At the top of today's program, Mr. Gregory reported that we are 'very close' to a deal to avoid default. The deal would consist of about $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, no revenue increases, and a raising of the debt ceiling through 2012. There will also be the formation of a bipartisan super-committee that would make recommendations for further cutting of spending.
What is not in the agreement is a balanced budget amendment provision, which may be the sticking point for the Republican controlled House of Representatives and cause a collapse in any agreement because it is the House that has not been willing to compromise, even with its leader, John Boehner. Mr. Boehner to pass a bill in the House this week had to put in a balance budget amendment to placate Tea Party Republicans to get it passed.
During today's program, there was a lot of talk about leadership. David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President, has said that this debt crisis has harmed our economy, certainly an understatement and there really was much more that he could say. President Obama, for his leadership, has made concessions at every level to get the debt ceiling raised so when conservatives say that he's failed to lead, it's ridiculous because he's given Republicans more than he's given Democrats in these negotiations. It's Democrats who should be complaining that he hasn't lead because of these concessions, many of which go against the Democratic Party's core beliefs - such as cuts in Social Security and Medicare without raising any revenue.
During the round table, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) commented that the media played a big part in this crisis, to which financial analyst Jim Cramer of CNBC took exception to this statement and explained that it was the President that caused the crisis saying that things may not get paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling. During the complete discussion, both of these individuals showed that they have little perspective on the various, realistic considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to solve the budget problems we face. Representative Labrador doesn't see any need for compromise as he believes that the 2010 mid-term election was a mandate for Republicans to enact legislation without it. As Repubican freshman should have learned, this is not the case. Mr. Cramer, for his two cents, is only loyal to the stock market. On his program leading up to the great recession of 2008, Mr. Cramer continually advocated the buying of toxic assets - he was never so wrong so frankly, his opinion carries little weight with this column. His comments about the President were spiteful and certainly not insightful. And when he says that if we don't act to resolve this, we'll (The U.S.) will lose huge. That's not insightful, it's banal.
Even with those huge concessions, there's no confidence that the House will vote and pass the bill that comes back from the Senate. When asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which could be interpreted that the President can override all this and just raise the debt ceiling to get the bills paid, David Plouffe said that the Administration has looked at that and it will not go down that road. And he shouldn't because the language is vague enough that it could be interpreted in a number of ways. Some could argue that it would be an impeachable act, on which most certainly Republicans would start proceedings. Going into an election year under impeachment would be a heavy weight around the neck of his re-election campaign.
The credit rating is about confidence, confidence that the United States will pay it's bills. One way or another, the U.S. will pay it's bills but confidence has evaporated, no more clearly exemplified of the latest example that was noted on today's program (and before) that when asked by a soldier if the military would be paid on time, Admiral Mullen said that he didn't know. The reason that confidence is gone is because frankly, with one party unwilling to compromise on anything, a slash and burn approach, the American public has to wait until the very last minute for things to move forward. This debt ceiling debate is just the latest... Remember when there was a last minute deal to avoid a government shutdown? All of this last minute legislation has decimated the public's confidence in its government. Congress thinks they have until Tuesday to get this worked out, but the reality is that the market is dictating that today is, as Mr. Gregory said, the code-red day (before the markets open).
Given all this, and now with the repeated theme that government is broken, Mr. Gregory frivolously asked Mr. Plouffe if there would be a third political party, to which he couldn't comment. Presumably that third party would be the Tea Party so how would Mr. Plouffe know about that? A silly question by Mr. Gregory in that he asked the wrong person, who wouldn't be able to answer that.
In the joint interview with Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and John Thune (R-SD), Mr. Thune said that he wasn't a fan of the super-committee idea, and we have to agree with him. For us, it creates a slippery slope to go down. Here's why. If for every crisis, fiscal or otherwise, you create a small super-committee (super meaning that it can not be questioned or that it's conclusions are fast-tracked) important decisions, it could theoretically do so without considering a differing majority view and then there's nothing you can do about it. That's the scary extreme, but in the mild reality, the idea of the super-committee shows everyone that Congress can not legislate properly. It's sad.
Mr. Thune, whose demeanor we appreciate, reinforced his party's standard talking points that, 'we spend too much, we need entitlement reform, broaden the tax base, etc.' As we've previously stated in this column, is that, yes maybe we spend too much, but we spend too much money on the wrong things. And broadening the tax base, making the tax system 'fair for everyone,' to use Congressman Labrador's words from today, means that people in this country who now make so little that they are unable to pay taxes, will have to pay taxes on what ever they make, "broadening the base." The basic takeaway from this is that it will, as with much of this economic policy, put more burden on the people who are least equipped to handle it.
Ms. McCaskill, on the other hand, reiterated the argument that we shouldn't give subsidies to oil corporations and then change Medicare in a voucher system. We would agree with this, but the problem with the Democrats isn't the more prudent position they take, it's the lack of political will and discipline to get their caucus on the same page in its entirety.
Overall, as long as we politically deny the fact that we need more tax revenue coming in to balance the budget, we'll never turn this around. Whether it be eliminating subsidies, broadening the base, increasing the rate for the top 1%, what ever it is - none of it is happening and something has to give. There is no way to cut enough money out of the budget to balance it. The compromise of spending cuts coupled with some increases in tax revenue is the essence of being American. If it seems reasonable, there's a pretty good chance that it is. Everyone can't eat all the steak, but we have to finish all the spinach.
Round Table: Former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm (D), Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), the host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer, and NBC's Tom Brokaw.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
7.24.11: Is Government Broken? If Yes, Who Broke It?
Simply as a practical matter in these debt talks, entitlement reform should be taken off the table, not the discretionary spending but definitely Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These latter three should be tackled separately so when Senator Coburn (R-OK) in today's interview keeps talking about entitlements, they should not be tied to the debt ceiling vote.
Two more important notions to keep in mind before we go any further, which are: 1) Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. These are programs that as American individuals we pay into for all of our working lives and entitlements suggests that these are just 'given' to us, which they are not. Secondly, raising the debt ceiling accounts for money that the United States has already spent. We can argue about who spent what, but the fact remains that for all practical purposes, it must be raised.
In this debt debate, it has been pretty well clear that it has been President Obama who has been more willing to make concessions [read: compromises] to get a deal done. Also, we believe that Speaker Boehner has been willing, be it less so, to compromise as well. However, Speaker Boehner is completely beholden to the Tea Party Republican caucus in the house, and we agree with Doris Kearns-Goodwin when in today's panel she said that he is a different kind of leader, but completely disagree with freshman Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) that he's been a good one. As Ms. Goodwin stated, he is unwilling to demand followers, leveraging his power as the Speaker to get his part in line. That he can not get House Republicans to see a way to compromise is not leading.
Ultra business-friendly White House Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, stated that one of the keys is to take the uncertainty out of the market and the uncertainty that he is referring to, in the immediate sense, is whether or not the United States is going to default on its debts for the first time in its history. As we have stated before, we're not sure what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised (We're not one of those columns to think it knows everything about everything as former Senator Chuck Hagel mentioned during today's round table.), but any unprecedented act, especially one that is perceived negative, will have an adverse effect on the economy.
Last reported was that Speaker Boehner walked out of negotiations because the President 'moved the goal posts,' going from asking for $800 billion in revenue to $1.2 trillion in revenue. By the way, all of this revenue would be by closing corporate tax loopholes now, and then having the Bush Era Tax Cuts sunset for the richest 1% of the country in 2012. Mr. Daley, emphatically said that it wasn't true what Mr. Boehner said, 'he was in the room.' Even if the President did 'move the goal posts,' you're talking $40 billion a year more in revenue increases, which really isn't that much. When Speaker Boehner says that we can not raise taxes on job creators, it rings so hollow that it echoes to every corner of the country. The job creators to which he's referring are corporations who are sitting on cash with the lowest tax rate they've had in the past 50 years and are not investing the money that hence creates jobs. That statement means nothing.
Mr. Daily called a raising of the debt ceiling for the next six month a 'short-term gimmick,' which it is because it puts a beaten debt-ceiling argument back into play during the Presidential election, something that the President clearly doesn't want so it makes sense that he flatly rejects that.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said in the next segment that it was a ridiculous position to hold because that is what the compromise vote is going to look like. Even though we disagree with most all of Mr. Coburn's political positions, he is worthy of our respect because he has shown that he understands that to lead in this country, compromise is needed. He does see room for getting rid of some tax subsidies for ethanol and wind. Mr. Coburn is the Senator that made news for saying that he would not be beholden to Grover Norquist's tax pledge, to which Andrea Mitchell asked a most sensible question - how do 236 members of Congress sign a pledge before even coming into the chamber? Congress Adam Kinzinger should have had to answer that, but it probably would have been a rote answer - 'We can not raise taxes on job creators...etc.'
