The Washington Post headline reads" "CBO: Reid plan saves more than Boehner’s". Now the democrats are actually ahead of the republicans in using cuts in what they call discretionary spending as the only means to limit the deficit. Discretionary spending means the social safety net, social security, medicaid, medicare. Chuck Schumer, the "progressive" senator from New York, spoke today about the democratic plan which raises the debt ceiling through 2012 with no increased revenue.
Schumer went on to say that it is a matter of getting the leadership to agree on a plan. This means he believes no democratic representatives or senators will object.
Everyone who is not independently wealthy is being thrown under the bus. It is no longer a debate about shared sacrifice. There will be no sharing. It is only a debate about which financial tsunami will wash over us, the U.S default or the rollback of all social programs since the New Deal. Guess which.
Melvyn Polatchek
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Response to David Brooks. "The President has faltered"
The president keeps saying that cuts only without revenue will too harshly harm the entitlements we all care about. The fact is that the republicans don't care about them and never did. They have always thought the social safety net was a mistake. It has never been about the arithmetic of the deficit. It has always been about that view of America that says everyone takes care of themselves and themselves only and the government should never ask for taxes to assume a social responsibility. David Brooks defends this view to the end.
He is correct that the president has faltered, but not from any battle with the republicans. Rather he has joined the republicans in offering massive cuts to the social safety net. The only question for the president and David Brooks is whether there will be some revenue enhancement. And David Brooks only wants it so a deal will be made and he can "think big" and write about it. And what about Harry Reid, who sounded like a whipped puppy today as he completely surrendered to the republicans, offering trillions of dollars in cuts and no revenue enhancement whatsoever. The republicans are going to cut the social safety net out of their original malice and the democrats are cutting it out of continuing fecklessness. What is the difference. For the first time in my life, I am hoping for an independent candidate. Obviously the fix is in. I suppose we will hear from David Brooks some rationale from Edmund Burke soon enough.
He is correct that the president has faltered, but not from any battle with the republicans. Rather he has joined the republicans in offering massive cuts to the social safety net. The only question for the president and David Brooks is whether there will be some revenue enhancement. And David Brooks only wants it so a deal will be made and he can "think big" and write about it. And what about Harry Reid, who sounded like a whipped puppy today as he completely surrendered to the republicans, offering trillions of dollars in cuts and no revenue enhancement whatsoever. The republicans are going to cut the social safety net out of their original malice and the democrats are cutting it out of continuing fecklessness. What is the difference. For the first time in my life, I am hoping for an independent candidate. Obviously the fix is in. I suppose we will hear from David Brooks some rationale from Edmund Burke soon enough.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Great Betrayal
If there is a compromise on the debt ceiling extension, it will be a blow to the social safety net. We can hope there will at least be a tax increase at the upper end so that the wealthy don't get a free ride, but still there is no doubt that in the face of republican intransigence, the president has put the social safety net on the line.
While the democrats in congress will instinctively oppose this plan because of their long standing support and election promises, in the end they will have little choice but to go along. Breaking the full faith and credit of the United States will be a worse blow to everyone and especially those depending upon the social safety net.
I believe the president has, under the constitution, the power to borrow to pay any bills upon the government. The 14th Amendment, says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” The would need a great deal of political courage to endure the wrath of congress. Given that he willingly put the social safety net on the table quite a while ago his only concern seems to be how much of a tax increase he can get out of the republicans. This laudable goal still ends up a betrayal to all who depend upon the social safety net.
After this betrayal is in place, the battle of 2012 will shape up not as a struggle to preserve what is left, it will be a struggle to stop further republican predations and further fecklessness by the democrats.
Melvyn Polatchek
While the democrats in congress will instinctively oppose this plan because of their long standing support and election promises, in the end they will have little choice but to go along. Breaking the full faith and credit of the United States will be a worse blow to everyone and especially those depending upon the social safety net.
