What's Wrong with Ron Christie?

I watched Real Time with Bill Maher last night. After taking a break from Maher for most of last year because I felt he was always 10 days to 2 weeks behind on facts and perhaps had gotten a little lazy on preparation for his show, I figured I had to watch immediately after the GOP Convention just for a couple of laughs. I wasn't disappointed.

He obliterated Dinesh D'Souza while interviewing him and called him out for every bullshit meme that douchebag put in his anti-Obama movie. Catch a repeat if you can. But the main thing that caught my attention was the panel discussion: Jason Alexander, Soledad O'Brien and one of my favorite people to hate, Ron Christie.

When Christie was front and center a few years ago, it would me my blood boil. And he seemed to be on every fucking taking head show there was. He's such a hard line Republican that there was no use debating/arguing with him on any point, regardless of facts. If Darth Cheney came out and said the sky was green, Christie would deny his lying eyes and argue green skies to the death.
I just came to the conclusion that this was the role he was being paid for and that he couldn't possibly believe the bullshit pouring out of his mouth. Just like it's an act for Sean Hannity, I felt the same about Ron Christie. And for me personally, that makes me despise that person even more; there's no conviction or honesty in what they say. It's just a little game, being a paid shill for the GOP.

But watching Christie tonight, after not seeing him for so long, perhaps because his 15 minutes were up or he had a moment of clarity on the air and was subsequently fired as a GOP surrogate (but I doubt that) I tried to give him a fresh start. And wouldn't you know it, that little fucker is still the towing the GOP line always was- but this time I felt differently.

I used to think he was a paid shill, but now I truly think he actually believes what he says. ...I know right?! I was shocked too! The $716 billion Medicare story came up and Christie denounced President Obama's awful $716 billion Medicare "cut" but defended Paul Ryan's $716 billion Medicare "savings," and no amount of explanation that the savings were the same was going to change Christie's mind. Nope. Obama's cut bad. Ryan's savings good.

Bill Maher: So let me ask this panel, do you think we’ve ever seen lies like this [from politicians like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney]? Because it’s one thing to slant things, all politicians do that, but to just pull out of your ass…I mean Mitt Romney went through…Obama ‘s apologizing around the world — Fact checkers: no — Raising taxes on the middle class — Not true — Cutting defense — He’s only raised it. — Uh, you know, wrecked our credit rating — Welfare work requirement…he got rid of that — No, he didn’t do that — Robbing Medicare… Just a series of total lies. Have we seen this before? 

Soledad O’Brien: I don’t know if we’ve seen it before, but what I think you are seeing is people trying to get control of the message, that sort of the veracity doesn’t matter, right? If you can just say it and say it often, say it enough, and say it loud enough, and just keep repeating it and have everyone around you repeating it, then eventually it becomes true. I think that we’ve seen that a lot in this campaign. 

Bill Maher: Well now you’re describing what Hitler did. I’m not saying the Republicans are Hitler, but Hitler famously said the big lie works and the little lie doesn’t. 

Ron Christie: Well I think the big lie here is we need to fact check the fact checkers. The fact of the matter is the media has been running around – audience disapproval – the media has been running around saying Paul Ryan has been lying. The fact of the matter is this: President Obama and his plan Obamacare took $716 billion out under Medicare Advantage, he took it out of hospitals, and he took it out of the insurance program, and he programmed that into Obamacare. That’s true.

While this is technically true, what's misleading is that it's a cost savings over future spending curbing the increasing costs, not a cut in current spending. The part of Christie's sentence "took $716 billion out under Medicare Advantage" is purposely misleading. You know, it's that fiscal responsibility Republicans constantly beat their chests about but never really put into practice. But I'm done with this. Unlike Republicans, I'm not going to beat a dead horse while simultaneously beating my head against the wall.