However, Congressman Kinzinger does believe we can reach a compromise. That is the general consensus - everyone says that - but where is the compromise to go with it? What the Tea Party Republican caucus doesn't understand that in a large, diverse country such as ours (As Ms. Goodwin reminded us), compromise is essential - democracy can not survive without it.
One example that was touched on by Chief Daley and then rebutted by Senator Coburn was the impass over the FAA, which as Mr. Daley said resulted in the layoff of 4000 airport workers on Friday. Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to an agreement. Mr. Coburn said, for the Republicans part, that there were subsidies and duplication of payments that were a complete waste of federal dollars. What went unmentioned was that Republicans wanted the stripping of collective bargaining rights on behalf of the workers. Because Democrats would not give in to that demand, a deal didn't get done, hence the aforementioned result.
So when it comes to the debt deal, Mr. Daley described an 'our way or the highway' approach when it comes to revenue on the part of the Republicans. That's a problem that both the Paul Ryan budget plan has and the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill both have. When those bills go over to the Senate, controlled by Democrats, there's no chance of them going back to the House because the House will reject them because of compromises edited in by Senate Democrats.
Mayor Corey Booker said that he agrees with Republicans in that we have a spending problem, and we do, but it's where the spending is going that is the problem. Tax cuts can not be the only answer - it is not a panacea because if it were, the economy would be booming by now. What creates economic growth is a solvent federal government and for that to happen, it needs to take in more money, not just cut spending. Bringing that down to a familial level, mothers and fathers get more than one job to sustain a level of existence for their kids. To feed them, they not only say to themselves, 'We have to lower our expenses," but also say, "We have to find a way to get more money coming in." It's a two-way street.
And actually, there's a third important notion that you need to keep in mind. Former Congressman Dick Armey's FreedomWorks that started the Tea Party movement has no interest in having the economy stabilize. His motivations are purely to drive Democrats out of control of any part of government for the long term and put forth a radically right agenda. Hence, compromise on the part of Tea Party Republicans is not an option. With any problem, it's always very helpful to identify that cause so when you say that governing is compromising, you now know what the cause is. Is our government broken? Ms. Goodwin said that there's no question it's broken. So who broke it? Tea Party Republicans did. Hopefully, for all of us, a default on our debt and the downgrading of the United States' credit rating will not be their legacy.
Round Table: Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R); Illinois tea party freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R); Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker (D); Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Two more important notions to keep in mind before we go any further, which are: 1) Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. These are programs that as American individuals we pay into for all of our working lives and entitlements suggests that these are just 'given' to us, which they are not. Secondly, raising the debt ceiling accounts for money that the United States has already spent. We can argue about who spent what, but the fact remains that for all practical purposes, it must be raised.
In this debt debate, it has been pretty well clear that it has been President Obama who has been more willing to make concessions [read: compromises] to get a deal done. Also, we believe that Speaker Boehner has been willing, be it less so, to compromise as well. However, Speaker Boehner is completely beholden to the Tea Party Republican caucus in the house, and we agree with Doris Kearns-Goodwin when in today's panel she said that he is a different kind of leader, but completely disagree with freshman Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) that he's been a good one. As Ms. Goodwin stated, he is unwilling to demand followers, leveraging his power as the Speaker to get his part in line. That he can not get House Republicans to see a way to compromise is not leading.
Ultra business-friendly White House Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, stated that one of the keys is to take the uncertainty out of the market and the uncertainty that he is referring to, in the immediate sense, is whether or not the United States is going to default on its debts for the first time in its history. As we have stated before, we're not sure what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised (We're not one of those columns to think it knows everything about everything as former Senator Chuck Hagel mentioned during today's round table.), but any unprecedented act, especially one that is perceived negative, will have an adverse effect on the economy.
Last reported was that Speaker Boehner walked out of negotiations because the President 'moved the goal posts,' going from asking for $800 billion in revenue to $1.2 trillion in revenue. By the way, all of this revenue would be by closing corporate tax loopholes now, and then having the Bush Era Tax Cuts sunset for the richest 1% of the country in 2012. Mr. Daley, emphatically said that it wasn't true what Mr. Boehner said, 'he was in the room.' Even if the President did 'move the goal posts,' you're talking $40 billion a year more in revenue increases, which really isn't that much. When Speaker Boehner says that we can not raise taxes on job creators, it rings so hollow that it echoes to every corner of the country. The job creators to which he's referring are corporations who are sitting on cash with the lowest tax rate they've had in the past 50 years and are not investing the money that hence creates jobs. That statement means nothing.
Mr. Daily called a raising of the debt ceiling for the next six month a 'short-term gimmick,' which it is because it puts a beaten debt-ceiling argument back into play during the Presidential election, something that the President clearly doesn't want so it makes sense that he flatly rejects that.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said in the next segment that it was a ridiculous position to hold because that is what the compromise vote is going to look like. Even though we disagree with most all of Mr. Coburn's political positions, he is worthy of our respect because he has shown that he understands that to lead in this country, compromise is needed. He does see room for getting rid of some tax subsidies for ethanol and wind. Mr. Coburn is the Senator that made news for saying that he would not be beholden to Grover Norquist's tax pledge, to which Andrea Mitchell asked a most sensible question - how do 236 members of Congress sign a pledge before even coming into the chamber? Congress Adam Kinzinger should have had to answer that, but it probably would have been a rote answer - 'We can not raise taxes on job creators...etc.'
However, Congressman Kinzinger does believe we can reach a compromise. That is the general consensus - everyone says that - but where is the compromise to go with it? What the Tea Party Republican caucus doesn't understand that in a large, diverse country such as ours (As Ms. Goodwin reminded us), compromise is essential - democracy can not survive without it.
One example that was touched on by Chief Daley and then rebutted by Senator Coburn was the impass over the FAA, which as Mr. Daley said resulted in the layoff of 4000 airport workers on Friday. Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to an agreement. Mr. Coburn said, for the Republicans part, that there were subsidies and duplication of payments that were a complete waste of federal dollars. What went unmentioned was that Republicans wanted the stripping of collective bargaining rights on behalf of the workers. Because Democrats would not give in to that demand, a deal didn't get done, hence the aforementioned result.
So when it comes to the debt deal, Mr. Daley described an 'our way or the highway' approach when it comes to revenue on the part of the Republicans. That's a problem that both the Paul Ryan budget plan has and the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill both have. When those bills go over to the Senate, controlled by Democrats, there's no chance of them going back to the House because the House will reject them because of compromises edited in by Senate Democrats.
Mayor Corey Booker said that he agrees with Republicans in that we have a spending problem, and we do, but it's where the spending is going that is the problem. Tax cuts can not be the only answer - it is not a panacea because if it were, the economy would be booming by now. What creates economic growth is a solvent federal government and for that to happen, it needs to take in more money, not just cut spending. Bringing that down to a familial level, mothers and fathers get more than one job to sustain a level of existence for their kids. To feed them, they not only say to themselves, 'We have to lower our expenses," but also say, "We have to find a way to get more money coming in." It's a two-way street.
And actually, there's a third important notion that you need to keep in mind. Former Congressman Dick Armey's FreedomWorks that started the Tea Party movement has no interest in having the economy stabilize. His motivations are purely to drive Democrats out of control of any part of government for the long term and put forth a radically right agenda. Hence, compromise on the part of Tea Party Republicans is not an option. With any problem, it's always very helpful to identify that cause so when you say that governing is compromising, you now know what the cause is. Is our government broken? Ms. Goodwin said that there's no question it's broken. So who broke it? Tea Party Republicans did. Hopefully, for all of us, a default on our debt and the downgrading of the United States' credit rating will not be their legacy.
Round Table: Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R); Illinois tea party freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R); Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker (D); Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
7.17.11: Cut, Cap, and Balance, Catchy but Unrealistic
At the very top of today's program White House Budget Director Jack Lew said that the leaders in Congress all agree that we can not default on our debts. Hence, the disagreement lies within how to do it. Compromise, as CNBC's David Faber said during the round table, would be received very positively by our creditors and the market in general. However, compromise is not where we are politically, which arrives to the sum of what Honeywell CEO David Cote said that if we can not get together to get our fiscal house in order, it's just sad. Frankly, Republicans are not on the compromise page and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said as much today.