I believe the president has, under the constitution, the power to borrow to pay any bills upon the government. The 14th Amendment, says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” The would need a great deal of political courage to endure the wrath of congress. Given that he willingly put the social safety net on the table quite a while ago his only concern seems to be how much of a tax increase he can get out of the republicans. This laudable goal still ends up a betrayal to all who depend upon the social safety net.
After this betrayal is in place, the battle of 2012 will shape up not as a struggle to preserve what is left, it will be a struggle to stop further republican predations and further fecklessness by the democrats.
Melvyn Polatchek
Thursday, July 14, 2011
If my children, when they are senior citizens do not have adequate health care, what will it matter to them if at one time the U.S. reneged and defaulted on its loans.
For weeks now we have been exposed to political theater. I say political theater because as Katrina Vanden Heuvel says in the Washington Post. "
President Obama may find that there is only one course left to avoid a global economic calamity: Invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional option is one that the president alone may exercise.
If the Aug. 2 deadline arrives and no deal has been made, Obama could use a plain reading of that text to conclude — statutory debt ceiling or not — that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills. In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation, one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/invoke-the-14th--and-end-the-debt-standoff/2011/07/01/gHQAUif8yH_story.html
So all the politicans involved know the President has the power to act. In the meantime for whatever political calculation he is making, he is apparently bargaining hard. He has offered as much as four trillion dollars in cuts, largely from the social safety net. While the republicans are "just saying no" to the slightest tax increases. The grand bargain that will finally be passed will include massive cuts in government spending and perhaps some small increases on wealthy taxpayers and possibly no tax increases if the President folds completely.
What I want to know is, if my children, when they reach senior citizen status do not have adequate health care, what will it matter to them if at one time the U.S. reneged and defaulted on its loans.
Mel Polatchek
President Obama may find that there is only one course left to avoid a global economic calamity: Invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional option is one that the president alone may exercise.
If the Aug. 2 deadline arrives and no deal has been made, Obama could use a plain reading of that text to conclude — statutory debt ceiling or not — that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills. In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation, one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/invoke-the-14th--and-end-the-debt-standoff/2011/07/01/gHQAUif8yH_story.html
So all the politicans involved know the President has the power to act. In the meantime for whatever political calculation he is making, he is apparently bargaining hard. He has offered as much as four trillion dollars in cuts, largely from the social safety net. While the republicans are "just saying no" to the slightest tax increases. The grand bargain that will finally be passed will include massive cuts in government spending and perhaps some small increases on wealthy taxpayers and possibly no tax increases if the President folds completely.
What I want to know is, if my children, when they reach senior citizen status do not have adequate health care, what will it matter to them if at one time the U.S. reneged and defaulted on its loans.
Mel Polatchek
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Save the American Dream
Some politicians are trying to default on the American Dream
Dear Melvyn,
Wars and tax cuts for the rich created this deficit crisis
Tell them: if you want to cut the deficit: tax the rich and end the war, leave the rest alone.
For years, Washington politicians have run up the national debt with two unpaid-for wars and tax breaks for millionaires. But now that everyone is talking about how to reduce the debt, they want the middle class pay for it by cutting programs we paid for and depend on like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
That's not just wrong, it's an outrageous attack on the American Dream. And we need your help to stop it.
Congressional leaders are gathering on Sunday for another round of deficit talks, and the word is that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is on the chopping block, while tax cuts for millionaires are not.2 But no debt deal can pass without support from Congress, and that gives us a chance to change the debate, if you act fast:
Email your Representative right now and tell them that when it comes to reducing the deficit, they need to start by getting rid of tax breaks for millionaires and cutting Pentagon spending, not social programs that hardworking Americans have already paid for.
Programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare didn't contribute signifigantly to the deficit and politicians shouldn't be able to treat them like a piggy bank so they can keep us at war or protect their wealthy donors. But that's exactly what Republicans in Congress have proposed. And unless somebody speaks up, they might get their way.
