in place, especially so if the Ryan plan calls for set amount for seniors.
__
The Round Table discussion as per usual centered around Presidential politics, which we don't mind because it is frankly so goofy this time round on the Republican side of the race. And the general consensus on this week's panel is that Sarah Palin would be a disaster as President. David Brooks said that this isn't American Idol, this is the Presidency of the United States, and that she's not a team player. GOP Strategist Alex Castellanos said that he didn't see room for her in the race since Michelle Bachmann is getting in. But he also feels she Ms. Palin is not qualified for that office saying that she's not a serious candidate. But as Ruth Marcus banally pointed out, she does suck up all the energy from the other candidates, and unfortunately for the Republican field, that's not going to stop.
What's going around is that Sarah Palin will be a sort of kingmaker, endorser of the true conservative in the race, the decision maker in this context. However, it's strictly a self-serving proposition because it will not be good for the Republican party if a large faction of it is going in a significantly different direction. And when many conservative commentators, Rush Limbaugh excluded, are saying that she's not qualified to make Presidential decisions, how could she be given the de facto power to decide who the nominee should be. Sound more like the division maker.
Round Table: Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); GOP Strategist Alex Castellanos; Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus and New York Times Columnist David Brooks.
One more thing. The 2010 mid-term election that saw Republicans make historic wins was won partly on the platform that Democrats were going to make cuts to Medicare through the Affordable Health Act, derogatorily nicknamed "Obamacare." Now, the Premium Care plan in Paul Ryan's budget gives a set amount to a private insurance company on behalf of an individual and any costs differences have to be made up by said individual but the cost of the policy is dictated by a private insurance company. It's technically not a voucher because the money isn't given to the individual.
Mr. McConnell is 'comfortable' with the Ryan budget, he said. He did indeed vote for it, but he didn't rally his colleagues though he is the minority leader. And the fact that he didn't answer the 'third rail' question with regard to Medicare basically indicating that the answer is 'yes.' (There are a lot of rails in America, for certain.)
But Mr. McConnell is correct in quoting Erskin Bowles in saying that this fiscal crisis is the most predicable crisis in American history, and the Senator insists that Medicare has to be part of the solution. On this latter part, he's only half right.
It is essential for Medicare to be reformed, however, it should not be a part of this year's budget plan. In the short term, it should be left as is, and then the Congress should try to fix the budget from there. Once that's completed, additionally saving will come from a plan to reform Medicare, but do it separately. The Medicare plan should be worked on while the budget debate is going on so that there is a short lag time between proposals. Americans like to see plans, it shows the product of labor, it proves you're doing something.
Where Mr. McConnell takes things too far is that to get his vote, he said definitively, on the debt ceiling, Medicare has to be part of the cuts. This stipulation is strictly for political gain and is not in the best interest of the American people. It just isn't.
And to balance the budget, as the clip of former President Clinton showed, a tax increase somewhere has to be part of the solution. A three percent increase on those making over a million dollars would help. See where that gives us as part of the solution. How could an everyday Republican be against that. Most people are middle class, Democrat and Republican, so how would that negatively effect them in any way. It wouldn't.
With all that, it's not surprising to know that Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues are not enthusiastic about Elizabeth Warren and the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, saying that it would be a 'serious threat', yes he said threat, to our financial system.
The little most subtle rail for the Republicans is regulation, and Ms. Warren's agency flies directly in the face of that. The impetus for the agency's creation was the run-away unregulated credit industry and the fine print on those contracts that basically gave creditors unmitigated control of the rates. Say what you will about the commission, but this scenario encourages lawlessness on the part of the credit industry so there needs to be a check on those balances.
Today's foil to Mr. McConnell was senior Senator from New York, Democrat Charles Schumer who was in a very uncompromising mood, which is always notable considering it's a wide belief that the Democrats always back down. However, Mr. Schumer firmly stated that the Medicare provision in the Ryan plan must be scrapped and if not, the Democrats will walk away from the negotiations. As we've stated before in this column, the Congress should not play politics with the debt ceiling, and there is a bit of it on both sides, but Republicans rightly carry the heavier burden for the situation.
As a part of a plan for Medicare, Mr. Schumer did outline a few measures the Democrats are in favor of, with regard to price controls. He said that Democrats are for reforming the program, but also preserving it. He used the prescription drug plan installed by the Bush Administration as an example. "Providers get too much," Mr. Schumer said. And in the case of the pharmaceutical companies, this is true. With the government unable to negotiate the price of prescription drugs as mandated in the Bush plan, big pharma sets the costs and the government has no say. When Republican candidates for President says that they know how to run a business and therefore is their key qualification of why he or she should run this instead of President Obama, we would ask them to explain that. It's just bad business. Being the largest client for these companies and you give away all your leverage to discount a bulk buy, for example?
The other sensible proposal he put forth was with regard to the Cost Plus System, in which doctors get paid for every single treatment they administer. That means every pill they prescription, every temperature taken, every heart beat checked gets paid on separately. On the face of it, that sounds insane so a set reimbursement for doctors should be in place, especially so if the Ryan plan calls for set amount for seniors.
__
The Round Table discussion as per usual centered around Presidential politics, which we don't mind because it is frankly so goofy this time round on the Republican side of the race. And the general consensus on this week's panel is that Sarah Palin would be a disaster as President. David Brooks said that this isn't American Idol, this is the Presidency of the United States, and that she's not a team player. GOP Strategist Alex Castellanos said that he didn't see room for her in the race since Michelle Bachmann is getting in. But he also feels she Ms. Palin is not qualified for that office saying that she's not a serious candidate. But as Ruth Marcus banally pointed out, she does suck up all the energy from the other candidates, and unfortunately for the Republican field, that's not going to stop.
What's going around is that Sarah Palin will be a sort of kingmaker, endorser of the true conservative in the race, the decision maker in this context. However, it's strictly a self-serving proposition because it will not be good for the Republican party if a large faction of it is going in a significantly different direction. And when many conservative commentators, Rush Limbaugh excluded, are saying that she's not qualified to make Presidential decisions, how could she be given the de facto power to decide who the nominee should be. Sound more like the division maker.
Round Table: Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); GOP Strategist Alex Castellanos; Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus and New York Times Columnist David Brooks.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
5.22.11: The Paul Ryan Interview
During today's panel, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson said that it's not leadership if no one wants to follow. Eight in ten Americans do not want cuts in Medicare to balance the budget. Paul Ryan, during today's interview, urged for seriousness and leadership. And he said that Mr. Gingrich's statements about his plan last week were a 'gross mischaracterization' of his plan, and if people were correctly informed, his problem would be more popular. It was obvious for Maryland Congressman (D) Chris Van Hollen to characterize his statements as correct, and as we know now, Mr. Gingrich has been doing everything he could this week to walk back the statements, but it seems that Mr. Gingrich knows what other Republicans are not willing to admit, because they all voted for it, is that the Ryan plan is not a political winner. Never mind the politics, it's not a winner for the American people. The head of FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, said in the Wall Street Journal that Mr. Gingrich threw his fellow Republicans under the bus.
What Mr. Gingrich did, the professor that he is, is define the test very clearly for the Republican Presidential candidates. If you want to be considered a 'real' Republican, you have to be for the Paul Ryan budget plan and if it is characterized (accurately) as killing Medicare, you still have to stand by it. Anything less of this position and you will not get party support. This is unless you file for an exemption, which Mitch Romney has as he tries to explain why the Massachusetts health care plan that he orchestrated is good for the state but not for the country. For the record, Massachusetts insures 98% of the people in the state, is ranked 2nd for best health care among states in the country, and has managed to keep costs under control in essence saving money.