First, Senator DeMint (R-SC) is not a credible voice in economic matters given his state's economic and educational record, near or at the bottom of both categories amongst the fifty states. What he did say was that their concession was to raise the debt ceiling - simply, with no closing of tax loopholes, a Democratic demand, to go along with the spending cuts that Republicans want.
The President has received a lot of criticism for not leading but he has been the sole individual to compromise the most giving into major concessions that Democrats do not want to see. The other reason that this agreement on the debt ceiling is looking more grim is that you have Republican Presidential candidates such as Michelle Bachmann who said that the debt ceiling doesn't matter and it's a political sales jobs by the President and the Treasury Secretary. Mr. Lew in his interview today said that she is selling a misnomer, and that if the United States defaults we will not be able to pay our bills. The facts are facts he said. Mr. Lew concluded with saying that leadership needs a partner. We believe that the President has one in House Speaker John Boehner, but doesn't have one in Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader who is speaking for the Republican Tea Party caucus in the chamber. The result is that Mr. Boehner can not get the votes within his own caucus - that's where the hold up is.
What Senator DeMint kept on about is the new Republican tact of cut, cap, and balance which is their focus now. It's catchy but completely unrealistic. This plan is to cut spending now, cap it for the next ten years, and then enact a balanced budget amendment over that period. This sounds real nice but like many of these snappily titled plans, it's simply not practical and does not take into the reality the needs of the American people.
Marc Morial, during today's panel, stated that there are $1 trillion in tax loopholes that could be closed, that's over a ten-year period. If that is indeed the case, if you cut spending, which means cutting an innumerable amount of programs that Americans rely on, Pell grants for example, without tapping into that $1 trillion hanging out there, there is no way to balance the budget without decimating the economy.
And here's another question, if Republicans are going to bring this cut, cap, and balance approach to a vote in the House, what about the Ryan budget that they voted on? In that plan, raising the debt ceiling several times to reach its goals. So which one is it? The House under Republican control seems to be voting against bills that they once passed. Whether or not you think the Democrats' plan is right or wrong, they have been the more consistent in their approach, no doubt.
For the idea of a balanced budget amendment, consider this: All the Republicans touting this idea cite the fact that the states have balanced budget amendments so why can't the federal government have one? Well, when floods occur in Missouri or a hurricane in Florida or an oil spill in the Gulf or an earthquake in California, who do they call? The federal government because the states do not have the resources (i.e. the money) to deal with the problem. Where do we go when the Federal government needs the money in an emergency? Do we pass an emergency measure.. ok, then we keep renewing because the emergency continues and then the whole point of a balanced budget amendment is lost.. and now we're breaking our own law. All that, and not to forget, it won't pass in the Senate.
Last thing on the Senators - when Mr. Gregory asked about whether there should be congressional hearings on the scandal going on with News Corp., which owns Fox News here in the U.S., Senator Durbin said yes. Senator DeMint said that we should let law enforcement do its job. Actually, both answers are wrong. Mr. Durbin by saying yes, is already implying some sort of guilt on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's network here. Mr. Murdoch is not our favorite person, but due process is in order. Mr. DeMint's answer is only partly correct that we should, in fact, let law enforcement do it's job, but by instantly deflecting the answer, it wreaks of favoritism on his part in that he's not going to say anything bad about the news organization that backs his cause and gives Republicans an unfettered platform for their opinions. It panders and is cowardly.
____
Round table: Ohio Governor John Kasich (R); Chairman and CEO of Honeywell, David Cote; former mayor of New Orleans, now president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Chief Economist for Mesirow Financial Diane Swonk; and CNBC’s David Faber.
David Farber articulated the best point about the News Corp. scandal, which was for the first time Rupert Murdoch wasn't in front of the story. He was not able to put his spin on it in Britain, which he will try to reverse here in the United States. Mr. Kasich said that officials at Fox News here have told him that they are not touched by this scandal.
To the economic points, the panel seemed to come to the consensus that it is the 'uncertainty of demand' that has business leaders on the sideline as it were, Mr. Cote's main premise. But there isn't uncertainty of demand, we can tell you that people don't have enough money to buy more of the stuff that they already have. And why don't have that money, because business hasn't helped Americans on the back end. They haven't employed them enough to make these things for people in our countries who don't have them. They haven't created jobs here in this country, just elsewhere. We're pretty certain about this.
Mr. Kasich said that they cut out tax loopholes when he was in Congress in 1997 (Clinton years), to which Mr. Farber noted that all those loopholes are back. What he didn't clarify was that those loopholes were put back in place during the Bush years.
Where Mr. Cote is more correct is that it's scary as a business man because he looks at Congress and he doesn't know what to do because there is no consensus or compromise of any ideas that would essentially dictate how he would go about his business. Congress needs to put a plan forward, and then business will deal with it.
And one last note, something we caught in the conversation that just went by without comment. Mr. Kasich said that one of the ways to create jobs in this country is to educate our kids more specifically to the jobs that are needed. Realize that this is the rationale for educational cuts, especially in things such as art, music, and fitness, but it does not mean reinvestment in more math and science education. And teaching specifically to the job is not a good plan in the context of an overall education and the reason is that who is to say what the job of the future is. One could say that it was creativity matched with mathematical ability that created Google or Facebook.
Here's a suggestion, in grades 6 through 8, you evaluate students' aptitude and as they area about to reach high school, each student declares a focus area, but not to the exclusion of taking other subjects because they are all interconnected - sort of like college but less binding. They are high-schoolers after all. This way, it gives the student focus, perhaps a practical skill if say he/she wants to focus on more of a trade subject, welding for example because math isn't the strongest subject. Just a quick thought, but for Mr. Kasich on education, his rhetoric doesn't match his agenda.
First, Senator DeMint (R-SC) is not a credible voice in economic matters given his state's economic and educational record, near or at the bottom of both categories amongst the fifty states. What he did say was that their concession was to raise the debt ceiling - simply, with no closing of tax loopholes, a Democratic demand, to go along with the spending cuts that Republicans want.
The President has received a lot of criticism for not leading but he has been the sole individual to compromise the most giving into major concessions that Democrats do not want to see. The other reason that this agreement on the debt ceiling is looking more grim is that you have Republican Presidential candidates such as Michelle Bachmann who said that the debt ceiling doesn't matter and it's a political sales jobs by the President and the Treasury Secretary. Mr. Lew in his interview today said that she is selling a misnomer, and that if the United States defaults we will not be able to pay our bills. The facts are facts he said. Mr. Lew concluded with saying that leadership needs a partner. We believe that the President has one in House Speaker John Boehner, but doesn't have one in Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader who is speaking for the Republican Tea Party caucus in the chamber. The result is that Mr. Boehner can not get the votes within his own caucus - that's where the hold up is.
What Senator DeMint kept on about is the new Republican tact of cut, cap, and balance which is their focus now. It's catchy but completely unrealistic. This plan is to cut spending now, cap it for the next ten years, and then enact a balanced budget amendment over that period. This sounds real nice but like many of these snappily titled plans, it's simply not practical and does not take into the reality the needs of the American people.
Marc Morial, during today's panel, stated that there are $1 trillion in tax loopholes that could be closed, that's over a ten-year period. If that is indeed the case, if you cut spending, which means cutting an innumerable amount of programs that Americans rely on, Pell grants for example, without tapping into that $1 trillion hanging out there, there is no way to balance the budget without decimating the economy.
And here's another question, if Republicans are going to bring this cut, cap, and balance approach to a vote in the House, what about the Ryan budget that they voted on? In that plan, raising the debt ceiling several times to reach its goals. So which one is it? The House under Republican control seems to be voting against bills that they once passed. Whether or not you think the Democrats' plan is right or wrong, they have been the more consistent in their approach, no doubt.
For the idea of a balanced budget amendment, consider this: All the Republicans touting this idea cite the fact that the states have balanced budget amendments so why can't the federal government have one? Well, when floods occur in Missouri or a hurricane in Florida or an oil spill in the Gulf or an earthquake in California, who do they call? The federal government because the states do not have the resources (i.e. the money) to deal with the problem. Where do we go when the Federal government needs the money in an emergency? Do we pass an emergency measure.. ok, then we keep renewing because the emergency continues and then the whole point of a balanced budget amendment is lost.. and now we're breaking our own law. All that, and not to forget, it won't pass in the Senate.