And this is where you, and your Representative, come in. No deal can get done without approval in the House of Representatives. And that vote is expected to be close, very close. So in the next 72 hours, leaders in both parties will be checking with every member of Congress to see where they stand. We can win if even a handful of our Representatives tell their leadership that a deficit deal HAS to include taxing millionaires and reducing spending on war and weapons - but CANNOT include cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Will your Representative be one of them? The only way to know is to ask: Click here to tell your Representative to tax the rich and cut Pentagon spending, not vital social programs.
Sincerely,
Drew Hudson
USAction/TrueMajority
Dear Melvyn,
Wars and tax cuts for the rich created this deficit crisis
Tell them: if you want to cut the deficit: tax the rich and end the war, leave the rest alone.
For years, Washington politicians have run up the national debt with two unpaid-for wars and tax breaks for millionaires. But now that everyone is talking about how to reduce the debt, they want the middle class pay for it by cutting programs we paid for and depend on like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
That's not just wrong, it's an outrageous attack on the American Dream. And we need your help to stop it.
Congressional leaders are gathering on Sunday for another round of deficit talks, and the word is that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is on the chopping block, while tax cuts for millionaires are not.2 But no debt deal can pass without support from Congress, and that gives us a chance to change the debate, if you act fast:
Email your Representative right now and tell them that when it comes to reducing the deficit, they need to start by getting rid of tax breaks for millionaires and cutting Pentagon spending, not social programs that hardworking Americans have already paid for.
Programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare didn't contribute signifigantly to the deficit and politicians shouldn't be able to treat them like a piggy bank so they can keep us at war or protect their wealthy donors. But that's exactly what Republicans in Congress have proposed. And unless somebody speaks up, they might get their way.
And this is where you, and your Representative, come in. No deal can get done without approval in the House of Representatives. And that vote is expected to be close, very close. So in the next 72 hours, leaders in both parties will be checking with every member of Congress to see where they stand. We can win if even a handful of our Representatives tell their leadership that a deficit deal HAS to include taxing millionaires and reducing spending on war and weapons - but CANNOT include cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Will your Representative be one of them? The only way to know is to ask: Click here to tell your Representative to tax the rich and cut Pentagon spending, not vital social programs.
Sincerely,
Drew Hudson
USAction/TrueMajority
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Guest Blog from the Urban League on Financial Justice re the deficit
This is from Marc Morial of the National Urban League. It says it all.
Mel
Marc H. Morial
President and CEO
National Urban League
"We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rarely have the divisions in American politics been more clear - or more onerous. In less than a month, on August 2nd, if Congress refuses to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the United States economy could be thrown into a fiscal tailspin that would eviscerate America's credit rating, lead to sky-high interest rates, rip a giant hole in the social safety net, jeopardize the well-being and savings of millions of working and middle class citizens and result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Majority leaders in the House and minority leaders in the Senate have taken the unprecedented step of linking a raise in the debt ceiling to the debate about deficit reduction and spending cuts. In effect, they are attempting to extort big cuts in programs benefiting working and middle class citizens while protecting exorbitant tax breaks for oil companies, corporate jet owners and hedge fund managers. They say this is the only way they will agree to increase the debt limit. If they get their way, fiscal experts from Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke warn severe disruptions will occur. Beginning August 2nd, Social Security checks may be halted. Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits may stop. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may not get paid. And Hundreds of thousands of government workers may be laid off. This is no way to run the most trustworthy and powerful government in the world. And it is no way to honor the hard work and sacrifices of its people.
It should be noted, that prior to this current showdown, the debt ceiling has routinely been raised almost 100 times since its establishment in 1917. Former President George W. Bush raised it seven times without objection while racking up trillions of dollars of new debt for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and big tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
The Obama administration is not oblivious to the need for spending cuts. For months, Vice President Joe Biden has led bipartisan negotiations aimed at agreeing on a sensible deficit reduction plan. Progress has been made. But recently several members of the so-called "Gang of Six," walked out of the negotiations because of ideological resistance to balancing spending cuts for the middle class with ending some tax breaks for the wealthy.