However, there are a few problems with his statements and his plan that goes beyond just the Medicare alterations. First, Mr. Ryan's budget plan doesn't balance the budget for 25 years and adds six trillion dollars to deficit in the first ten years, with no raising of any taxes. When John Boehner says in interviews that everything's on the table except tax increases, which means that everything is, in fact, not on the table. Mr. Van Hollen also said today that increasing tax revenue has to be part of the equation, which is realistic. Mr. Ryan talks about seriousness, but you can not be serious without some tax increases, which could come in the form of eliminating subsidies for the oil companies. However, Republicans are against eliminating these subsidies, even part of them.
There is no way to balance the budget by just cutting spending. Revenue needs to increase in places or it's not going to work.
But back to Medicare... Mr. Ryan explained that his plan wouldn't effect seniors now who have organized their lives around the program as it is. What he is saying is that people who are 54 and younger are going to have to make due with less. For our two cents, we think that people are accepting of getting by with less - the middle class has steadily done that year after year for the past 30. But the fact remains is that the essence of Mr. Ryan's plan is to privatize Medicare, and people simply don't want it privatized because that puts the control of whether they receive coverage or not in the hands of the private insurance companies. The Ryan plan also would repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, which requires insurance companies to not deny someone coverage if they have a pre-existing condition and to put 85 cents of every dollar paid in to go to healthcare purposes. By privatizing Medicare, seniors will be susceptible to coverage denial and high premiums, which will grow faster than the rate of inflation, to which the vouchers Mr. Ryan is proposing, would not cover at the same pace.
Mr. Ryan speaks of leading, but as Mr. Gregory accurately pointed out, leading is building consensus, and this is exactly what he doesn't have. If his plan is the right thing to do for the country then why shouldn't it be enacted right away. The truth is that under Mr. Ryan's plan there would be a huge transfer of money to the private insurance industry. The even larger debate could extend to whether or not you think health care is a basic right. If there is no non-profit choice, only private choices, for health care and you could extend that you believe that health care is not a right because you have to be able to afford it or you don't get it.
Also, he says that the alternative to his plan is rationing of health care where the government will only be able to provide so much and then after that, no more - that's it, we can afford to give you anymore. If Medicare is made solvent, then rationing would not be an issue. (We've discussed the many ways in which it could be done.) However, by essentially giving people vouchers that the Paul Ryan Medicare Plan advocates, that is essentially rationing as well with now someone making a profit - the insurance company. Here's your voucher and this is all you get and if you want more coverage, you have to buy it yourself. And if you look at the state of the middle class where there is income, but every dime spoken for, this is a type of economic rationing. In other words, most people can not afford that extra coverage that they need.
Though Mr. Ryan has 'doubled-down' on his budget plan and the significant changing of Medicare within it, he said that he is willing to negotiate if the Democrats will present a plan. That's the one good point that he has - the Senate Democrats have not presented a plan. Do they have one? Maybe, they say so but right now they are politicking. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has called for a vote in the Senate next week for the Ryan budget. For the Democrats, it is smart for him to do this because it will clearly define where Senate Republicans are on the issue. However, after the vote, the Democrats had better come out with a plan that clear and has a high understandability quotient or they risk never pulling the debate toward the middle much less to their side of the proverbial line. As Mr. Ryan noted repeatedly, it has been 753 days for Democrats not to present a budget.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory reported that Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) will not run for President citing that he loves his country but loves his family more (a reason everyone could certainly understand). However, with that announcement, the Republican field gets even more weak and Republicans will truly just be playing for the Senate, which makes the aforementioned Reid vote important.
Chris Christie? Not in the slightest. Reason being, is that have you seen any current Republican Governor get in the race? Not a former governor, a current one - No, and you won't. Right now, Republican Governors are pushing through a lot of far-right bills on abortion, voting, and unions to name a few so why move outside that bubble of ideological success for would likely be a defeat? And you can see is that notion is going around - Hailey Barber, now Mitch Daniels, and everyone will wait in vain for Mr. Christie.
What we found interesting was Republican Strategist Mike Murphy say that the Iowa Caucus has too much juice in defining the front runner for the race. He's vocalizing what we suspect Republicans have been thinking for some time and is now to a point that they are openly talking about it. Because you have a small, very conservative Republican caucus in Iowa, you could see people like Michelle Bachmann do well, and conversely a more moderate candidate like John Huntsman do poorly. The Republican establishment figures that Mr. Murphy frequently works for want more moderate, Reagan 'big tent' representatives. We're about an election or two away from the Tea Party running as a third option.
Round Table: Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Mike Murphy, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, WaPo's Eugene Robinson, and NYT's Andrew Ross Sorkin.
What Mr. Gingrich did, the professor that he is, is define the test very clearly for the Republican Presidential candidates. If you want to be considered a 'real' Republican, you have to be for the Paul Ryan budget plan and if it is characterized (accurately) as killing Medicare, you still have to stand by it. Anything less of this position and you will not get party support. This is unless you file for an exemption, which Mitch Romney has as he tries to explain why the Massachusetts health care plan that he orchestrated is good for the state but not for the country. For the record, Massachusetts insures 98% of the people in the state, is ranked 2nd for best health care among states in the country, and has managed to keep costs under control in essence saving money.
However, there are a few problems with his statements and his plan that goes beyond just the Medicare alterations. First, Mr. Ryan's budget plan doesn't balance the budget for 25 years and adds six trillion dollars to deficit in the first ten years, with no raising of any taxes. When John Boehner says in interviews that everything's on the table except tax increases, which means that everything is, in fact, not on the table. Mr. Van Hollen also said today that increasing tax revenue has to be part of the equation, which is realistic. Mr. Ryan talks about seriousness, but you can not be serious without some tax increases, which could come in the form of eliminating subsidies for the oil companies. However, Republicans are against eliminating these subsidies, even part of them.
There is no way to balance the budget by just cutting spending. Revenue needs to increase in places or it's not going to work.
But back to Medicare... Mr. Ryan explained that his plan wouldn't effect seniors now who have organized their lives around the program as it is. What he is saying is that people who are 54 and younger are going to have to make due with less. For our two cents, we think that people are accepting of getting by with less - the middle class has steadily done that year after year for the past 30. But the fact remains is that the essence of Mr. Ryan's plan is to privatize Medicare, and people simply don't want it privatized because that puts the control of whether they receive coverage or not in the hands of the private insurance companies. The Ryan plan also would repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, which requires insurance companies to not deny someone coverage if they have a pre-existing condition and to put 85 cents of every dollar paid in to go to healthcare purposes. By privatizing Medicare, seniors will be susceptible to coverage denial and high premiums, which will grow faster than the rate of inflation, to which the vouchers Mr. Ryan is proposing, would not cover at the same pace.
Mr. Ryan speaks of leading, but as Mr. Gregory accurately pointed out, leading is building consensus, and this is exactly what he doesn't have. If his plan is the right thing to do for the country then why shouldn't it be enacted right away. The truth is that under Mr. Ryan's plan there would be a huge transfer of money to the private insurance industry. The even larger debate could extend to whether or not you think health care is a basic right. If there is no non-profit choice, only private choices, for health care and you could extend that you believe that health care is not a right because you have to be able to afford it or you don't get it.
Also, he says that the alternative to his plan is rationing of health care where the government will only be able to provide so much and then after that, no more - that's it, we can afford to give you anymore. If Medicare is made solvent, then rationing would not be an issue. (We've discussed the many ways in which it could be done.) However, by essentially giving people vouchers that the Paul Ryan Medicare Plan advocates, that is essentially rationing as well with now someone making a profit - the insurance company. Here's your voucher and this is all you get and if you want more coverage, you have to buy it yourself. And if you look at the state of the middle class where there is income, but every dime spoken for, this is a type of economic rationing. In other words, most people can not afford that extra coverage that they need.