Last thing on the Senators - when Mr. Gregory asked about whether there should be congressional hearings on the scandal going on with News Corp., which owns Fox News here in the U.S., Senator Durbin said yes. Senator DeMint said that we should let law enforcement do its job. Actually, both answers are wrong. Mr. Durbin by saying yes, is already implying some sort of guilt on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's network here. Mr. Murdoch is not our favorite person, but due process is in order. Mr. DeMint's answer is only partly correct that we should, in fact, let law enforcement do it's job, but by instantly deflecting the answer, it wreaks of favoritism on his part in that he's not going to say anything bad about the news organization that backs his cause and gives Republicans an unfettered platform for their opinions. It panders and is cowardly.
____
Round table: Ohio Governor John Kasich (R); Chairman and CEO of Honeywell, David Cote; former mayor of New Orleans, now president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Chief Economist for Mesirow Financial Diane Swonk; and CNBC’s David Faber.
David Farber articulated the best point about the News Corp. scandal, which was for the first time Rupert Murdoch wasn't in front of the story. He was not able to put his spin on it in Britain, which he will try to reverse here in the United States. Mr. Kasich said that officials at Fox News here have told him that they are not touched by this scandal.
To the economic points, the panel seemed to come to the consensus that it is the 'uncertainty of demand' that has business leaders on the sideline as it were, Mr. Cote's main premise. But there isn't uncertainty of demand, we can tell you that people don't have enough money to buy more of the stuff that they already have. And why don't have that money, because business hasn't helped Americans on the back end. They haven't employed them enough to make these things for people in our countries who don't have them. They haven't created jobs here in this country, just elsewhere. We're pretty certain about this.
Mr. Kasich said that they cut out tax loopholes when he was in Congress in 1997 (Clinton years), to which Mr. Farber noted that all those loopholes are back. What he didn't clarify was that those loopholes were put back in place during the Bush years.
Where Mr. Cote is more correct is that it's scary as a business man because he looks at Congress and he doesn't know what to do because there is no consensus or compromise of any ideas that would essentially dictate how he would go about his business. Congress needs to put a plan forward, and then business will deal with it.
And one last note, something we caught in the conversation that just went by without comment. Mr. Kasich said that one of the ways to create jobs in this country is to educate our kids more specifically to the jobs that are needed. Realize that this is the rationale for educational cuts, especially in things such as art, music, and fitness, but it does not mean reinvestment in more math and science education. And teaching specifically to the job is not a good plan in the context of an overall education and the reason is that who is to say what the job of the future is. One could say that it was creativity matched with mathematical ability that created Google or Facebook.
Here's a suggestion, in grades 6 through 8, you evaluate students' aptitude and as they area about to reach high school, each student declares a focus area, but not to the exclusion of taking other subjects because they are all interconnected - sort of like college but less binding. They are high-schoolers after all. This way, it gives the student focus, perhaps a practical skill if say he/she wants to focus on more of a trade subject, welding for example because math isn't the strongest subject. Just a quick thought, but for Mr. Kasich on education, his rhetoric doesn't match his agenda.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
7.10.11: TIm Pawlenty Must Be Joking
We have to go right to the chase here for this week's program, which is the Tim Pawlenty interview. We'll get to Secretary Geithner in a minute as you could pretty much predict what he was going to say and how he was going to say it on the subject of the debt ceiling. However, he did explain the consequences in a comprehensible way, for which we have a clip, to pour over later.
Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) must be joking. Beyond making news with his attack on fellow Minnesotan candidate Michelle Bachmann, what is more incredible is that he actually touted the fact that he set a record for the number of vetoes and shut down the Minnesota state government with his policies. It's insane that something so counterproductive is now seen as an accomplishment to his potential Republican constituents.
Where is the alternate universe, from where Tim Pawlenty gets this logic, because we're not seeing it. You're proud of the fact that the sum of your efforts brought down the ability for the state government to serve its people creating more hardship in the general society?
And the upside is?....
Mr. Pawlenty explained that he stuck to his conservative principles and showed courage in his actions. Conversely, and here's where the news was made, Mr. Pawlenty said that Michelle Bachmann's record in Congress of accomplishment is 'non-existent.' And just before that, in so many words, he believed that Mitt Romney could not be the nominee strictly on healthcare because Mr. Romney enacted a policy that is now considered the ultimate sacrilege amongst his party patrons.
But then he said that he distinguishes himself from the other because he is a successful leader, that it is not argument, it's fact (his words). Simply stated, a successful leader would not preside over the closure of his/her government. A successful leader gets two differing sides to come to reason, understand what the priorities of each side of the argument and then bring a compromise to everyone agrees upon. But we're in a climate where compromise is not an option for the Republicans and candidates have to play to that notion because they feel it strengthens their position with the base of the party. Given that, we still don't see how touting the fact that you shut down the government promotes good leadership qualities. Does that mean that Mr. Pawlenty will shut down the U.S. federal government if Democrats control the Congress?
He said that he breaks with his party in regard to the minimum wage, which Republicans would like to do away with. Mr. Pawlenty is all for defending the $7.25 per hour... thanks a lot. We said it before and we'll say it again... Tim Pawlenty's campaign for President of The United States is toast. He will not be the nominee. And when a Presidential candidates consistently repeats standard party talking points with no other in-depth explanation, people tune out, and in the case of Mr. Pawlenty, "Cut taxes, cut spending and lessen regulation." Blah Blah Blah...
The New York Times speculatively asked if Mr. Pawlenty will be the first one in and the first one out. This is a poor prediction given that Newt Gingrich is in the race. He'll be the first out, or should be. The Los Angeles Times said that Mr. Pawlenty is soft-spoken and bland. Mr. Pawlenty dismissed these assessments, but in the multimedia age don't underestimate the significance of these qualities, or lack thereof in the case of Tim Pawlenty. It just seems that Tim Pawlenty is trying to be someone he's not. He's like George Constanza in that everything he does seems counter-intuitive to everyone else.
He described himself as a hockey player, someone who is tough, but when questioned about Mitt Romney's healthcare plan at the debate, he didn't go for the kill and he repeated that same lame shying-away on today's program. The writer of this column played hockey, and a coach once said that if you're a nice person on the ice, you're in the wrong 'effing sport. Tim Pawlenty is in the wrong sport.
If all that wasn't enough, with regard to Libya, Mr. Pawlenty suggested that we send in special forces to target Khadafi, he cited the actions of Ronald Reagan in toppling governments. What the hell is Mr. Pawlenty talking about? Let's do something like Iran-Contra?! With all due respect, Mr. Reagan cut and run in Lebanon, bombed Libya from a far (like we're doing now), and Grenada... Please, was that really a war? And there is the aforementioned Nicaragua.
And lastly on Mr. Pawlenty, and here is where is really breaks with his party. With regard to homosexuality and whether or not it's genetic or a choice, Tim Pawlenty said that the science isn't clear on that. Yes, he mentioned science, an actual reference to science. There's a real break.
____
The one thing we know for sure about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is that he would make a lousy politician, which makes one conclude that as Treasury Secretary he knows what he's talking about. What we mean by that is when the interview started, Mr. Geithner said that this is a great moment for the United States, but toward the end he used the word 'grave' to describe the situation.
And given that he is no politician, what would be the political motivation to lie to Congress and the American public about the severity of a default. His simple presence on the program itself, serves as a warning that we're playing with fire. He explains it in this clip which is the essence of why default (not raising the debt limit) is not an option.
Like substantial savings... defense. entitlements down the road
Republicans should not walk away now. Need both sides...
4 trillion - biggest deal possible. payroll tax cut - 1000, investi in future
revuneu increase? you have to have balnace.
which means yes
if no revenue, deep cuts in care for the edlerly...
nancy pelosi.. quote
balanced way
medicare cuts? will not debate it here.
Republicans special intest tax breakers
are uncomfortable raising revenues, even on the richest americans
smaller deal? very tough too.
August 2 - we're not going to default. everyone understands that. Boehner understands
more risky the more time we take
80 million checks a month.
effects our credit rating.
they will downgrade our credit rating.
failure is not an option.
