DOWNLOADS: (225)

PLAYS: (2544)

Embed

MSNBC analyst and former Obama advisor David Axelrod may not have been too happy with Rachel Maddow for her response to President Obama putting Social Security cuts on the table with his budget proposal, but she was exactly right here. The White House seems to want a fight with the left, because if what they were really worried was solvency of the system, they'd put raising the income cap on the table.

After Axelrod did a terrible job of attempting to explain why the administration actually believes this is somehow a good idea and claiming that what they're worried about is preserving the programs and economic growth, Maddow responded.

MADDOW: I believe you that he believes in his budget, but I think that if what he really believes in is Social Security benefit cuts, he's going to feel the ground beneath his feet give way. And I think this is the start that ends badly on the Democratic party (crosstalk).

After Axelrod tried to pretend that progressives “want to do nothing” and just leave the programs exactly as they are now, Maddow shot back.

MADDOW: Nobody's saying do nothing. That's not fair. Nobody's saying do... nobody's saying do nothing. First of all, Social Security isn't the problem with the deficit. Second of all, there is a way to fix it that has nothing to do with starving old people now or in the immediate future.

You have people pay more. And then your system is solved. If you wanted to approach it toward just solvency, that would be one of the things that's on the table. For the Democrats to not put that on the table and say it's all about solvency and not the politics, I just don't buy it.

He walked back some of his previous comments and brought up Medicare and Medicaid solvency, rather than just sticking to the issue of Social Security. He could have defended other portions of the budget such as spending on education and research and development. But after admitting that he's aware that the Republicans are already attacking the Social Security cuts, Axelrod said let's see what their position is in the coming weeks and months -- when they attempt to defend their “indefensible” budget.

Maddow was again correct in her response when she told him that their position in the upcoming weeks and months was going to be exactly where they are now. I'd say you can take that one to the bank. Good for her for calling the administration out for how cynical the politics of this move has been.

From Thom Hartmann's radio show this Wednesday: Rep. Alan Grayson: No Chained CPI!:

Thom Hartmann talks with Representative Alan Grayson, U.S. Congressman (D-FL) about President Obama's budget proposal which includes cuts to Social Security.

Sign the petition here: NoCuts:

29 members of Congress have pledged to vote against legislation that cuts Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits. Join us. If 100,000 of us sign this petition, I will deliver it to the White House.

Alan

DOWNLOADS: (237)

PLAYS: (2048)

Embed

Rep. Alan Grayson joined the set of Current TV's Viewpoint this Tuesday evening and was asked about former vice presidential nominee and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's widely panned budget proposal just released this week, and as we've come to expect from Congressman Grayson, he didn't mince words with his criticism of just who Ryan is looking out for with his proposals.

Rep. Alan Grayson: Paul Ryan wants sick poor people to die:

While discussing the Republican congressman’s latest budget proposal on Current TV, Grayson accused Ryan of wishing a large swath of Americans would die.

“In one case after another, you look at his principles, you look at his vision, and they’re a nightmare for America,” he said. “He wants Americans to work until they die, he wants poor people who get sick not be able to see a doctor, not to get the care they need, not to get better, he wants them to die, and he wants an America that consists of nothing but cheap labor for his corporate patrons.”

Ryan’s budget would repeal most of Obamacare, partially privatize Medicare, and cut discretionary spending on food stamps and other programs, while lowering the corporate tax rate. Grayson claimed that Ryan also wanted to cut Social Security, citing Ryan’s self-professed admiration for the libertarian novelist Ayn Rand.

“Paul Ryan believes that Social Security is unconstitutional,” Grayson explained. “Just like anyone who follows the writings of Ayn Rand would believe. If you read the Fountianhead, if you read similar fiction — although they don’t regard it as fiction — you come to the conclusion that these are people who believe government itself, anything that does anything for people other than defend the borders, is fundamentally immoral and unconstitutional.”