When the issue of climate change came up, Christie wondered why it was such a cudgel on both sides, and wished we could just "agree to disagree." The science is not still out on this! And the English scientist email conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked as Christie was reminded by Maher when he tried to make that an issue. But at this point I wasn't so much angry as I was dumbfounded.

How does a seemingly intelligent person like Ron Christie deny global warming? How is it that one can be so ingrained in their ideology that solid, scientific facts are nothing but a conspiracy theory in their eyes? How did his brain develop to the point that if he and others like him in his party, which looks like a vast majority of them at this point, don't believe or understand something, then they outright just refuse it? Or that they are so willing to believe a lie from someone they respect, but when confronted with the truth, with facts staring them in the face even by nonpartisan entities, it just doesn't sink in?

No matter how many times they are confronted with pure fact, it's dismissed which makes trying to have a conversation or debate with Republicans, teabaggrs and Obama haters so frustrating. Paraphrasing Maher, how can you have a debate when you can't agree on the facts?

Ron Christie believes Paul Ryan because he wants to believe Paul Ryan. But all those reporters actually doing their jobs for a change and reporting the lies? Nu-uh. He said someone should "fact check the fact checkers." ...What? Well, then who's going to fact check the fact checkers checking the fact checkers when you still don't get the result you want?! It's all talking in circles. It's birtherism at the next level. Insist on a birth certificate, but when it's provided, insist it's a forgery. Ask for the long form and when it's provided, insist it's a forgery. They will never be satisfied.

It must be nice to live in your own little bubble, blissfully unaware that maybe, just maybe you might be wrong.

 (Cross-posted on ABLC)

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 25, 2012

A day late, but never a dollar short.


Preserving and Strengthening Medicare

Fact Check: Enough of the GOP Medicare BS

The new lie from the Romney camp and its hatchet men is that the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare. Mitt Romney himself says that President Obama "stole $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare" and that current seniors are seeing a reduction in their benefits and their service. All of it is absolute horse shit.

And thank you, Soledad O'Brien for giving us a concise look at the facts.

 


This has to be shouted from the mountaintops. I don't give a shit that Paul Ryan's plan which Mitt Romney embraces, cuts the same amount of money out of the Medicare program. This is a bad argument for the mere fact that it'll get convoluted in a "both sides are the same" meme.

The argument is that ACA reduces Medicare increases by $716 billion over 10 years by reducing payments and streamlining the system and pumps that savings back into the healthcare system. Romney and Ryan would have that $716 billion come from the pockets of those who can least afford it, namely seniors on a fixed income, by restructuring Medicare into a voucher system that will never keep up with the rising cost of healthcare, especially if they plan on "repealing ALL of Obamacare" as Romney continues to threat.

And here's a great catch from Bob Cesca on the latest Romney ad flat out lying about the CBO report that I didn't catch the first time I saw it:

...the CBO’s director Doug Elmendorf wrote that if the House Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, the repeal would increase federal spending on Medicare by $716 billion. There’s nothing about cutting Medicare in there. NOTHING. Romney and his campaign are lying. Again. And they’ll keep on doing it.

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Mitt Admits Mandate a Good Thing

Long, long ago, in a fantasy world far, far away (2010), a man named Mitt was trying twisted logic on questions regarding the health care law, insisting that there are differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, but admitting there are similarities and that the mandate is a good thing.

(Via Under the Mountain Bunker)

 

ROMNEY: "The similarities are that we have an incentive to become insured. And the incentive works - we have 98% of our citizens in Massachusetts that are insured, so that's working. Another similarity is you can't be denied insurance coverage because you have a preexisting condition, or if you change jobs you don't need to worry about losing your insurance, so our insurance is entirely portable. Those are perhaps the most important or well known similarities. 

We also have in place an exchange which allows individuals to purchase insurance at very low rates because you have the entire state as a pool of citizens. Everybody's in the insurance pool, as a result the rates are much lower than they otherwise would be."

Okay, let's stop there for a minute.