Though Mr. Ryan has 'doubled-down' on his budget plan and the significant changing of Medicare within it, he said that he is willing to negotiate if the Democrats will present a plan. That's the one good point that he has - the Senate Democrats have not presented a plan. Do they have one? Maybe, they say so but right now they are politicking. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has called for a vote in the Senate next week for the Ryan budget. For the Democrats, it is smart for him to do this because it will clearly define where Senate Republicans are on the issue. However, after the vote, the Democrats had better come out with a plan that clear and has a high understandability quotient or they risk never pulling the debate toward the middle much less to their side of the proverbial line. As Mr. Ryan noted repeatedly, it has been 753 days for Democrats not to present a budget.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory reported that Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) will not run for President citing that he loves his country but loves his family more (a reason everyone could certainly understand). However, with that announcement, the Republican field gets even more weak and Republicans will truly just be playing for the Senate, which makes the aforementioned Reid vote important.
Chris Christie? Not in the slightest. Reason being, is that have you seen any current Republican Governor get in the race? Not a former governor, a current one - No, and you won't. Right now, Republican Governors are pushing through a lot of far-right bills on abortion, voting, and unions to name a few so why move outside that bubble of ideological success for would likely be a defeat? And you can see is that notion is going around - Hailey Barber, now Mitch Daniels, and everyone will wait in vain for Mr. Christie.
What we found interesting was Republican Strategist Mike Murphy say that the Iowa Caucus has too much juice in defining the front runner for the race. He's vocalizing what we suspect Republicans have been thinking for some time and is now to a point that they are openly talking about it. Because you have a small, very conservative Republican caucus in Iowa, you could see people like Michelle Bachmann do well, and conversely a more moderate candidate like John Huntsman do poorly. The Republican establishment figures that Mr. Murphy frequently works for want more moderate, Reagan 'big tent' representatives. We're about an election or two away from the Tea Party running as a third option.
Round Table: Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Mike Murphy, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, WaPo's Eugene Robinson, and NYT's Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
5.15.11: Selective Memory - The Newt Gingrich Interview
Being that it is eighteen months out from the Presidential election, now's the time to start talking candidates. We've resisted as long as we could because as soon as Mr. Obama was elected, it seemed as though Meet The Press began talking 2012, which we found counterproductive. However, we at that time where it is the focus and today's program started with the first installment of the "Meet The Candidate" interview with newly declared candidate Mr. Newt Gingrich.
At the top of the program, Mr. Gregory reported that on his Fox News show, Mr. Mike Huckabee announced that he would not be running for President. Mr. Huckabee said that 'all the factors say go, but my heart says no.' Sifting through the comments during the round table, it's very obvious whey Mr. Huckabee decided not to run. Matt Bai, New York Times Magazine Editor, commented that he's making good money and doesn't want to go through the gauntlet of running for President. At this point, Mr. Huckabee is a showman. At the end of the tape of Mr. Huckabee (Mr. Gregory nicely noted that he drew out the announcement leaving it to the end of the show), there was a statement from Donald Trump, a person apt to speaking uncomfortable truths. He said that 'your show's ratings are great, you're building a house in Florida...' Mr. Huckabee is comfortable, and as Peggy Noonan said, no one wants to be the guy that loses to Obama. After the election, Mr. Huckabee's show will probably be canceled, we predict.
Some in the more liberal end of the media noted that Fox News has employed several would-be Republican candidates as commentators and show hosts, essentially giving them free airtime to explain their views, which would violate the Fair Elections act, if in fact any of them had already declared. It seems like a technicality. However, what happen in practice was that Fox News threw money at these people and they all got comfortable, with the except of Newt Gingrich who has been in politics long before the rise of Fox News so he used it as a vehicle unlike Mr. Huckabee or Mrs. Palin as she has not declared yet either way who both used it as an ends.
By far, Mr. Gingrich is the best orator in the Republican field so far. He started the interview saying that we're at a crossroads in American History and the 2012 election will define the next half century. There is some truth to that statement but keep in mind that Mr. Gingrich, if you know him at all, has a flare for the dramatic. However, if Barack Obama does win reelection and if the Affordable Health Care act, which takes full effect in 2014 is liked by the majority of Americans, then there is no going back from it. That's a legitimate fear for Republican ideologues, of which Mr. Gingrich is one.
However, for Mr. Gingrich to be the Republican nominee, he relies on the collective, selective memory of the American people, and it's a two-fold bet. In one instance, he's asking social conservatives to forget that he's married to his third wife and that he was having an affair while advocating impeachment of President Clinton for having an affair - that's on the personal side. He asked for people to look at him for who he is today, and that is of an image of a married, devout Catholic man, by his own explanation adding that he had matured. Mr. Gregory sometimes take flak for jabs that he throws out there, but that's a strength that we like. In commenting on 'maturing,' he pointed out that when Mr. Gingrich was involved in the indiscretions, he was 55 years old. Sometimes interviews need to be pugilistic and having a good jab always helps.
From a more national perspective when talking about spending, he gave the example of the kids running up the credit card and you're just going to bail them out? Republicans, and in this case Mr. Gingrich, are hoping that Americans will forget that it was under the Bush Administration that the Treasury Secretary went to the White House and asked for $780 billion for the banks. And what did the Administration do? They bailed them out. For the record, it's not the decision to bail them out that is at issue - it was something that absolutely had to be done. It's the not owning up to the responsibility of the decision that is disingenuous on behalf of some Republicans now.
Wall Street Journal columnist, Peggy Noonan had more praise-worthy comments for Mr. Gingrich saying that when he was being interviewed, the green room was silent - he's a man that makes people listen. She also said that 19 and 20 year-olds don't know Mr. Gingrich's past so in that way he's somewhat new. This is more of an example, one in a long line, of how Ms. Noonan doesn't understand younger voters and what their attitudes are, the majority of which have more progressive attitudes.
New York Times White House Correspondent, Helene Cooper, did note that Mr. Gingrich was more disciplined in his comments, but it's whether he can maintain it that is in question. With that in mind, Mr. Gingrich has framed Mr. Obama as the food stamp President, and explained that statement on the program. Instead of food stamps, Mr. Gingrich is advocating for pay checks. We think it's great the Mr. Gingrich is taking about jobs and getting pay checks in more people's hands, but he also explained that to get there we need less regulation and lower taxes to create jobs. However, the fact remains that 25 years into this line of thinking hasn't produced the prosperity that Republicans describing. Trickle-down Economics, safe to say, hasn't worked.
What we also found downright funny, and this should give you great insight into Mr. Gingrich's character is that when Mr. Gregory said to him that economists on both sides of the aisle say that some sort of tax revenue is needed, to which he said that they don't know what they're talking about because they're working within the Washington DC dynamic, hence not seeing the larger picture. Frankly, the statement was so stupid and basically said nothing so why would it be challenged?
And then there are the 'Obama, Ant-American' comments, and 'Kenyan Anti-Colonial,' conversations, to which Mr. Gingrich said that he was discussing a book that someone had written and those comments were in that context. So what he is asking of us is that we should disqualify those comments because they were taken out of context. We're getting tired of that excuse, and in this case, whether in that context or not, those interpretations were his. He also said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe in American 'Exceptionalism.' What does that even mean? And even if you believe in the notion of exceptionalism - to be exceptional is to act exceptional, which this country has, but lately - i.e. the last decade - it was called into question.
It's like you have to cut through all that bullsh*t (our apologies but there's no other way to phrase it) first and we haven't even really gotten to the issues - that's a problem for his candidacy. For example, he said that he was against [employment] legislation that threaten right to work states. He mentioned it almost in passing but it's significant because what he is saying is that he would side with legislation that can break up union employment. For laymen, that means he's on the side of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, so you can make the decision from there.