Grayson didn't mince words as well when it came to President Obama and whether he might be willing to make a deal with Republicans which cuts our social safety nets: Rep. Alan Grayson: ‘There is no fiscal crisis’ and ‘Republicans are crisis junkies’ :

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (291)

Embed

Good for Sen. Bernie Sanders for standing up for what's right if President Obama tries to offer Republicans cuts to our social safety nets as part of some "grand bargain": Bernie Sanders says give people what they want: Safe Medicare and Social Security:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the charge in the Senate to block any grand bargain that would cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits, and he's got a pretty smart strategy. He explained his efforts in an interview with Greg Sargent. Getting a budget deal is not about offering up the trophy of entitlement cuts to lure in Republicans, Sanders says.

"It's a question of making Republicans an offer they can't refuse," Sanders tells me. "Their position is no more revenues. You and I know that is not the position of the American people. One in four corporations doesn't pay any taxes. What Democrats and progressives should say is, 'Sorry, we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable.'" Sanders described the idea of cutting education, Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits as an "obscenity." [...]

"The alternative is not to go into a back room and negotiate with Boehner; it's to make our case to the American people," Sanders said. "I don't believe there's a red state in America where people believe you should cut Medicare, Social Security and veterans' benefits rather than doing away with corporate tax loopholes."

Now that's a pretty smart and pragmatic reading of the American electorate as well as a smart and pragmatic strategy for getting the Republicans to relent on revenue. Wooing them sure as hell isn't going to get the job done. But standing up as Democrats, with the people, could.

And as Greg Sargent noted, he may have some help some of his fellow Democrats in the Senate:

I asked Sanders if he would filibuster any grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits. “It’s more than just the filibuster,” he said. “That’s a one day tactic. This is about rallying the American people and winning.” He predicted liberals in the Senate (Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren come to mind) would likely band together to adopt a range of tactics to block such a grand bargain. “Filibustering may be part of it,” he said.

It’s still unclear to me what the endgame would look like if liberals stick with such a strategy. Republicans could simply continue to support indefinite sequestration rather than agree to anything at all, let alone a deal that includes new revenues but no entitlement cuts. Or if the White House does strike a grand bargain, liberal Dems may ultimately cave and support it. Or if a deal is reached in the Senate, it could pass without liberals. However unclear the way foward remains, it’s undeniably good for progressive Senators to be out there defining the liberal position in the debate in as high-profile a way as possible.

And from the Kos diary as well: Send an email to the White House telling President Obama to immediately stop proposing any cuts to Social Security.

DOWNLOADS: (105)

PLAYS: (460)

Embed

It was nice to see some push back from the constant drone we're treated to by the talking heads in the media, who apparently will not be happy until Democrats agree to inflict some more pain on their constituents and raise Medicare retirement age along with benefit cuts. As Krugman rightfully noted, all the happy talk about politicians sitting down and having dinner together isn't going to resolve the fundamental policy differences between the two parties -- or the fact that one of them wants to completely take down our social safety nets and privatize them.

He called out George Will as well who was demanding that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explain whether Democrats would agree to raise the Medicare age:

KRUGMAN: Is it a condition of any Republican support that you have to go for really terrible policies? Because raising the Medicare age is a terrible policy. It raises medical costs, it does very little to improve the budget. It introduces a lot of hardship. Means testing in Medicare is a better policy. I don't particularly like it, but it's a better policy.

That's the whole idea. They know it's terrible policy and they want Democrats to do their bidding for them so they can immediately turn around and run ads against them in the mid-term elections. They were cynical enough to do it before and they'll do it again. So it's not just bad policy, it's bad and stupid politics as well.

The conventional wisdom talk from the Bloomberg White House corespondent here wasn't much better. There's nothing "optimistic" about these politicians potentially sticking it to the poor and the elderly when we've got record income disparity in the United States right now.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (128)

PLAYS: (660)

Embed

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says raising the eligibility age for Medicare benefits is just a political "trophy" for Republicans because the idea would not strengthen the program.