What's Romneycare's incentive to become insured? The individual mandate, that's what. Logic would dictate that a larger pool of arguably healthier people, whether it be across a state or across the country, would also result in lower rates across the board.

As far as the exchanges that are similar in the plan, it would be nice if Republican governors across the country would actually put them in place as is the law, and not ignore it, thereby ignoring their respective constituents' health care needs. Now, as for the differences...

ROMNEY: "The differences: One is, our plan was a state plan. I believe in Federalism. I believe the 10th Amendment gives to the states the right to create their own health insurance programs rather than have the federal government intrude on the rights of states. That's number one.

Number Two - Ours didn't raise taxes. The President's raises taxes by about a half a trillion dollars. 

Number Three - We didn't cut Medicare. His cuts Medicare by about a half a trillion dollars. 

And one more difference that is a problem from my standpoint is the price controls he puts in place. The government pricing insurance is, in my view, a recipe for difficulty and will end up encouraging the government to get in the insurance business. I think that's a mistake."

Let's go over the "differences" one at a time, shall we?

One: Yes, one the differences is that Mitt's is a state plan. That's the difference between state and federal. As far as the 10th Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," though I'm not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer, it seems to me that Article I, Section 8 supersedes  the 10th Amendment: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States..."


Two: Mitt claims his plan didn't raise taxes only because he didn't call his mandate a tax. They called it a penalty. And a quick look at verified Wikipedia information actually calls it a "tax penalty."

"[Romneycare] included tax penalties on residents for failing to obtain an insurance plan and tax penalties on employers for failing to offer an insurance plan to employees. In 2007 Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, the penalty became pegged to 50% of the lowest monthly premium for insurance available from [the state's insurance exchange clearinghouse.]"

Three: Medicare was not cut by half a trillion dollars. The savings to Medicare comes from the Medicare Advantage or  Part C overpayments due to their being tied to private insurance carriers.

There is considerable confusion about what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ACA) of 2010 did with respect to Medicare Advantage. As part of a broad set of reforms aimed to control the cost of Medicare, the ACA eliminated subsidies which the federal government first used to establish the Medicare Advantage program...  As of 2008, the federal government spent 12 percent more on Medicare Advantage than it did for comparable care under traditional Medicare. These subsidies (which added an additional $14 billion to the Medicare program last year alone) will gradually be reduced until payments to Medicare Advantage are in line with the cost of traditional Medicare.

Traditional Medicare will now cover what Part C did, something that should have happened when it was first implemented.

In any event, Obamacare does not cut Medicare benefits, but you won't hear that from the opposition. They'll just tell you that ACA cuts Medicare by $500 billion as a scare tactic, and not that it saves the government $500 billion in Medicare costs. And these finger pointers are the same people who want Medicare dead in the first place - or have seniors left to their own devices by putting a voucher program in place that wouldn't cover their insurance costs.

Also, Mitt, you didn't cut Medicare because you CAN'T cut Medicare. It's one of those "intrusive federal government programs" you were yapping about when you were going on with the 10th Amendment drivel. But go ahead and ask your state's and the country's seniors how they like that intrusion of their lives.

And finally there's this price control nonsense. I don't understand exactly what he was talking about because it was probably some talking point he spouted out, but my only guess it the ACA's provision that health insurance companies use at least 80% of your premiums on health care costs instead of overhead, advertising and profits. $1.1 billion in insurance rebates are headed our way because of Obamacare. I'll take it.

Paul Ryan's Pay To Play Town Halls

I suppose Paul Ryan learned his lesson. After revealing the Ryan plan and the idea of making Medicare a voucher system, he got quite an earful of angry constituents at subsequent town hall meetings and realized no one as buying what he had to sell. So to alleviate that problem, Paul Ryan decided to now charge admission for his town hall meetings.

...Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other Republican members of Congress have chosen to charge admission to their home-district appearances.

Ryan will speak September 6 to the Whitnall Park Rotary Club in Greenfield, Wisc. Admission to the event is $15 per person and includes lunch.