Also, his positions are health care seem to be a little muddy. On Meet The Press in 1993, Mr. Gingrich told Tim Russert that he was for the individual mandate and voucher system, but that what he was advocating then, which he still backs, is different from the individual mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act now. Ms. Cooper reminded us that the Tea Party Republican movement was partially founded on opposition of the individual mandate. And while opposing 'Obamacare,' as he framed it, he said that Congressman Paul Ryan's plan was 'too big of a jump.' Mr. Gingrich knows that seniors vote, but then said that a range of choices should be designed by the economy, which could be interpreted in a number of ways, but it would seem to say that health care would be predominantly privatized if it's relying on market factors. That's one way of looking at it.
Mark Halperin, from Time Magazine, thought that Mr. Gingrich shouldn't be underestimated. However, later during the round table, Mr. Gregory was showing odds on Republican candidates that Mr. Halperin himself constructed, and verbally noted that Mitt Romney was at 3 to 1 while Mr. Gingrich was at 40 to 1. The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne summed it up by saying that this is the most unsettled Republican field since 1940. Well, we'll take his word for it because what we do know is that FDR was President and we don't know who lost to him in the election, nor do we care.
For now, we'll leave it there.
Round Table: Columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan; senior political analyst for Time Magazine, Mark Halperin; White House Correspondent for the New York Times, Helene Cooper; and chief political writer for the New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai.
At the top of the program, Mr. Gregory reported that on his Fox News show, Mr. Mike Huckabee announced that he would not be running for President. Mr. Huckabee said that 'all the factors say go, but my heart says no.' Sifting through the comments during the round table, it's very obvious whey Mr. Huckabee decided not to run. Matt Bai, New York Times Magazine Editor, commented that he's making good money and doesn't want to go through the gauntlet of running for President. At this point, Mr. Huckabee is a showman. At the end of the tape of Mr. Huckabee (Mr. Gregory nicely noted that he drew out the announcement leaving it to the end of the show), there was a statement from Donald Trump, a person apt to speaking uncomfortable truths. He said that 'your show's ratings are great, you're building a house in Florida...' Mr. Huckabee is comfortable, and as Peggy Noonan said, no one wants to be the guy that loses to Obama. After the election, Mr. Huckabee's show will probably be canceled, we predict.
Some in the more liberal end of the media noted that Fox News has employed several would-be Republican candidates as commentators and show hosts, essentially giving them free airtime to explain their views, which would violate the Fair Elections act, if in fact any of them had already declared. It seems like a technicality. However, what happen in practice was that Fox News threw money at these people and they all got comfortable, with the except of Newt Gingrich who has been in politics long before the rise of Fox News so he used it as a vehicle unlike Mr. Huckabee or Mrs. Palin as she has not declared yet either way who both used it as an ends.
By far, Mr. Gingrich is the best orator in the Republican field so far. He started the interview saying that we're at a crossroads in American History and the 2012 election will define the next half century. There is some truth to that statement but keep in mind that Mr. Gingrich, if you know him at all, has a flare for the dramatic. However, if Barack Obama does win reelection and if the Affordable Health Care act, which takes full effect in 2014 is liked by the majority of Americans, then there is no going back from it. That's a legitimate fear for Republican ideologues, of which Mr. Gingrich is one.
However, for Mr. Gingrich to be the Republican nominee, he relies on the collective, selective memory of the American people, and it's a two-fold bet. In one instance, he's asking social conservatives to forget that he's married to his third wife and that he was having an affair while advocating impeachment of President Clinton for having an affair - that's on the personal side. He asked for people to look at him for who he is today, and that is of an image of a married, devout Catholic man, by his own explanation adding that he had matured. Mr. Gregory sometimes take flak for jabs that he throws out there, but that's a strength that we like. In commenting on 'maturing,' he pointed out that when Mr. Gingrich was involved in the indiscretions, he was 55 years old. Sometimes interviews need to be pugilistic and having a good jab always helps.
From a more national perspective when talking about spending, he gave the example of the kids running up the credit card and you're just going to bail them out? Republicans, and in this case Mr. Gingrich, are hoping that Americans will forget that it was under the Bush Administration that the Treasury Secretary went to the White House and asked for $780 billion for the banks. And what did the Administration do? They bailed them out. For the record, it's not the decision to bail them out that is at issue - it was something that absolutely had to be done. It's the not owning up to the responsibility of the decision that is disingenuous on behalf of some Republicans now.
Wall Street Journal columnist, Peggy Noonan had more praise-worthy comments for Mr. Gingrich saying that when he was being interviewed, the green room was silent - he's a man that makes people listen. She also said that 19 and 20 year-olds don't know Mr. Gingrich's past so in that way he's somewhat new. This is more of an example, one in a long line, of how Ms. Noonan doesn't understand younger voters and what their attitudes are, the majority of which have more progressive attitudes.
New York Times White House Correspondent, Helene Cooper, did note that Mr. Gingrich was more disciplined in his comments, but it's whether he can maintain it that is in question. With that in mind, Mr. Gingrich has framed Mr. Obama as the food stamp President, and explained that statement on the program. Instead of food stamps, Mr. Gingrich is advocating for pay checks. We think it's great the Mr. Gingrich is taking about jobs and getting pay checks in more people's hands, but he also explained that to get there we need less regulation and lower taxes to create jobs. However, the fact remains that 25 years into this line of thinking hasn't produced the prosperity that Republicans describing. Trickle-down Economics, safe to say, hasn't worked.
What we also found downright funny, and this should give you great insight into Mr. Gingrich's character is that when Mr. Gregory said to him that economists on both sides of the aisle say that some sort of tax revenue is needed, to which he said that they don't know what they're talking about because they're working within the Washington DC dynamic, hence not seeing the larger picture. Frankly, the statement was so stupid and basically said nothing so why would it be challenged?
And then there are the 'Obama, Ant-American' comments, and 'Kenyan Anti-Colonial,' conversations, to which Mr. Gingrich said that he was discussing a book that someone had written and those comments were in that context. So what he is asking of us is that we should disqualify those comments because they were taken out of context. We're getting tired of that excuse, and in this case, whether in that context or not, those interpretations were his. He also said that Mr. Obama doesn't believe in American 'Exceptionalism.' What does that even mean? And even if you believe in the notion of exceptionalism - to be exceptional is to act exceptional, which this country has, but lately - i.e. the last decade - it was called into question.
It's like you have to cut through all that bullsh*t (our apologies but there's no other way to phrase it) first and we haven't even really gotten to the issues - that's a problem for his candidacy. For example, he said that he was against [employment] legislation that threaten right to work states. He mentioned it almost in passing but it's significant because what he is saying is that he would side with legislation that can break up union employment. For laymen, that means he's on the side of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, so you can make the decision from there.
Also, his positions are health care seem to be a little muddy. On Meet The Press in 1993, Mr. Gingrich told Tim Russert that he was for the individual mandate and voucher system, but that what he was advocating then, which he still backs, is different from the individual mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act now. Ms. Cooper reminded us that the Tea Party Republican movement was partially founded on opposition of the individual mandate. And while opposing 'Obamacare,' as he framed it, he said that Congressman Paul Ryan's plan was 'too big of a jump.' Mr. Gingrich knows that seniors vote, but then said that a range of choices should be designed by the economy, which could be interpreted in a number of ways, but it would seem to say that health care would be predominantly privatized if it's relying on market factors. That's one way of looking at it.
Mark Halperin, from Time Magazine, thought that Mr. Gingrich shouldn't be underestimated. However, later during the round table, Mr. Gregory was showing odds on Republican candidates that Mr. Halperin himself constructed, and verbally noted that Mitt Romney was at 3 to 1 while Mr. Gingrich was at 40 to 1. The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne summed it up by saying that this is the most unsettled Republican field since 1940. Well, we'll take his word for it because what we do know is that FDR was President and we don't know who lost to him in the election, nor do we care.