This is catastrphic - hard deadline.
grave moment for the nation.
the economy has slowed - oil prices, terrible weather, japan,
predictions are it will get better in the second half.
twitter town hall
i think he's being too hard on himself there.
stimulus
healthcare
nothing has stemmed the tide...
congress - trade agreements, rebuild America, tax benefits for working families.
a long time still...
look at what reagan did to toppled a government.
not necessarily. what does that mean?
special forces... what the fuck is he talking about.
not for gay couples having the same rights as married couples.
science is in dispute - no current conclusion its genetic.
Eugene Robinson
Chuck Todd
chcuk - first time some one went hard at her.
gene - amazingly tough given commandment.
no republican candidate is cutting him any slack.
sarah palin?
chuck - wants to go out on her own terms...
stay on the margins
gene - unconventional.
gadfly
she can't get nominated.
rush limbaugh wouldn't get nominated.
going for the big deal.
speaker boehner couldn't get a deal on taxes within his own caucus.
eric cantor said no and it's no.
chuck - admin trying to be straight with the people.
Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) must be joking. Beyond making news with his attack on fellow Minnesotan candidate Michelle Bachmann, what is more incredible is that he actually touted the fact that he set a record for the number of vetoes and shut down the Minnesota state government with his policies. It's insane that something so counterproductive is now seen as an accomplishment to his potential Republican constituents.
Where is the alternate universe, from where Tim Pawlenty gets this logic, because we're not seeing it. You're proud of the fact that the sum of your efforts brought down the ability for the state government to serve its people creating more hardship in the general society?
And the upside is?....
Mr. Pawlenty explained that he stuck to his conservative principles and showed courage in his actions. Conversely, and here's where the news was made, Mr. Pawlenty said that Michelle Bachmann's record in Congress of accomplishment is 'non-existent.' And just before that, in so many words, he believed that Mitt Romney could not be the nominee strictly on healthcare because Mr. Romney enacted a policy that is now considered the ultimate sacrilege amongst his party patrons.
But then he said that he distinguishes himself from the other because he is a successful leader, that it is not argument, it's fact (his words). Simply stated, a successful leader would not preside over the closure of his/her government. A successful leader gets two differing sides to come to reason, understand what the priorities of each side of the argument and then bring a compromise to everyone agrees upon. But we're in a climate where compromise is not an option for the Republicans and candidates have to play to that notion because they feel it strengthens their position with the base of the party. Given that, we still don't see how touting the fact that you shut down the government promotes good leadership qualities. Does that mean that Mr. Pawlenty will shut down the U.S. federal government if Democrats control the Congress?
He said that he breaks with his party in regard to the minimum wage, which Republicans would like to do away with. Mr. Pawlenty is all for defending the $7.25 per hour... thanks a lot. We said it before and we'll say it again... Tim Pawlenty's campaign for President of The United States is toast. He will not be the nominee. And when a Presidential candidates consistently repeats standard party talking points with no other in-depth explanation, people tune out, and in the case of Mr. Pawlenty, "Cut taxes, cut spending and lessen regulation." Blah Blah Blah...
The New York Times speculatively asked if Mr. Pawlenty will be the first one in and the first one out. This is a poor prediction given that Newt Gingrich is in the race. He'll be the first out, or should be. The Los Angeles Times said that Mr. Pawlenty is soft-spoken and bland. Mr. Pawlenty dismissed these assessments, but in the multimedia age don't underestimate the significance of these qualities, or lack thereof in the case of Tim Pawlenty. It just seems that Tim Pawlenty is trying to be someone he's not. He's like George Constanza in that everything he does seems counter-intuitive to everyone else.
He described himself as a hockey player, someone who is tough, but when questioned about Mitt Romney's healthcare plan at the debate, he didn't go for the kill and he repeated that same lame shying-away on today's program. The writer of this column played hockey, and a coach once said that if you're a nice person on the ice, you're in the wrong 'effing sport. Tim Pawlenty is in the wrong sport.
If all that wasn't enough, with regard to Libya, Mr. Pawlenty suggested that we send in special forces to target Khadafi, he cited the actions of Ronald Reagan in toppling governments. What the hell is Mr. Pawlenty talking about? Let's do something like Iran-Contra?! With all due respect, Mr. Reagan cut and run in Lebanon, bombed Libya from a far (like we're doing now), and Grenada... Please, was that really a war? And there is the aforementioned Nicaragua.
And lastly on Mr. Pawlenty, and here is where is really breaks with his party. With regard to homosexuality and whether or not it's genetic or a choice, Tim Pawlenty said that the science isn't clear on that. Yes, he mentioned science, an actual reference to science. There's a real break.
____
The one thing we know for sure about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is that he would make a lousy politician, which makes one conclude that as Treasury Secretary he knows what he's talking about. What we mean by that is when the interview started, Mr. Geithner said that this is a great moment for the United States, but toward the end he used the word 'grave' to describe the situation.
And given that he is no politician, what would be the political motivation to lie to Congress and the American public about the severity of a default. His simple presence on the program itself, serves as a warning that we're playing with fire. He explains it in this clip which is the essence of why default (not raising the debt limit) is not an option.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Like substantial savings... defense. entitlements down the road
Republicans should not walk away now. Need both sides...
4 trillion - biggest deal possible. payroll tax cut - 1000, investi in future
revuneu increase? you have to have balnace.
which means yes
if no revenue, deep cuts in care for the edlerly...
nancy pelosi.. quote
balanced way
medicare cuts? will not debate it here.
Republicans special intest tax breakers
are uncomfortable raising revenues, even on the richest americans
smaller deal? very tough too.
August 2 - we're not going to default. everyone understands that. Boehner understands
more risky the more time we take
80 million checks a month.
effects our credit rating.
they will downgrade our credit rating.
failure is not an option.
This is catastrphic - hard deadline.
grave moment for the nation.
the economy has slowed - oil prices, terrible weather, japan,
predictions are it will get better in the second half.
twitter town hall
i think he's being too hard on himself there.
stimulus
healthcare
nothing has stemmed the tide...
congress - trade agreements, rebuild America, tax benefits for working families.
a long time still...
look at what reagan did to toppled a government.
not necessarily. what does that mean?
special forces... what the fuck is he talking about.
not for gay couples having the same rights as married couples.
science is in dispute - no current conclusion its genetic.
Eugene Robinson
Chuck Todd
chcuk - first time some one went hard at her.
gene - amazingly tough given commandment.
no republican candidate is cutting him any slack.
sarah palin?
chuck - wants to go out on her own terms...
stay on the margins
gene - unconventional.
gadfly
she can't get nominated.
rush limbaugh wouldn't get nominated.
going for the big deal.
speaker boehner couldn't get a deal on taxes within his own caucus.
eric cantor said no and it's no.
chuck - admin trying to be straight with the people.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
6.26.11: Bull in a Bull Shop
At first glance, this week's program seemed like your every Sunday, usual Meet The Press, but in actuality, this week was one of the more enlightening weeks, and it all points back to the Presidency of Barack Obama.
Today's program started with the antithesis of the President, and that is Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Governor Christie is what we would call a bull in a bull shop. Even though he occupies a room full of like minded animals, political animals, he still manages to stand out, knocking things and lesser bulls over at every turn. This is why so many find Mr. Christie an attractive Presidential candidate because he's willing to make a few small messes along the way to solving a bigger problem. To be clear, that's a commentary on his methodology, and not about the agenda behind it.
But it's the methodology that needs to be examined in terms of what President Obama is not doing. As the head of a state, you can afford to be more hands on, which was the tact of the criticism that Mr. Christie leveled against the President, that he hasn't been involved enough in these budget deals. "He needs to lead and bring the legislature to the table," paraphrasing Mr. Christie. David Brooks later described the President as the 'convener in chief,' as Mr. Obama searches for consensus on issues, but having surrogates in his stead, not personally being there.
It's an unfair criticism because unlike Governor Christie, President Obama has 49 other states to consider, and he does have the Vice President conducting the meetings. If you take the above criticisms of the President to heart, then it's actually better if Joe Biden is leading in this instance. Mr. Christie said he is a straight talker and that's what people respect, whether they agree with it or not, and in this instance it's better to ride with Mr. Biden's reputation. And we do mean this to be constructive criticism for the President.