As they defend the rights of working-class Americans, I would urge them also to consider the recommendations included in the National Urban League's 12-Point Jobs Plan, "Putting Urban American Back To Work." The creation of Urban Jobs Academies to train the critically unemployed, or Green Empowerment Zones to locate manufacturing jobs in urban areas, could ease the transition to spending cuts.
So far, the President and sensible members of Congress have stood firm in their refusal to give in to ideological extortion. As the President said in last week's press conference, "Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children's education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys." We agree. Raise the debt ceiling, but not on the backs of working and middle class Americans.
Mel
Marc H. Morial
President and CEO
National Urban League
"We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rarely have the divisions in American politics been more clear - or more onerous. In less than a month, on August 2nd, if Congress refuses to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the United States economy could be thrown into a fiscal tailspin that would eviscerate America's credit rating, lead to sky-high interest rates, rip a giant hole in the social safety net, jeopardize the well-being and savings of millions of working and middle class citizens and result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Majority leaders in the House and minority leaders in the Senate have taken the unprecedented step of linking a raise in the debt ceiling to the debate about deficit reduction and spending cuts. In effect, they are attempting to extort big cuts in programs benefiting working and middle class citizens while protecting exorbitant tax breaks for oil companies, corporate jet owners and hedge fund managers. They say this is the only way they will agree to increase the debt limit. If they get their way, fiscal experts from Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke warn severe disruptions will occur. Beginning August 2nd, Social Security checks may be halted. Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits may stop. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may not get paid. And Hundreds of thousands of government workers may be laid off. This is no way to run the most trustworthy and powerful government in the world. And it is no way to honor the hard work and sacrifices of its people.
It should be noted, that prior to this current showdown, the debt ceiling has routinely been raised almost 100 times since its establishment in 1917. Former President George W. Bush raised it seven times without objection while racking up trillions of dollars of new debt for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and big tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
The Obama administration is not oblivious to the need for spending cuts. For months, Vice President Joe Biden has led bipartisan negotiations aimed at agreeing on a sensible deficit reduction plan. Progress has been made. But recently several members of the so-called "Gang of Six," walked out of the negotiations because of ideological resistance to balancing spending cuts for the middle class with ending some tax breaks for the wealthy.
As they defend the rights of working-class Americans, I would urge them also to consider the recommendations included in the National Urban League's 12-Point Jobs Plan, "Putting Urban American Back To Work." The creation of Urban Jobs Academies to train the critically unemployed, or Green Empowerment Zones to locate manufacturing jobs in urban areas, could ease the transition to spending cuts.
So far, the President and sensible members of Congress have stood firm in their refusal to give in to ideological extortion. As the President said in last week's press conference, "Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children's education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys." We agree. Raise the debt ceiling, but not on the backs of working and middle class Americans.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Two legislative plans, a presidential speech and no cost containment
So now we have the Ryan plan and the Lieberman plan both of which put the major burden on the retired beneficiaries. We have a presidential speech which sounds somewhat more fair, but the president has not actually asked for legislation.
But where in all this political noise is there even a discussion of cost containment?
One would think that there has been no discussion at any level of cost containment. One would think there have been no ideas. Wrong. . .
Here is a link to a summary of a discussion from the National conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14465
Briefly some of their ideas.
1.Direct Cost Containment Ideas
I-1. Repeal or modify "any willing provider" (AWP) laws
I-2. Enact a Certificate of Need law if your state doesn't have one.
I-3. If your state has a certificate of need law, apply it to only those circumstances where it is likely to be effective in controlling costs.
I-4. Regulate prices for health care.
I-5. Require public posting of prices for specified common procedures and tests
2.Prescription Drug Ideas
II-1. Institute a preferred drug list under Medicaid, similar to Oregon's.
II-2. Implement a preferred drug list with a supplemental rebate similar to Michigan's.
II-3. Join with other states in a drug purchasing pool to obtain volume discounts.
II-4. Hire pharmacists to provide patient education about how to reduce drug bills and avoid dangerous drug interactions.