For now, we'll leave it there.
Round Table: Columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan; senior political analyst for Time Magazine, Mark Halperin; White House Correspondent for the New York Times, Helene Cooper; and chief political writer for the New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
5.8.11: No Myths, Just Man
Pakistan is a terrorist state. In light of The United States conducting a successful raid on a compound in Pakistan, in which Osama Bin Laden was killed, one would have to conclude that Pakistan is in bed with terrorists.. according to the Bush Doctrine that is. How could Pakistani officials, at least some, not have know that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain site in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. Some surely did, but we think that most didn't and that's actually a more frightening fact. Remember that this country is one that has nuclear weapons and the incompetence is incredibly worrisome. 'Smug' is the word that Bob Woodward used to describe it during the round table, like giveing the middle finger to The United States he said.
And as the White House National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, explained, Bin Laden was still calling the shots and was still involved operationally with Al Qaeda terror plots. He also repeated one of the most obvious talking points that though this is a milestone, it is not a death blow to the terror organization. Polls show that over 60% of Americans get that as they are worried about short-term terrorism. Mayor Giuliani, who this column doesn't understand why he would be on with terror experts because he is not, did remind us that Al Qaeda is a decentralized organization. Perhaps the Obama Administration thinks differently as two days after we announced the death of Bin Laden, we executed a Predator drone attack in Yemen in an attempt to oust the operational leader for Al Qaeda, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, on the Arabian Peninsula.
But getting back to Pakistan for a moment - this is a real problem. Just the fact that a foreign power went in and out of that country without the government not even knowing is another one of many examples of how insecure Pakistan is. Mr. Donilon did say that they did not inform the Pakistani government citing 'operational security.' Given the Pakistani government's track record, why would anyone question that? They do have Bin Laden's three wives in custody, but you would have to presume they knew very little with regard to intelligence, with the exception of how he may have communicated with others.
The real intelligence is in the hands of The United States government, the single biggest score of information taken in any terror raid, no question this was the proverbial mother-load. Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden used the term SSE - Sensitive Site Exploitation, (We love our government's acronyms.) and that's exactly what it was. The intelligence gathered exploits the false myth of Osama Bin Laden, as we know from the release of video clips found in computers on site. Mr. Gregory's quip made the good point that it shows that we were, in fact, there. They show, that like all nihilistic leaders, he had a streak of vanity as he channel surfer footage of himself on a television. We learned that he also died his beard for video presentations. All human beings whether jihadists or Presidents or beggars contain the capacity for ego, violent emotion, detachment, and boredom.
Also discussed on the program, as has been throughout the week, was the role Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to extract the information that lead us to Bin Laden. Mr. Donilon wouldn't bite on Mr. Gregory's question as to whether it could be definitely said that E.I.T.s (torture) played a part. The moderator sited The Washington Post's columnist Charles Krauthammer that this is vindication for the Bush Administration who employed torture. Mr. Giuliani said that even though you couldn't say with absolute certainty, he believes that torture did play a significant role in extracting the information that lead to Bin Laden. On the latter, well who is to say whether it was effective or not, but vindication is out of the question. Citing Rumsfeld, waterboarding was a successful program. Again, out of the question - how is torture ever success. As Mr. Donilon said, thousands of pieces of information were used, an effort that goes across two administrations. The culmination is the photograph below, despite the 50-50 on the intelligence, was the 100% confidence that President Obama had in the Navy Seals.
Bob Woodward proposed that if the President could translate this decisiveness on foreign affairs to domestic economic issues then Mr. Obama would be very difficult to beat. But that's a tough proposition - an operation like the one on Bin Laden is something that can be unilaterally done by the President. Matters of the budget and spending are a different thing entirely. And Mr. Murphy is correct when he reminds us that the election is going to be all about jobs, a subject that oddly enough his Republican party hasn't hammered the Democrats effectively enough on.
Everyone on the panel seemed to agree that the President is vulnerable on the economy, and that's where the debate has to go. Right now, and yes a lot could change in the time leading up to the election, foreign policy is, as the Republicans say, off the table. There is no Republican candidate, potential or declared, that has the equivalent credentials or achievement as the President now has. That certainly includes Mr. Giuliani who did say that he was considering another run for the Presidency, a fool's errand we believe on his part, which was corroborated by Mr. Murphy who said that Mr. Giuliani would not get the nomination.
Mr. Woodward said that Presidential election are run on character. In his decisiveness, President Obama showed the type that it takes to lead this country. However, that's not to say that our confidence should be blind, not in the least. It's the pressure of scrutiny that either makes some one perform better or worse in a moment. And in this particular moment, as Ms. Goodwin said, Mr. Obama may have taken control of his Presidency.
And as the White House National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, explained, Bin Laden was still calling the shots and was still involved operationally with Al Qaeda terror plots. He also repeated one of the most obvious talking points that though this is a milestone, it is not a death blow to the terror organization. Polls show that over 60% of Americans get that as they are worried about short-term terrorism. Mayor Giuliani, who this column doesn't understand why he would be on with terror experts because he is not, did remind us that Al Qaeda is a decentralized organization. Perhaps the Obama Administration thinks differently as two days after we announced the death of Bin Laden, we executed a Predator drone attack in Yemen in an attempt to oust the operational leader for Al Qaeda, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, on the Arabian Peninsula.
But getting back to Pakistan for a moment - this is a real problem. Just the fact that a foreign power went in and out of that country without the government not even knowing is another one of many examples of how insecure Pakistan is. Mr. Donilon did say that they did not inform the Pakistani government citing 'operational security.' Given the Pakistani government's track record, why would anyone question that? They do have Bin Laden's three wives in custody, but you would have to presume they knew very little with regard to intelligence, with the exception of how he may have communicated with others.
The real intelligence is in the hands of The United States government, the single biggest score of information taken in any terror raid, no question this was the proverbial mother-load. Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden used the term SSE - Sensitive Site Exploitation, (We love our government's acronyms.) and that's exactly what it was. The intelligence gathered exploits the false myth of Osama Bin Laden, as we know from the release of video clips found in computers on site. Mr. Gregory's quip made the good point that it shows that we were, in fact, there. They show, that like all nihilistic leaders, he had a streak of vanity as he channel surfer footage of himself on a television. We learned that he also died his beard for video presentations. All human beings whether jihadists or Presidents or beggars contain the capacity for ego, violent emotion, detachment, and boredom.
Also discussed on the program, as has been throughout the week, was the role Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to extract the information that lead us to Bin Laden. Mr. Donilon wouldn't bite on Mr. Gregory's question as to whether it could be definitely said that E.I.T.s (torture) played a part. The moderator sited The Washington Post's columnist Charles Krauthammer that this is vindication for the Bush Administration who employed torture. Mr. Giuliani said that even though you couldn't say with absolute certainty, he believes that torture did play a significant role in extracting the information that lead to Bin Laden. On the latter, well who is to say whether it was effective or not, but vindication is out of the question. Citing Rumsfeld, waterboarding was a successful program. Again, out of the question - how is torture ever success. As Mr. Donilon said, thousands of pieces of information were used, an effort that goes across two administrations. The culmination is the photograph below, despite the 50-50 on the intelligence, was the 100% confidence that President Obama had in the Navy Seals.