In this column back in April (April 23rd, Take A Stand - http://meetthepressopinion.blogspot.com/2011/04/42311.html), we featured a clip of President Obama speaking at a fund raiser in a tone that more reflects the style that Mr. Christie spoke about. The public responds to this tone and Mr. Obama should employ it more, as President he is granted the bully pulpit - the title of biggest bull in the bull shop. Mr. Christie, for his efforts, has bad timing. When a constitute asks you why you don't send your kids to public school, and he retorts that it's none of her business, you can answer that with much better tact that doesn't come off defensive, which is a big negative. Leave it at - it's a private decision that my wife and I made. And it is amusing that Mr. Christie in one of his answers to Mr. Gregory said that when negotiating he doesn't demagogue the other side, no... just throw insults at them, which is what he does.
With regard to Governor Christie's policies, he's an east coast Republican, who represents a more moderate brand of the party where the Iowa Caucus is a loser, shown by the fact that Michelle Bachmann is now running neck in neck with Mitt Romney in the latest poll. Matt Bai and David Brooks, during the panel, made the plea that there are more moderates than people think. Mr. Christie said that New Jersey has civil union, but not same-sex marriage - that's Jersey. Most of the people in New Jersey would say, "Fine, don't call it marriage, but let these people have something. Civil Union, yeah whatever, who cares really? Live and let live." Mr. Christie doesn't seem to have an agenda that strays from that attitude. However, he also said that New Jersey is overtaxed, but comparatively to other states that's not true. New Jersey have the most millionaires per capita of populace in the country, and taxes are high, but have you ever lived in New Jersey? With the exception of town Elizabeth that smells of foul chemicals, it's underrated and the standard of living is quite high. (There, there's your freakin' plug New Jersey.)
But back to the President. Mr. Obama does seem to have a pattern of doing things behind closed doors and then sharing the results once the negotiations or the mission are over instead of debating the issues out in and with the public more. Matt Bai, from the New York Times Magazine, gave a key concise analysis in that when negotiating without public scrutiny, it emboldens everyone's positions in the room, where they may not in fact have public support for that position.
The obvious case in point here is Libya, where by all measure of the media, it seems the Administration didn't consult with anyone before making these decisions, nor did they go to Congress after 60 days of involvement in line with the War Powers act. Senator Reed (D-RI) said as much during today's interview. Not what we expected from this Administration, but then again blame on this can only go so far as Congress recently voted against the President's actions but then voted to keep the funding going, which just proves that they can't make a decision.
Senator Webb said that the Administration went to the UN Security Council and they voted for the action, but Russian, China, and Germany we among the ones who abstained from the vote. But as we said before, Libya is a case of the good and bad that go along with treaties, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. With that said, this column's opinion on ground troops is that they are not an option because what that leads to is some sort of permanent presence there, which is unjustified.
In Afghanistan, Senator Reed said that he felt the level and pace of the troop withdrawal was appropriate and something he supports. Senator Webb seemed to indicate that he wanted a faster withdrawal but wasn't definitive. With 99,000 troops in country at this moment, by this time next year, a third will be withdrawn. We would have liked to have seen at least half by next September, but if we're to acquiesce to the Administration's number, then there needs to be more public debate on how the political process in Afghanistan is shaping up - there needs to be a clear diplomatic plan in place along with the withdrawal.
__
One more thing - What we found worrisome was a comment made by Senator Webb, he said that by being over-engaged in Middle East affairs, we're "approaching a Munich moment with China." Honestly, we're not sure what that means exactly. '72 Munich? We'll get back to you on that one, but it didn't sound good. Unless he's referring to China gearing up its military for action with Taiwan, which could be truly catastrophic for America.
Round Table - BBC's Katty Kay, The New York Times Magazine's Matt Bai, and New York Times Columnist David Brooks.
Presidential Politics Update: Katty Kay said that Sarah Palin's position looks less strong for a Presidential run, so here's our quick take on Ms. Palin. If she enters the race at all, it will be late in the game, but that will be too late. It will cause the media storm that she'll want, but ultimately no nomination. And that's if it even gets to that, and we think that it won't. Sarah Palin will not run for President. Right now she's back in Alaska trying to figure out a way of staying relevant without having to do the heavy lifting of campaigning, let's not even presume governing at this point. She'll keep testing the waters, but Michelle Bachmann has taken all of Ms. Palin's thunder, filed down those Mama Grizzly claws a bit so we're predicting she's not in.
Today's program started with the antithesis of the President, and that is Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Governor Christie is what we would call a bull in a bull shop. Even though he occupies a room full of like minded animals, political animals, he still manages to stand out, knocking things and lesser bulls over at every turn. This is why so many find Mr. Christie an attractive Presidential candidate because he's willing to make a few small messes along the way to solving a bigger problem. To be clear, that's a commentary on his methodology, and not about the agenda behind it.
But it's the methodology that needs to be examined in terms of what President Obama is not doing. As the head of a state, you can afford to be more hands on, which was the tact of the criticism that Mr. Christie leveled against the President, that he hasn't been involved enough in these budget deals. "He needs to lead and bring the legislature to the table," paraphrasing Mr. Christie. David Brooks later described the President as the 'convener in chief,' as Mr. Obama searches for consensus on issues, but having surrogates in his stead, not personally being there.
It's an unfair criticism because unlike Governor Christie, President Obama has 49 other states to consider, and he does have the Vice President conducting the meetings. If you take the above criticisms of the President to heart, then it's actually better if Joe Biden is leading in this instance. Mr. Christie said he is a straight talker and that's what people respect, whether they agree with it or not, and in this instance it's better to ride with Mr. Biden's reputation. And we do mean this to be constructive criticism for the President.
In this column back in April (April 23rd, Take A Stand - http://meetthepressopinion.blogspot.com/2011/04/42311.html), we featured a clip of President Obama speaking at a fund raiser in a tone that more reflects the style that Mr. Christie spoke about. The public responds to this tone and Mr. Obama should employ it more, as President he is granted the bully pulpit - the title of biggest bull in the bull shop. Mr. Christie, for his efforts, has bad timing. When a constitute asks you why you don't send your kids to public school, and he retorts that it's none of her business, you can answer that with much better tact that doesn't come off defensive, which is a big negative. Leave it at - it's a private decision that my wife and I made. And it is amusing that Mr. Christie in one of his answers to Mr. Gregory said that when negotiating he doesn't demagogue the other side, no... just throw insults at them, which is what he does.
With regard to Governor Christie's policies, he's an east coast Republican, who represents a more moderate brand of the party where the Iowa Caucus is a loser, shown by the fact that Michelle Bachmann is now running neck in neck with Mitt Romney in the latest poll. Matt Bai and David Brooks, during the panel, made the plea that there are more moderates than people think. Mr. Christie said that New Jersey has civil union, but not same-sex marriage - that's Jersey. Most of the people in New Jersey would say, "Fine, don't call it marriage, but let these people have something. Civil Union, yeah whatever, who cares really? Live and let live." Mr. Christie doesn't seem to have an agenda that strays from that attitude. However, he also said that New Jersey is overtaxed, but comparatively to other states that's not true. New Jersey have the most millionaires per capita of populace in the country, and taxes are high, but have you ever lived in New Jersey? With the exception of town Elizabeth that smells of foul chemicals, it's underrated and the standard of living is quite high. (There, there's your freakin' plug New Jersey.)
But back to the President. Mr. Obama does seem to have a pattern of doing things behind closed doors and then sharing the results once the negotiations or the mission are over instead of debating the issues out in and with the public more. Matt Bai, from the New York Times Magazine, gave a key concise analysis in that when negotiating without public scrutiny, it emboldens everyone's positions in the room, where they may not in fact have public support for that position.
The obvious case in point here is Libya, where by all measure of the media, it seems the Administration didn't consult with anyone before making these decisions, nor did they go to Congress after 60 days of involvement in line with the War Powers act. Senator Reed (D-RI) said as much during today's interview. Not what we expected from this Administration, but then again blame on this can only go so far as Congress recently voted against the President's actions but then voted to keep the funding going, which just proves that they can't make a decision.
Senator Webb said that the Administration went to the UN Security Council and they voted for the action, but Russian, China, and Germany we among the ones who abstained from the vote. But as we said before, Libya is a case of the good and bad that go along with treaties, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. With that said, this column's opinion on ground troops is that they are not an option because what that leads to is some sort of permanent presence there, which is unjustified.
In Afghanistan, Senator Reed said that he felt the level and pace of the troop withdrawal was appropriate and something he supports. Senator Webb seemed to indicate that he wanted a faster withdrawal but wasn't definitive. With 99,000 troops in country at this moment, by this time next year, a third will be withdrawn. We would have liked to have seen at least half by next September, but if we're to acquiesce to the Administration's number, then there needs to be more public debate on how the political process in Afghanistan is shaping up - there needs to be a clear diplomatic plan in place along with the withdrawal.