Ryan has no free public town hall appearances scheduled during the recess.

What a coward.

If anyone who reads this blog happens to be nearby a Ryan event in the next few weeks (maybe the September 6th event) or knows of anyone who does, and would like to continue to give Mr. Vouchercare a piece of their mind but can't afford it, please contact me. Maybe we can strike a deal and I'll try to help you pay the price of admission. I'm not a wealthy man by any means, but I don't want this chickenshit to get away with this type of tactic without some pushback.

Entitled

POSTED BY JHW22

I am reading a lot lately about people mad about the word, "entitlements" and in the same breath, a raging disrespect of members of Congress who use the word and at the same time have great benefits on the job. So here's my rebuttal to that:

An entitlement MEANS something we have a right to. SO, they are entitlements and we should call them entitlements. Because we have the right to them.

What's happening lately, is people are wanting to change the meaning of the word and their purpose. And we shouldn't. We should embrace the word and the purpose. Some people are trying to change the meaning of the word to imply something undeserved. We can't let people change the meanings of words for political purposes.

Now, as for how much people pay in and get out, TECHNICALLY, most Americans will get back more in benefits than we ever paid in no matter when we started working. For the most part, you will get back, in social security and Medicare, benefits very early into retirement. If a person has a lot of health conditions, they will likely get what they paid into Medicare back within a couple of years of their 20+ years of receiving the entitlements.

Now, my last point, some in Congress totally suck. Some are idiots and racists and homophobes and just plain bad for America. BUT we have some amazing members of Congress who work their asses off, don't see their families for weeks at a time, have to have a home in their state AND one in D.C. (which is not a cheap place to live) travel constantly, meet with angry constituents, work with asshole coworkers, fight for the best policies against completely obstinate ideologues, and have very little respect from Americans.

I can name at least 30 members of Congress, off the top of my head, who I believe earn every penny and benefit. And it's because of those, and the even more I could think of if I really thought about it, that I don't lump them all into a bucket. And that is WHY we need to be active citizens, stay informed, counter crap that is false and meant to mislead, communicate, and VOTE. When we find junk in Congress, we need to get it out of there.

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):

President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.

Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Republican Leadership! HUZZAH!

You gotta hand it to the so-called leaders of the Republican Party. If they don't get everything they want, they sure know how to take their ball and go home.

TPM: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

Yes, after all the yelling and screaming that the debt ceiling sky is falling, and digging in their heels saying they wouldn't approve a raise in the debt ceiling unless substantial spending cuts were taken to offset the raise considering one cent in revenue increases unacceptable, all at the expense of US defaulting on its loans and a possible domino effect short circuiting the global economy - tantamount to blackmail, something they do so well - little Mitch McConnell is taking his ball and going home, dragging little Johnny Boehner by the hand with him.

JM Ashby over at Bob Cesca's blog does a great job summing up McConnell's toothless legislation proposal:

If the legislation proposed by McConnell is passed, President Obama can raise the national debt limit without a single cut to spending. Congress will then have the opportunity to pass a series of symbolic resolutions condemning the president for doing so. And in a worst case scenario, President Obama would have to propose entirely hypothetical and imaginary spending cuts he would make if it were up to him.

Considering how crafty and elusive the administration can be when it wants to, the threat of requiring phantom spending-cut proposals and the passage of ineffectual congressional resolutions condemning the debt ceiling seems completely impotent. What will stop the administration from including tax-hikes and long-term cuts to defense spending in every proposal? It’s all hypothetical!

All this in the name of protecting tax loopholes for the rich, continuing to subsidize big oil companies despite record breaking profits year after year, and helping corporations continue to avoid paying little to no federal income tax with offshore tax havens.