***
So what does all this mean - the fun political part of it? Republican Strategist, Mike Murphy, said that the President deserves a lot of credit, a 'huge victory.' As Presidential Historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin pointed out, that the Administration should let hubris get in the way when it comes to re-election, citing the example of how George Bush Sr.'s approval rating after the first Iraq war was at 90%, but 'Read my lips, no new taxes,' translated into a single term Presidency.Bob Woodward proposed that if the President could translate this decisiveness on foreign affairs to domestic economic issues then Mr. Obama would be very difficult to beat. But that's a tough proposition - an operation like the one on Bin Laden is something that can be unilaterally done by the President. Matters of the budget and spending are a different thing entirely. And Mr. Murphy is correct when he reminds us that the election is going to be all about jobs, a subject that oddly enough his Republican party hasn't hammered the Democrats effectively enough on.
Everyone on the panel seemed to agree that the President is vulnerable on the economy, and that's where the debate has to go. Right now, and yes a lot could change in the time leading up to the election, foreign policy is, as the Republicans say, off the table. There is no Republican candidate, potential or declared, that has the equivalent credentials or achievement as the President now has. That certainly includes Mr. Giuliani who did say that he was considering another run for the Presidency, a fool's errand we believe on his part, which was corroborated by Mr. Murphy who said that Mr. Giuliani would not get the nomination.
Mr. Woodward said that Presidential election are run on character. In his decisiveness, President Obama showed the type that it takes to lead this country. However, that's not to say that our confidence should be blind, not in the least. It's the pressure of scrutiny that either makes some one perform better or worse in a moment. And in this particular moment, as Ms. Goodwin said, Mr. Obama may have taken control of his Presidency.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
5.1.11: Where's the Substance/ Senator Marco Rubio Interview
Today's Meet The Press seemed a little all over the map today with headlines at the top, then the round table discussion first, then the interview with Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio into a Seth Meyers (Head Writer for Saturday Night Live) interview. The program flowed jaggedly along, but tinkering is always good as the little wrinkles keep the program interesting and watchable. However, we recommend not trying to stuff too much into the single hour, and dig into more substance with the guests, which is what should have been addressed with the Florida Senator.
But to begin, Mayor Bloomberg started off by saying that there is a crisis of confidence, in which many companies are looking at what the government is doing, or not doing as the case may be, and saying, "What's going on?" However, the confidence that Mr. Bloomberg is talking comes from a business sector that is, yes in fact, wondering what the government is going to do about the deficit and debt and at the same time its confidence level is lowered when the government insists on regulations. What our finance sector needs to realize is that if regulations are put in place on derivatives, the market will steady and in the long run, more people will make more money, but the very very top will not make quite as much. And in terms of the latter group of individuals, the amounts become insignificant.
Mayor Bloomberg also illustrated the grand conundrum for the average American in that it's a good time to buy a house, but there are many stipulations and the most obvious one is job stability. There is none, and overall wages for the middle class are down, yet Congress has not address this. Furthermore, Mr. Bloomberg is against having the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthiest one percent in the country, but over the past 25 years we've seen that "Trickle Down" economics hasn't worked. That house that Mr. Bloomberg refers to is a moving goal, moving farther and farther away from reality.
This brings us to the budget discussion, in which no one seems to know how to balance with too many outside forces [read: special interest groups] determined to see that nothing is done about it, and that's on both sides. But as the Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, admitted, as well as Senator Rubio, there a lot of deficit spending by Republicans as well as Democrats. Governor McDonnell explained that states have balanced budget amendments, which the federal government should have as well. However, if to balance it is how David Axelrod explained the way the Virginia Governor did, then what's the point. Mr. Axelrod explained that the Governor borrowed the money from pension plans, used Recovery Act money, and benefited from the cuts his predecessor made.
And though we at the column also feel that entitlement programs need to be reformed, we find it disingenuous on the part of Republican politicians to borrow money from the pension funds or ask people to pay into a system all their working lives and then turn around and say we're cutting back on the payments because we can't afford it. Talk about too big to fail. It's a bailout without labeling it as such because the two acts are not immediate to one another. And in the case of Governor McDonnell, the question is when will the money to the pension fund be paid back?
Mr. Axelrod and Governor McDonnell started to get into it a little bit and Mr. Gregory prompted cut them off. This is always a judgment call as to how long to let something like this go on, but both made a charge to the other and Mr. Gregory should have let the exchange to one more turn on either side before cutting off. However, this is Meet The Press so civility, we feel, is also tantamount to the debate.
The substance of Mr. Axelrod's questioning Mr. McDonnell is what we're looking for from Mr. Rubio, who said that the President needs to lead [on fiscal issues, which was the context of the discussion] because so far he has failed to do so. That sort of statement begs the question, in terms of whom? If the President does lead to enact his Democratic policies, without compromise, which Mr. Rubio equates to doing nothing in Washington then is he still leading?
Mr. Rubio also fashions himself an independent from the Tea Party Movement, but explained that 'we,' the Tea Party brought the subject of cutting spending to the table. One thing we'd like to say to Mr. Rubio if he wants to be taken seriously as a U.S. Senator as he aspires and that is to rid himself of the Rush Limbaugh speak. During the interview, he referred to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat' Party and used the term 'Obamacare' to describe the Affordable Health Care Act. Both are derogatory. Furthermore, he said that the only people who cut Medicare are the people who voted for 'Obamacare.' If that is the case then why aren't Republicans applauding the effort. The reason is because they want to privatize the system - that's the end goal and it's the end result of Mr. Ryan's plan for Medicare by issuing vouchers to buy insurance from private companies.
And though he would not outright endorse Congressman Paul Ryan's budget plan, but said he would vote for any plan that essentially does what Mr. Ryan's does. Hmmm... He did make a good point to say that the Democratic leadership in the Senate or the House hasn't put anything together. Where is the Democratic plan? Well, right now Senate Democrats are playing politics, taking a page from the Republicans are waiting for the other party to fall on its own sword, which the Republicans are doing with the Ryan plan. Whether you think it's a good plan or not, Mr. Ryan's plan does change Medicare as we know it... for everyone. Seventy percent of Americans do not want it changed, which should say at the very least, let's look someplace else first for cutting, perhaps the military and defense.
Also, Mr. Rubio referred to our potential default on loans by not raising the debt ceiling as 'technical,' following a recorded statement by Secretary Geithner calling it irresponsible not to raise it. 'Technical default' is still default and every individual knows that they would have to contemplate bankruptcy in this instance. So imagine this on a country-wide scale, a country the size of the United States. As we've asked before, why would we do this?
And then there's Donald Trump, which Mr. Rubio said he's serious because the press give him serious attention. Mr. Trump is how President Obama indirectly described him, a carnival barker. When Mr. Obama released his long form birth certificate, it was the latter day equivalent of having to show your papers to prove that you belong. It was a sad instant in American history, to which Mr. Trump declared that he was proud of himself for managing to force the disclosure. Mr. Trump is not even an official candidate and this is level to which he'll take a debate or tactic he'll use. Hopefully, the Presidential vetting process, otherwise known as primaries, will show Mr. Trump as what he really is, a disingenuous salesman, nothing more.
Mr. Axelrod would dignify Mr. Gregory's question of whether birtherism equates to racism and didn't answer it. We will. Yes, birtherism is a euphemism for racism, plan and simple. Why? Because all it does is perpetuate the notion that the President is 'different' or 'not one of us,' which is a clear example of intolerance.
But to begin, Mayor Bloomberg started off by saying that there is a crisis of confidence, in which many companies are looking at what the government is doing, or not doing as the case may be, and saying, "What's going on?" However, the confidence that Mr. Bloomberg is talking comes from a business sector that is, yes in fact, wondering what the government is going to do about the deficit and debt and at the same time its confidence level is lowered when the government insists on regulations. What our finance sector needs to realize is that if regulations are put in place on derivatives, the market will steady and in the long run, more people will make more money, but the very very top will not make quite as much. And in terms of the latter group of individuals, the amounts become insignificant.