__
One more thing - What we found worrisome was a comment made by Senator Webb, he said that by being over-engaged in Middle East affairs, we're "approaching a Munich moment with China." Honestly, we're not sure what that means exactly. '72 Munich? We'll get back to you on that one, but it didn't sound good. Unless he's referring to China gearing up its military for action with Taiwan, which could be truly catastrophic for America.
Round Table - BBC's Katty Kay, The New York Times Magazine's Matt Bai, and New York Times Columnist David Brooks.
Presidential Politics Update: Katty Kay said that Sarah Palin's position looks less strong for a Presidential run, so here's our quick take on Ms. Palin. If she enters the race at all, it will be late in the game, but that will be too late. It will cause the media storm that she'll want, but ultimately no nomination. And that's if it even gets to that, and we think that it won't. Sarah Palin will not run for President. Right now she's back in Alaska trying to figure out a way of staying relevant without having to do the heavy lifting of campaigning, let's not even presume governing at this point. She'll keep testing the waters, but Michelle Bachmann has taken all of Ms. Palin's thunder, filed down those Mama Grizzly claws a bit so we're predicting she's not in.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
6.19.11: So Are We Greece?
Chuck Todd, during today's round table, said that the American people just want to see the Congress do something on the economy replacing the endless gridlock we seem to be having. And everyone realizes that we have to do something and as Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) urged, we have to put everything on the table, to which his counterpart on the right, Senator Lindsey Graham, stated that Republicans are not going to vote on raising taxes. This means, in fact, that everything is not on the table.
Never raising taxes, as we've said in this column numerous times, is an unrealistic position if this country is to ever be genuinely serious about solving our budget problems. However, and there's a big however, Mr. Graham did say that we should end the oil subsidies being doled out by the government to the giant oil companies. In Grover Norquist's world, this is considered a tax hike and is unacceptable. In a reasonable person's world, it's a handout from the government to entities that don't need the assist.
By the way, the ending oil subsidies idea came from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) standing up with common sense against Mr. Norquist's influence and since Mr. Coburn jumped this fence, we've seen other Republican politicians follow. If this is the way in which we have to tackle our country's revenue intake problem, then at least it's something and a start.
With regard to cuts, we side with Mr. Durbin in that Medicare is a basic promise that the U.S. Government (our politicians) have made to the American people. Medicare is something that by paying taxes we pay into. To cut the benefits later that we pay for now, it literally taking money from us for nothing in return.
At this point, Mr. Gregory asked both Senators if we were headed in the direction of Greece, whose government has made what he termed draconian cuts, which has sparked civil unrest in that country. Both politicians said no, and Mr. Graham pointed out that the 2010 mid-term election was a referendum on spending and the deficit, which was to say that the American people want severe cuts in spending of the Republican variety therefore no civil unrest. As we've previous discussed in this column, the Republicans have misinterpreted the result of this election since the results came in.
But as we know now, the Republicans have in most people's estimation, overreached with the Ryan budget and on local points of scale. For example, in Wisconsin, where Governor Walker stripped union collective bargaining rights. However, soon the people could view what's going on through this prism - the Democrats are ineffectual and the Republicans aren't considering the true human cost of their actions, and so where does that leave us?
Major shifts in spending have to happen for this country to become solvent, and Republicans haven't faced the truth of that. On the other hand, Democrats do not have the necessary unity within the party to fight with a solid voice to re-prioritize where the dollars go.
Right now, many members of Congress are deciding one place where they don't want the dollars to go and that place is to the military effort in Libya. And though this is a North African country, we're all over the map with this place. Politicians from both parties are calling for defunding the NATO effort, and cite the War Powers Act as the reason - the 60-day time limit for the President to act unilaterally has passed and Congress wants answers.
Today, Mr. Graham said that the War Powers Act isn't worth the paper it's print on and that the President should in fact step up his game in Libya. Chuck Todd, during the panel, said that the President did not do his due diligence in telling members of Congress his reasoning on our actions in that country, and that is definitely a mistake. But the conundrum with Libya is that this action is part of a NATO operation, and in that we may have to do things we don't necessarily want to, just as it was correctly pointed out during the panel that we asked our NATO ally Italy to participate in our was in Iraq, which that country did not want to do, but did.
[Aside: In the phrasing of that last sentence, we said "war in Iraq," not war with Iraq. We have three wars going on, and we're at war with no country, just in countries. In WWII we were at war with Germany and Japan, but how times have changed in a more disturbing direction. Using maximum war power force in countries who we're not technically at war with creates a climate of the U.S. at will going into sovereign countries and using military force. This is happening now and if the roles were reversed in some way, where a country arbitrarily came into this country and started shooting things up, how do you think people would react. A bad long-term trend is what we're on here.]
Now, Mr. Gregory pointed out that NATO isn't working in the case of Libya, about which he is correct, but that's most likely because the U.S. hasn't taken the lead and the President with two other wars on his plate, is hesitant to take the lead on this deferring to our NATO allies, who aren't doing a good job. This is probably because they are now so used to the United States doing the heavy lifting that now that they're asked to do it, they're not quite prepared.
Senator Graham continued by saying that he wanted to see U.S. air power back into the mix, a view that is shared by Senator John McCain (R-AZ). There is no question that Republican Senators would like to see Col. Quadafi out of the picture. As pointed out during the panel, Libya is not going well for NATO, but the United States will kill NATO if it doesn't support this action, which brings us to Robert Gates' citation that the Republicans in particular do not have consensus on the United States' role in the world. It makes us think of leading by example, which the United States certainly does not do, we're more like do as I say, not as I do, at least right now we are.
And the news maker for the day was when Senator Graham warned Republican candidates that if they try to go left of President Obama on Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq, that that position will certainly be a loser because that's not a Republican position. But the Republican candidates seemed more in an isolationist stance collectively on Monday night's debate.
Former Governor Romney said that only the Afghanis can win their freedom, to which Richard Engel, making a rare stateside appearance said that if you're going to make decisions on foreign policy, you better know that the people are Afghans and the currency is Afghani. The fact is that the Republican candidates don't care about such details. But Mr. Romney has shown that he'll say anything as long as it is politically expedient and that's why people aren't really excited by his candidacy - this from the solid front runner as Mr. Todd termed him.
Getting back to the macro look for a moment, Richard Engel called Secretary Gates' statement on one of his reasons for retiring chilling. And if you think about it, it is in fact very disconcerting what Mr. Gates said, which was that because of our economy, we do not have the ability to lead the world and that he didn't want to be part of that. In other words, our longest tenured Secretary of Defense doesn't want to represent us, our military, around the world because we can not get our shit together here at home.
And speaking of which, it was very helpful to have Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from Los Angeles on the program because he does have his finger on the pulse of what cities face, and it all starts with our cities. He posed the proposition that if we had the $126 billion that we spend on the war in Afghanistan for domestic purpose, think what we could do, given the local budget crises we have around the country. His perspective was grounding and should be noted - he said that when Washington is focused on scandal, it feels like that city is coming from another planet. He also pointed out that Washington politicians contemplating defaulting on our debt do not have any idea what that would do to the economy, where we interpreted as 'local economies and people's pocketbooks.'
Given the content above, are we Greece as we posed in the title of this week's column. The answer is no, but we're more going the way of Brasil. In Brasil, there are many nice houses and apartments and living standards for a segment of the population are quite good. But after the churrasco and capirinhas, take a walk to the edge of the lush property, look across the street and down the hill, and what do you see? Shanties for a mile. A little over-dramatization? We'll concede, but at least Brasil is trying to move away from this direction instead of moving toward it.
Round Table: President-elect of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Antonio Villaraigosa, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editor Paul Gigot, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd
Presidential Politics:
On today's show as per usual, there was the discussion of Presidential candidates, most notably Former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry. In terms of what was discussed today, here's our quick take.
Tim Pawlenty during Monday's debate backed away from his 'Obamneycare' when face to face with Governor Romney himself. Plain and simple, Mr. Pawlenty wimped out, and then admitted as much in the days following. Here it is - he's done, no shot at winning - contributing to his campaign is wasting your money. America doesn't elect wimps, period.