So let's review. House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP were adamant about not raising the debt ceiling at the risk of US default unless it included spending cuts equaling or exceeding the amount of the debt ceiling raise, particularly cuts in the form of popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. The Republican Party was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 trillion worth of spending cuts without any increase in revenue - even on the backs of the poor millionaires and billionaires' tax loopholes. President Obama called their bluff and said 'if you're actually serious about debt reduction, let's look at a $4 trillion cut. Let's look at Social Security and Medicare. But it's not going to come at the expense of the middle and working classes. Let's look at tax reform, loopholes, and having the top 2% actually pay what you think they're paying.'  Eric Cantor walked away from the table. Boehner blinked and walked away from the table. Mitch McConnell is now walking away from the table for political cover. And President Obama knows it.

President Obama did not walk away from the table or the American people when it came to defaulting on the US debts. It was the perfect move. And now with McConnell's proposal, President Obama, the only adult in the room, is getting what he wanted in the first place, a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.

ADDING... I have unsubscribed from several "progressive" organizations after receiving emails trashing President Obama for selling out the middle and working classes by putting "Social Security and Medicare cuts" on the table, something he NEVER said he'd do, and asking for donations in the process.

From the beginning of these negotiations, the "professional left" freak out has pissed me off to no end. Instead of attacking the party threatening to default on country's debt and using it as a hostage tool, their default position was to attack the President for trying to get a deal for ALL Americans. There is no longer any reason to consider these organizations the "base." Anyone thinking or suggesting that a primary challenge to President Obama is a good idea should in no way be considered, "the base." The base should be considered the base because they are the core support for the party leader. If you don't support the President more than 50% of the time (and that's being generous) you're not the base. If you don't support President Obama but still consider yourself the base, do yourself a favor and don't come back here. You won't like what you read. Or come back and make your points in the comments section. The real "base" welcomes the debate.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 9, 2011

Working Together to Meet our Fiscal Challenges

E-FUCKING-NOUGH!

POSTED BY JHW22

So the new rant is that Obama is going to cut Medicare and Social Security. That meme hit wicked fast and furious last night and spiraled into a frenzy of lefties being outraged with Obama based on anonymous sources saying something vague. (Too many links to choose from but if you don't know what I'm talking about by now, just check Twitter).

But what troubles me is that liberal, smart, strategic players are now picking up that meme and saying there's a line in the sand and we won't do this or that and "heck, this" and "hell, no that" and on and on.

So here's what I hate: that line in the sand, when it comes to Medicare and Social Security, SHOULD NOT be drawn. They SHOULD be on the table. We SHOULD INSIST that entitlements be cut. For some.

So I keep asking this question of all the line-in-the-sand-drawers:

A) What if the backs we make changes on are those of M(B)illionaires?

B) Are you open to means testing?

C) Are you open to removing contribution caps?

D) Why aren't those things part of the Dems talking points today?

The line in the sand language needs to be fleshed out because I am FOR cuts in Medicare and SS if that means Warren Buffet doesn't get the max (or any) SS or Medicare. Give him a health insurance voucher. Fine by me.

Let's not frame this as a fight within the Dems against some rumored report that Obama is going to do something bad and actually frame the debate that Dems will make sound changes to entitlements and stay true to keeping the entitlements for the people who need them and NOT for the people who don't.

Once we start with the line in the sand talk, we look like fools if we jump over that line and say, "Well except for..." And we only piss off the idiot Angry Left people who only read headlines and hear soundbites and then we have a messaging management problem for two fucking days and can't pay attention to anything REAL.

For crying out loud, why are smart Democrats over-simplifying this discussion?

At least Representative Clyburn gets it (Hardball clip to follow), except he did have to be pulled back from the stringent talking points to get to the common sense strategery.

UPDATE: Here's the Hardball segment with Rep. Clyburn.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Herman Cain is a Dumbass

Can we all just agree that Herman Cain is clueless? No, really. The guy is a dumbass.

It's bad enough to berate people to reread the Constitution and then righteously quote from the Declaration of Independence, but how about just stepping on the idiocy throttle and running over some Paul Ryan budget doublespeak?!