II-5. Require pharmacies to publicly post the prices of drugs, grouped by class so people can see where substitutes may save money.
II-6. Implement a Medicaid "Pharmacy Plus" section 1115 waiver to cover Medicare recipients with incomes up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines.
II-7. Require state employees to use a mail-order pharmacy benefit manager for all maintenance drugs.
II-8. Encourage greater participation of safety net providers in the "340B Federal Drug Pricing Program."
II-9 Audit pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and administrators (PBAs).
There can be no reason for cost containment not to be part of the legislative discussion. Does anyone think there are political agendas at play?
But where in all this political noise is there even a discussion of cost containment?
One would think that there has been no discussion at any level of cost containment. One would think there have been no ideas. Wrong. . .
Here is a link to a summary of a discussion from the National conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14465
Briefly some of their ideas.
1.Direct Cost Containment Ideas
I-1. Repeal or modify "any willing provider" (AWP) laws
I-2. Enact a Certificate of Need law if your state doesn't have one.
I-3. If your state has a certificate of need law, apply it to only those circumstances where it is likely to be effective in controlling costs.
I-4. Regulate prices for health care.
I-5. Require public posting of prices for specified common procedures and tests
2.Prescription Drug Ideas
II-1. Institute a preferred drug list under Medicaid, similar to Oregon's.
II-2. Implement a preferred drug list with a supplemental rebate similar to Michigan's.
II-3. Join with other states in a drug purchasing pool to obtain volume discounts.
II-4. Hire pharmacists to provide patient education about how to reduce drug bills and avoid dangerous drug interactions.
II-5. Require pharmacies to publicly post the prices of drugs, grouped by class so people can see where substitutes may save money.
II-6. Implement a Medicaid "Pharmacy Plus" section 1115 waiver to cover Medicare recipients with incomes up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines.
II-7. Require state employees to use a mail-order pharmacy benefit manager for all maintenance drugs.
II-8. Encourage greater participation of safety net providers in the "340B Federal Drug Pricing Program."
II-9 Audit pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and administrators (PBAs).
There can be no reason for cost containment not to be part of the legislative discussion. Does anyone think there are political agendas at play?
The Joe Lieberman Plan
Joe Lieberman, independent Senator from Connecticut has a plan. Briefly, here are the salient points.
1. Raise the age limit for medicare gradually to age 67.
2. Charge co pays for all health care services rendered.
3. Increase premiums to 35% for all new enrollees after 2014
4. Increase taxes by 1% on those earning over 250,000.
Like the Ryan plan most of the increased burden is placed on the beneficiaries.
1. How many people will still be employable by age 67 and therefore able to continue on employee health care insurance? Politicians talk about raising the benefits age for these programs as if there was no such thing as age discrimination in the workplace.
2. It would be nice to assume that all retirees have the wherewithal to make co payments. There are large numbers who have no other income aside from social security and no other way to add to their health care payments.
3. Increasing the premium for medicare has the same negative effect on retirees. Where will they get the money?
4. One percent for all those earning over 250,000 is a bad joke. It essentially says that the wealthy have no obligation to bear any real part of the national burden.
1. Raise the age limit for medicare gradually to age 67.
2. Charge co pays for all health care services rendered.
3. Increase premiums to 35% for all new enrollees after 2014
4. Increase taxes by 1% on those earning over 250,000.
Like the Ryan plan most of the increased burden is placed on the beneficiaries.
1. How many people will still be employable by age 67 and therefore able to continue on employee health care insurance? Politicians talk about raising the benefits age for these programs as if there was no such thing as age discrimination in the workplace.
2. It would be nice to assume that all retirees have the wherewithal to make co payments. There are large numbers who have no other income aside from social security and no other way to add to their health care payments.
3. Increasing the premium for medicare has the same negative effect on retirees. Where will they get the money?
4. One percent for all those earning over 250,000 is a bad joke. It essentially says that the wealthy have no obligation to bear any real part of the national burden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)