With regard to Rick Perry, it seems that pundit and media land are salivating for him to get in the race. If Mr. Perry does decide to get in the race, he would get a huge push and would look great for a longer period of time than the others running now, but Mr. Perry has too many flaws. One is beyond his control, which is Texas fatigue - social conservative politicians from Texas are not the desired flavor of the Buck Country wealthy Republicans of the northeast as Ms. Godwin pointed out. Secondly, Mr. Perry has his August 6th National Day of Prayer coming up. We find this notion of mixing religion and politics so closely as Mr. Perry is doing, is in direction contradiction to the United States Constitution and frankly, we find that a little scary. We point out Iran's religious dogmatic approach to world relations so why do we want to go there? One religion is better than the other? In the end, Mr. Perry has some extreme views that will cause a potential candidacy to be unsuccessful - such as suggesting at one point that Texas secede from the Union. To reference Bill Maher, you can't run the United States, if you don't believe in the 'united' part.
Never raising taxes, as we've said in this column numerous times, is an unrealistic position if this country is to ever be genuinely serious about solving our budget problems. However, and there's a big however, Mr. Graham did say that we should end the oil subsidies being doled out by the government to the giant oil companies. In Grover Norquist's world, this is considered a tax hike and is unacceptable. In a reasonable person's world, it's a handout from the government to entities that don't need the assist.
By the way, the ending oil subsidies idea came from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) standing up with common sense against Mr. Norquist's influence and since Mr. Coburn jumped this fence, we've seen other Republican politicians follow. If this is the way in which we have to tackle our country's revenue intake problem, then at least it's something and a start.
With regard to cuts, we side with Mr. Durbin in that Medicare is a basic promise that the U.S. Government (our politicians) have made to the American people. Medicare is something that by paying taxes we pay into. To cut the benefits later that we pay for now, it literally taking money from us for nothing in return.
At this point, Mr. Gregory asked both Senators if we were headed in the direction of Greece, whose government has made what he termed draconian cuts, which has sparked civil unrest in that country. Both politicians said no, and Mr. Graham pointed out that the 2010 mid-term election was a referendum on spending and the deficit, which was to say that the American people want severe cuts in spending of the Republican variety therefore no civil unrest. As we've previous discussed in this column, the Republicans have misinterpreted the result of this election since the results came in.
But as we know now, the Republicans have in most people's estimation, overreached with the Ryan budget and on local points of scale. For example, in Wisconsin, where Governor Walker stripped union collective bargaining rights. However, soon the people could view what's going on through this prism - the Democrats are ineffectual and the Republicans aren't considering the true human cost of their actions, and so where does that leave us?
Major shifts in spending have to happen for this country to become solvent, and Republicans haven't faced the truth of that. On the other hand, Democrats do not have the necessary unity within the party to fight with a solid voice to re-prioritize where the dollars go.
Right now, many members of Congress are deciding one place where they don't want the dollars to go and that place is to the military effort in Libya. And though this is a North African country, we're all over the map with this place. Politicians from both parties are calling for defunding the NATO effort, and cite the War Powers Act as the reason - the 60-day time limit for the President to act unilaterally has passed and Congress wants answers.
Today, Mr. Graham said that the War Powers Act isn't worth the paper it's print on and that the President should in fact step up his game in Libya. Chuck Todd, during the panel, said that the President did not do his due diligence in telling members of Congress his reasoning on our actions in that country, and that is definitely a mistake. But the conundrum with Libya is that this action is part of a NATO operation, and in that we may have to do things we don't necessarily want to, just as it was correctly pointed out during the panel that we asked our NATO ally Italy to participate in our was in Iraq, which that country did not want to do, but did.
[Aside: In the phrasing of that last sentence, we said "war in Iraq," not war with Iraq. We have three wars going on, and we're at war with no country, just in countries. In WWII we were at war with Germany and Japan, but how times have changed in a more disturbing direction. Using maximum war power force in countries who we're not technically at war with creates a climate of the U.S. at will going into sovereign countries and using military force. This is happening now and if the roles were reversed in some way, where a country arbitrarily came into this country and started shooting things up, how do you think people would react. A bad long-term trend is what we're on here.]
Now, Mr. Gregory pointed out that NATO isn't working in the case of Libya, about which he is correct, but that's most likely because the U.S. hasn't taken the lead and the President with two other wars on his plate, is hesitant to take the lead on this deferring to our NATO allies, who aren't doing a good job. This is probably because they are now so used to the United States doing the heavy lifting that now that they're asked to do it, they're not quite prepared.
Senator Graham continued by saying that he wanted to see U.S. air power back into the mix, a view that is shared by Senator John McCain (R-AZ). There is no question that Republican Senators would like to see Col. Quadafi out of the picture. As pointed out during the panel, Libya is not going well for NATO, but the United States will kill NATO if it doesn't support this action, which brings us to Robert Gates' citation that the Republicans in particular do not have consensus on the United States' role in the world. It makes us think of leading by example, which the United States certainly does not do, we're more like do as I say, not as I do, at least right now we are.
And the news maker for the day was when Senator Graham warned Republican candidates that if they try to go left of President Obama on Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq, that that position will certainly be a loser because that's not a Republican position. But the Republican candidates seemed more in an isolationist stance collectively on Monday night's debate.
Former Governor Romney said that only the Afghanis can win their freedom, to which Richard Engel, making a rare stateside appearance said that if you're going to make decisions on foreign policy, you better know that the people are Afghans and the currency is Afghani. The fact is that the Republican candidates don't care about such details. But Mr. Romney has shown that he'll say anything as long as it is politically expedient and that's why people aren't really excited by his candidacy - this from the solid front runner as Mr. Todd termed him.
Getting back to the macro look for a moment, Richard Engel called Secretary Gates' statement on one of his reasons for retiring chilling. And if you think about it, it is in fact very disconcerting what Mr. Gates said, which was that because of our economy, we do not have the ability to lead the world and that he didn't want to be part of that. In other words, our longest tenured Secretary of Defense doesn't want to represent us, our military, around the world because we can not get our shit together here at home.
And speaking of which, it was very helpful to have Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from Los Angeles on the program because he does have his finger on the pulse of what cities face, and it all starts with our cities. He posed the proposition that if we had the $126 billion that we spend on the war in Afghanistan for domestic purpose, think what we could do, given the local budget crises we have around the country. His perspective was grounding and should be noted - he said that when Washington is focused on scandal, it feels like that city is coming from another planet. He also pointed out that Washington politicians contemplating defaulting on our debt do not have any idea what that would do to the economy, where we interpreted as 'local economies and people's pocketbooks.'
Given the content above, are we Greece as we posed in the title of this week's column. The answer is no, but we're more going the way of Brasil. In Brasil, there are many nice houses and apartments and living standards for a segment of the population are quite good. But after the churrasco and capirinhas, take a walk to the edge of the lush property, look across the street and down the hill, and what do you see? Shanties for a mile. A little over-dramatization? We'll concede, but at least Brasil is trying to move away from this direction instead of moving toward it.
Round Table: President-elect of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Antonio Villaraigosa, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editor Paul Gigot, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd
Presidential Politics:
On today's show as per usual, there was the discussion of Presidential candidates, most notably Former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry. In terms of what was discussed today, here's our quick take.
Tim Pawlenty during Monday's debate backed away from his 'Obamneycare' when face to face with Governor Romney himself. Plain and simple, Mr. Pawlenty wimped out, and then admitted as much in the days following. Here it is - he's done, no shot at winning - contributing to his campaign is wasting your money. America doesn't elect wimps, period.
With regard to Rick Perry, it seems that pundit and media land are salivating for him to get in the race. If Mr. Perry does decide to get in the race, he would get a huge push and would look great for a longer period of time than the others running now, but Mr. Perry has too many flaws. One is beyond his control, which is Texas fatigue - social conservative politicians from Texas are not the desired flavor of the Buck Country wealthy Republicans of the northeast as Ms. Godwin pointed out. Secondly, Mr. Perry has his August 6th National Day of Prayer coming up. We find this notion of mixing religion and politics so closely as Mr. Perry is doing, is in direction contradiction to the United States Constitution and frankly, we find that a little scary. We point out Iran's religious dogmatic approach to world relations so why do we want to go there? One religion is better than the other? In the end, Mr. Perry has some extreme views that will cause a potential candidacy to be unsuccessful - such as suggesting at one point that Texas secede from the Union. To reference Bill Maher, you can't run the United States, if you don't believe in the 'united' part.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
6.12.11: Red Meat
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)