Nobody’s talking about the fact that the centerpiece of Ryan’s plan is a voucher. Now, a lot of people don’t like to use that term because it has a negative connotation. That is what we need.

People don't like the word "voucher" when it comes to Medicare. That's because the Eddie Munster budget would pretty much kill Medicare and replace it with, as Paul Ryan would like to describe, a "premium support" program, AKA voucher from the government to help with the cost of health insurance that you'd have to shop for yourself from the various insurance companies* and pay for the difference. But in some kind of warped mentality, Herman Cain disregards the Ryan talking points in trying to rename a voucher program "premium support" (which will only increase at the rate of inflation and not the rate of premium increases) and says HELL YEAH! we need a voucher program and "nobody is talking about" it.

...WTF?!

No one is talking about it?! Has he not been watching the news or reading the paper? We know he hasn't  been taking the time to read the Constitution. Who the hell is in charge of the Cain campaign? Whoever it is should be fired immediately.

________________________
*This past Friday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Ryan said that it's Medicare that would help seniors choose their plan which Joe Scarborough was all too eager to eat up, but that remains to be seen.

Ryan's Plan Fails in the Senate

Forty Republican Senators were absolutely idiotic enough to jump off the cliff and vote for the Paul Ryan Budget plan, AKA Kill Medicare Plan.

...Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, brought the legislation to the floor so that Senate Republicans would either have to vote for it, exposing them to attacks from Democrats and their allies, or against it, exploiting growing Republican divisions on the issue.

Five of 47 Senate Republicans voted against it — four because they said it went too far, one on the ground that the budget measure that contained it did not go far enough fast enough to address the budget deficit.

The Democrats playing offense! It's a strange thing to behold.

Redistribution of Wealth: The Ryan Plan

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, I don't read everything, I admit. But I am pretty sure I haven't seen anyone else point out the fact that Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare includes a redistribution of wealth.

According to the wonderful Kaiser Family Foundation:

Government contributions would be lower for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries: payments to plans would be reduced by 70 percent for beneficiaries in the top 2 percent of the Medicare population income distribution, and by 50 percent for those in the next 6 percent of the income distribution. Thus, government payments on behalf of enrollees would be lower for Medicare beneficiaries with relatively high incomes, resulting in these beneficiaries paying higher premiums.

Did you see that? The government would collect Medicare taxes from everyone but would limit the payout the rich people get. They'd pay more for the poor people.

I wonder what Joe the Plumber would think about that...

Rrrruhh?! Newt Trashes GOP/Ryan Plan

TPM: Newt Gingrich slammed the House GOP budget on Meet The Press this morning, telling interviewer David Gregory that replacing Medicare with a voucher system was too "radical" an approach.

..."I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said, calling the plan "too big a jump" for the country. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Behold, Newt the Moderate!

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Newt is just saying what anyone in their right mind who just threw his very large hat in the presidential ring (see, what I did there? I made a big head joke) would say after looking at polls showing a majority of Americans, Republicans and Tea Partiers included, are opposed to government hands on their Medicare.

It's just proof that Newt will say anything to advance his position. I'm sure he'll shoot toward the top of the current list of GOP candidates with this one. How he'll be perceived on his comments about Kenyan, anti-colonial mindsets or our "food stamp president" is another matter.

Today's WTF Moment: Don't Touch Medicare Say GOP Voters

Government spends too much. We have to cut, cut cut! Well, what do we cut?
From Steve Benen:

...a new Marist poll out today... asked respondents:

"Do you support or oppose doing each of the following to deal with the federal budget deficit: cut Medicare and Medicaid?"

Among all registered voters, 80% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Tea Party supporters, 70% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Republicans, 73% opposed these cuts.

80% of registered voters and even 70% of self-proclaimed Tea Partiers who think the government spends too much oppose cuts in those socialist health care programs! So, to whom then, are GOP politicians catering? Who are they representing? Someone had better tell Paul Ryan to keep his government hands off Medicare.