Mayor Bloomberg also illustrated the grand conundrum for the average American in that it's a good time to buy a house, but there are many stipulations and the most obvious one is job stability. There is none, and overall wages for the middle class are down, yet Congress has not address this. Furthermore, Mr. Bloomberg is against having the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthiest one percent in the country, but over the past 25 years we've seen that "Trickle Down" economics hasn't worked. That house that Mr. Bloomberg refers to is a moving goal, moving farther and farther away from reality.
This brings us to the budget discussion, in which no one seems to know how to balance with too many outside forces [read: special interest groups] determined to see that nothing is done about it, and that's on both sides. But as the Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, admitted, as well as Senator Rubio, there a lot of deficit spending by Republicans as well as Democrats. Governor McDonnell explained that states have balanced budget amendments, which the federal government should have as well. However, if to balance it is how David Axelrod explained the way the Virginia Governor did, then what's the point. Mr. Axelrod explained that the Governor borrowed the money from pension plans, used Recovery Act money, and benefited from the cuts his predecessor made.
And though we at the column also feel that entitlement programs need to be reformed, we find it disingenuous on the part of Republican politicians to borrow money from the pension funds or ask people to pay into a system all their working lives and then turn around and say we're cutting back on the payments because we can't afford it. Talk about too big to fail. It's a bailout without labeling it as such because the two acts are not immediate to one another. And in the case of Governor McDonnell, the question is when will the money to the pension fund be paid back?
Mr. Axelrod and Governor McDonnell started to get into it a little bit and Mr. Gregory prompted cut them off. This is always a judgment call as to how long to let something like this go on, but both made a charge to the other and Mr. Gregory should have let the exchange to one more turn on either side before cutting off. However, this is Meet The Press so civility, we feel, is also tantamount to the debate.
The substance of Mr. Axelrod's questioning Mr. McDonnell is what we're looking for from Mr. Rubio, who said that the President needs to lead [on fiscal issues, which was the context of the discussion] because so far he has failed to do so. That sort of statement begs the question, in terms of whom? If the President does lead to enact his Democratic policies, without compromise, which Mr. Rubio equates to doing nothing in Washington then is he still leading?
Mr. Rubio also fashions himself an independent from the Tea Party Movement, but explained that 'we,' the Tea Party brought the subject of cutting spending to the table. One thing we'd like to say to Mr. Rubio if he wants to be taken seriously as a U.S. Senator as he aspires and that is to rid himself of the Rush Limbaugh speak. During the interview, he referred to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat' Party and used the term 'Obamacare' to describe the Affordable Health Care Act. Both are derogatory. Furthermore, he said that the only people who cut Medicare are the people who voted for 'Obamacare.' If that is the case then why aren't Republicans applauding the effort. The reason is because they want to privatize the system - that's the end goal and it's the end result of Mr. Ryan's plan for Medicare by issuing vouchers to buy insurance from private companies.
And though he would not outright endorse Congressman Paul Ryan's budget plan, but said he would vote for any plan that essentially does what Mr. Ryan's does. Hmmm... He did make a good point to say that the Democratic leadership in the Senate or the House hasn't put anything together. Where is the Democratic plan? Well, right now Senate Democrats are playing politics, taking a page from the Republicans are waiting for the other party to fall on its own sword, which the Republicans are doing with the Ryan plan. Whether you think it's a good plan or not, Mr. Ryan's plan does change Medicare as we know it... for everyone. Seventy percent of Americans do not want it changed, which should say at the very least, let's look someplace else first for cutting, perhaps the military and defense.
Also, Mr. Rubio referred to our potential default on loans by not raising the debt ceiling as 'technical,' following a recorded statement by Secretary Geithner calling it irresponsible not to raise it. 'Technical default' is still default and every individual knows that they would have to contemplate bankruptcy in this instance. So imagine this on a country-wide scale, a country the size of the United States. As we've asked before, why would we do this?
And then there's Donald Trump, which Mr. Rubio said he's serious because the press give him serious attention. Mr. Trump is how President Obama indirectly described him, a carnival barker. When Mr. Obama released his long form birth certificate, it was the latter day equivalent of having to show your papers to prove that you belong. It was a sad instant in American history, to which Mr. Trump declared that he was proud of himself for managing to force the disclosure. Mr. Trump is not even an official candidate and this is level to which he'll take a debate or tactic he'll use. Hopefully, the Presidential vetting process, otherwise known as primaries, will show Mr. Trump as what he really is, a disingenuous salesman, nothing more.
Mr. Axelrod would dignify Mr. Gregory's question of whether birtherism equates to racism and didn't answer it. We will. Yes, birtherism is a euphemism for racism, plan and simple. Why? Because all it does is perpetuate the notion that the President is 'different' or 'not one of us,' which is a clear example of intolerance.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
4.24.11: Spending and Taxation
The hype for today's program definitely centered around the joint interview with Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) with regard to the budget plan, but at the top of the program Mr. Gregory spoke with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was in Cairo, but had recently visited the rebel-controlled Libyan city of Benghazi. The conflict in Libya does have an effect on our economy and budget considerations, while also bringing a larger point to bear, which is overall defense spending.
For the status, Senator McCain said that the fight has the earmarks of a stalemate, but was glad to see that The United States is engaging the Predator drone into the fight. He also stated that The U.S. should step up its air power presence in the conflict. On the heels of that statement, he unequivocally said that ground troops are out of the question.
Basically what Mr. McCain outlined is the type of strategy/involvement as we had in the Balkans in the mid 1990's. Basically bombing Qaddafi into submission until the rebel can organize enough to overrun the regime. The obvious problem is that we don't know how many of these air attacks it will take for that to happen and how long this conflict will go on.
Additionally, the Senator advised that we help the rebels, giving them the frozen Qaddafi assets so that they have the ability to further arm themselves and relieve the strain on the civilian population, significantly adding that we need to 'take this guy out.' But again, how long and to what full extent will the U.S. be involved?
Another question of how long had to do with Iraq, which Mr. Gregory thoughtfully about which he asked Senator McCain. His answer to this and his suggestions about Libya should induce concern about our military policy and ultimately spending. He said that it is very important that we DO NOT leave Iraq completely. He continued on to say that the American people aren't very concerned about a long-term presence there, but would be if we were taking casualties.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need to reverse. The United States can no longer establish a 50-year/long-term type of presence in Iraq as we have done in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Italy, Spain, and Turkey to name a few. One could argue that we need these bases so that we can strategically be in place for any potential conflict or threat that involves The United States, but why do we need bases in Spain, Italy, and Germany? In this example, closing out the U.S. Military presence in two of these three countries would not significantly alter our strategic positioning and save us billions of dollars. Stay in South Korea because of a potential threat from the North, but pull out of Japan (if they want us to) or The Philippines. Why aren't these hard choices being made. The American public, as Mr. McCain said, wouldn't be overly concerned if we were not militarily in The Philippines. Our military spending is about $500 billion per year.
Instead, the hard choice remain here at home as to what to do with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which Senator Tom Coburn said have to be on the table for long-term fiscal responsibility. He also said that the 'gang of six' (6 Senators from both sides of the isle working on a budgetary compromise) hasn't even talked taxes increases.
However, Senator Kent Conrad said that they need to work both sides of the budgetary equation, cutting spending and increasing revenue through taxes, but that they shouldn't be raised on the middle class. Mr. Conrad did state that the gang of six will have their proposal out soon, lest they become irrelevant to the debate.