And yes, you can say all you want that under the Ryan plan Medicare won't be touched for those 55 and older, but does that really matter? What about people who are 54½? Or 53? Provided they've worked steadily since college (or high school), they've paid into Medicare for over 30 years with the promise that it would be there in their retirement. These people who wouldn't qualify due to some arbitrary pencil pusher's number will still continue to pay into Medicare for a minimum of another 10 years until they retire. Do they not count?

Well, I would hope that this poll will be shouted from the rooftops by every Democrat in office to show the absurdity of the Ryan proposal and what it will do to the social safety net that has been promised to the American people by its government.

Speaker John Boehner made it a quick talking point after the 2010 election that they were sent to DC "to do the people's work." Now that they see that 80% of "the people" and ¾ of "his people" don't want their Medicare cut, will he be so quick to scrap it from their budget proposal?

President Obama's Weekly Address - April 16, 2011

America’s Fiscal Future

President Obama's Budget Address

The Country We Believe In

How Does the Tea Party Help Republicans?

I've been mulling this question over while watching Republican incumbents in primary after primary fall to the Tea Party candidates and I can't see that they help the Republicans at all. In fact, the whole GOP is tacking to the right to embrace the Tea Party for fear of extinction. So why is it that all the polls and pundits are convinced that the Democrats are doomed on Election Day 2010?

It's all really a matter of common sense. The Tea Party is basically an extreme, conservative group to the right of the Republican Party. Regardless of the spin they try to put on the demographics of the movement - that they are equal parts Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are tired of the status quo in Washington - we know better. The chance that even conservative Democrats in the general election would flock to vote for a Tea Party candidate is slim to none. And knowing that Freedom Works is basically behind the Tea Party movement, I view it as the political equivalent of the Frankenstein monster.

If anything, we are witnessing angry Republicans not only fearful of the evil, Kenyan, socialist, Marxist, Nazi Obama, but upset with their own party and knocking them off in the Republican primaries with candidates who are at the least inexperienced, and at worst, the fringiest of the fringe who think Social Security is unconstitutional and continue the myth that Social Security is bankrupt, want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, because as you know, Wall Street bankers will protect your assets, and forward blatantly racist, anti-Obama emails.

And yet we keep hearing (literally just now I heard this as a bumper on MSNBC) that "the Tea Party is proving it can shape the political landscape and will have a huge impact on the midterm November elections."

Let's face it, Democrats will mostly likely vote for Democrats. Republicans will most likely vote for Republicans, even if that means they have to cast a ballot for Christine "Masturbation Is Bad" O'Donnell or Carl "Humans are Racist" Paladino. But the Independent voter, the voters that swung for President Obama in 2008, don't normally ride the crazy train.  And I don't think they'll punch a ticket for it this time either.  Hell, even the GOP party chairman said O'Donnell has no business running for dog catcher, let alone US Senate. And evil spawn Karl Rove is calling some of her comments "nutty" for which he is getting backlash from Wingnuttia.

So maybe the Tea Party really is reshaping the political landscape for the November midterms, but in my opinion it's coming at the peril of the Republican Party. Eight of the Republican Party backed establishment candidates lost to the Tea Party challenger. And although Republicans have no choice but to support the primary winners (even after saying they wouldn't) the fracture in the GOP is clearly visible.  They have just as much to lose as any Democrat in office.

Yes, anti-incumbent rage might cost some Democratic seats in the House and Senate just like it does after every midterm against the majority party incumbents whose party controls the White House, but I don't believe it'll be anywhere close to the devastation that the pundits are predicting, because the one thing all the talking heads keep dismissing in all of the analysis is the quality of the candidate.

Adding... Maybe all the wingnuts winning Republican primaries are just what the Democratic doctor ordered to gin up the base and finally get some enthusiasm rolling.

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 7, 2010

Medicare Officially Safer After Health Reform

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 12, 2010

Fair Pay for Doctors