If the United States increased the tax rate for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans - basically letting the Bush Tax Cut expire and go back to Clinton-era levels at 39%, the revenue would be increased by approximately $700 billion. Couple that with say $100 billion in lowering military costs and you have close to $1 trillion in decreased spending. Or if we do as Senator Conrad said in that we should close the tax loopholes for companies off-shoring for tax purposes instead of having the tax rates expire, you'd get at least the same amount of savings, perhaps more. We could do those things first and then see where we are and go from there. Too practical, too rational, too.. (gulp) naive.
The Ryan plan, which David Brooks again said today, on the program, he liked because it asks the big questions like 'how much government do people want' is not a fair economic plan. This week, Mr. Ryan's own constituents questioned his plan in a town hall meeting that he called. Putting in place a voucher system for Medicare will change it fundamentally and will put a large burden (a burden that will keep growing) of the cost on the senior citizen. In the same budget plan, Mr. Ryan proposes a further cut in taxes for the top 2% of the wealthy.
So when Senator Coburn says that entitlement spending has to be on the table, so does defense spending and taxation. And significantly, Mr. Coburn disagreed with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that not raising the debt limit will not be catastrophic for the United States, because we will still be able to pay the interest on our bonds, is worrisome, but the one thing we can say about Senator Coburn, though we don't agree with him often, is that he is principled, unlike Congressman Paul Ryan. Senator Coburn has rebuffed his pledge (to not ever raise any type of taxes - corporate subsidies and all) to Grover Norquist - Chairman of the organization Americans for Tax Reform. However, on this instance of raising the debt limit, we strongly disagree with him. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to default on our debt for the first time in our history? No.
Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos said that both parties lose in this debate - Republicans for cutting popular programs and Democrats on their spending. He also noted that President Obama has been nothing but divisive in singling out the richest in this country. The latter is simply partisan as 72% of Americans favor raising taxes for the top 2%. As Ms. Dunn pointed out, the last election was about the American people wanting the Congress to work together, but that is not the Republican plan. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which Republicans is so far to the right that if the Democrats don't answer sensibly, clearly, and decisively, the compromise line will be that American will see Medicare and Social Security changed significantly, when it doesn't really have to be. And lost in all this as was pointed out through the Tweet Deck, where is the discussion about jobs. Congress hasn't done anything on jobs. Forget about gas prices, for the moment because if you don't have a job, you can't pay for gasoline no matter how low the cost.
Round Table: Columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book "The Social Animal," David Brooks; columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson; Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos; and former communications director for President Obama, Anita Dunn.
For the status, Senator McCain said that the fight has the earmarks of a stalemate, but was glad to see that The United States is engaging the Predator drone into the fight. He also stated that The U.S. should step up its air power presence in the conflict. On the heels of that statement, he unequivocally said that ground troops are out of the question.
Basically what Mr. McCain outlined is the type of strategy/involvement as we had in the Balkans in the mid 1990's. Basically bombing Qaddafi into submission until the rebel can organize enough to overrun the regime. The obvious problem is that we don't know how many of these air attacks it will take for that to happen and how long this conflict will go on.
Additionally, the Senator advised that we help the rebels, giving them the frozen Qaddafi assets so that they have the ability to further arm themselves and relieve the strain on the civilian population, significantly adding that we need to 'take this guy out.' But again, how long and to what full extent will the U.S. be involved?
Another question of how long had to do with Iraq, which Mr. Gregory thoughtfully about which he asked Senator McCain. His answer to this and his suggestions about Libya should induce concern about our military policy and ultimately spending. He said that it is very important that we DO NOT leave Iraq completely. He continued on to say that the American people aren't very concerned about a long-term presence there, but would be if we were taking casualties.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need to reverse. The United States can no longer establish a 50-year/long-term type of presence in Iraq as we have done in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Italy, Spain, and Turkey to name a few. One could argue that we need these bases so that we can strategically be in place for any potential conflict or threat that involves The United States, but why do we need bases in Spain, Italy, and Germany? In this example, closing out the U.S. Military presence in two of these three countries would not significantly alter our strategic positioning and save us billions of dollars. Stay in South Korea because of a potential threat from the North, but pull out of Japan (if they want us to) or The Philippines. Why aren't these hard choices being made. The American public, as Mr. McCain said, wouldn't be overly concerned if we were not militarily in The Philippines. Our military spending is about $500 billion per year.
Instead, the hard choice remain here at home as to what to do with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which Senator Tom Coburn said have to be on the table for long-term fiscal responsibility. He also said that the 'gang of six' (6 Senators from both sides of the isle working on a budgetary compromise) hasn't even talked taxes increases.
However, Senator Kent Conrad said that they need to work both sides of the budgetary equation, cutting spending and increasing revenue through taxes, but that they shouldn't be raised on the middle class. Mr. Conrad did state that the gang of six will have their proposal out soon, lest they become irrelevant to the debate.
If the United States increased the tax rate for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans - basically letting the Bush Tax Cut expire and go back to Clinton-era levels at 39%, the revenue would be increased by approximately $700 billion. Couple that with say $100 billion in lowering military costs and you have close to $1 trillion in decreased spending. Or if we do as Senator Conrad said in that we should close the tax loopholes for companies off-shoring for tax purposes instead of having the tax rates expire, you'd get at least the same amount of savings, perhaps more. We could do those things first and then see where we are and go from there. Too practical, too rational, too.. (gulp) naive.
The Ryan plan, which David Brooks again said today, on the program, he liked because it asks the big questions like 'how much government do people want' is not a fair economic plan. This week, Mr. Ryan's own constituents questioned his plan in a town hall meeting that he called. Putting in place a voucher system for Medicare will change it fundamentally and will put a large burden (a burden that will keep growing) of the cost on the senior citizen. In the same budget plan, Mr. Ryan proposes a further cut in taxes for the top 2% of the wealthy.
So when Senator Coburn says that entitlement spending has to be on the table, so does defense spending and taxation. And significantly, Mr. Coburn disagreed with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that not raising the debt limit will not be catastrophic for the United States, because we will still be able to pay the interest on our bonds, is worrisome, but the one thing we can say about Senator Coburn, though we don't agree with him often, is that he is principled, unlike Congressman Paul Ryan. Senator Coburn has rebuffed his pledge (to not ever raise any type of taxes - corporate subsidies and all) to Grover Norquist - Chairman of the organization Americans for Tax Reform. However, on this instance of raising the debt limit, we strongly disagree with him. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to default on our debt for the first time in our history? No.
Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos said that both parties lose in this debate - Republicans for cutting popular programs and Democrats on their spending. He also noted that President Obama has been nothing but divisive in singling out the richest in this country. The latter is simply partisan as 72% of Americans favor raising taxes for the top 2%. As Ms. Dunn pointed out, the last election was about the American people wanting the Congress to work together, but that is not the Republican plan. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which Republicans is so far to the right that if the Democrats don't answer sensibly, clearly, and decisively, the compromise line will be that American will see Medicare and Social Security changed significantly, when it doesn't really have to be. And lost in all this as was pointed out through the Tweet Deck, where is the discussion about jobs. Congress hasn't done anything on jobs. Forget about gas prices, for the moment because if you don't have a job, you can't pay for gasoline no matter how low the cost.
Round Table: Columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book "The Social Animal," David Brooks; columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson; Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos; and former communications director for President Obama, Anita Dunn.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
4.23.11: Taking a Stand
In anticipation of hosting a few members of the budget committee, Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), let's briefly catch up on last week's Meet The Press, the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner interview.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
4.10.11: The Safety Net Ain't Safe
The reason why it's so easy to become frustrated with the Administration is because when the President's senior advisor, David Plouffe, goes on Meet The Press and says that "trust was built between the Speaker (John Boehner) and the President" through this last budget process, you wonder what reality they are living in. Is Mr. Plouffe saying that to lower the heat between the two sides? To reassure the American people that the government works? Or is he just not being forthright and insulting our intelligence? One has to wonder.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)