"We don't want to hurt beneficiaries," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday. "We certainly want to strengthen Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid. We want to make them more fiscally sound. We want to make sure that for the purpose that they have been instituted, they're honoring the purpose and the taxpayer, and the beneficiaries are getting their money's worth."

"The rising cost of health care in our country is the biggest increase to the rising cost of Medicare," she explained. "So stopping the drastic increase of the cost of health care is important for our whole economy and health care. Especially important when it comes to Medicare is it's already working -- 0.4 percent, the rate of increase, much slower than it had been. And as I said, Medicaid [is] not increasing. Now, we want to do better than that."

Pelosi pointed out that Democrats were willing to negotiate with Republicans if the objective was to strengthen earned benefits programs.

"But if the point of it is to take trophies -- 'Let's raise the age' -- that doesn't save money. It's a trophy, it's a scalp, but it's not a solution."

She concluded: "Raising the age, I'm very much against... We're not there to make [the programs] cash cows to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country and say, 'We're balancing the budget.'"

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (506)

Embed

As Digby rightfully noted after taking a look at some of the reporting on this new Simpson-Bowles plan, "we see the folly of asking for a "balanced approach" when you are negotiating with partisan thugs." Once again, we see that Overton window continually being shoved to the right when there are other alternatives out there, like the package offered by the Progressive Caucus in the House. That, of course, will be ignored, because the Villagers don't seem to consider anyone Serious unless they're talking about austerity and inflicting pain on the working class.

Here's more from Greg Sargent at The Plum Line: Simpson-Bowles and the mythical, arbitrary “center”:

Like a pair of aging crooners hoping to recapture past glory with a long-awaited reunion tour, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson released a new version of their deficit reduction plan today. Ezra Klein ferrets out the real news in the plan: It asks for far less in new revenues, and more in spending cuts, than the previous Simpson-Bowles plan did.

Whereas the previous Simpson-Bowles plan contained a roughly even split of revenues and cuts, the new one reduces the revenue “ask” dramatically, with the result that the overall plan is lopsidedly tilted towards cuts. The reason pinpointed by Klein is particularly striking:

This isn’t meant to be an update to Simpson-Bowles 1.0. Rather, it’s meant to be an outline for a new grand bargain. To that end, Simpson and Bowles began with Obama and Boehner’s final offers from the fiscal cliff deal. That helps explain why their tax ask has fallen so far: Obama’s final tax ask was far lower than what was in the original Simpson-Bowles plan, while Boehner’s tilt towards spending cuts was far greater than what was in the original Simpson-Bowles.

In other words, the plan roughly represents the ideological midpoint between the Obama and Boehner fiscal cliff blueprints — which is why the plan is so heavily tilted towards cuts. As Kevin Drum notes, this is particularly odd, given that spending cuts have already been “75 percent of the deficit reduction we’ve done so far.” Drum adds: “this sure makes it hard to take Simpson-Bowles 2.0 seriously as a plan.” Read on ...

And here's more on that from Steve Benen: Meet the new Simpson-Bowles plan:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (793)

Embed

Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to be one of the stand-up guys in the Senate with telling it straight when it comes to the fact that Social Security does not add a dime to our deficit and that if President Obama wants to do something about the deficit, he needs to be cutting that corporate welfare, instead of talking about balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society and our veterans.

Sanders joined Ed Schultz on MSNBC this Friday evening. After Schultz took the viewers through some of the goading by Republicans who are trying to get President Obama to do their dirty work for them and go after our New Deal social safety nets, and a clip of Ronald Reagan explaining that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, he asked Sanders if he trusted President Obama not to cave into their demands.

Sanders said no, but if enough of us make our voices heard along with the slew of progressive groups who are pushing back hard against these potential cuts, he feels he will be responsive to the voters. All I can say is I hope he's right about the President listening, and I know he's right about the need for everyone who doesn't want to see these programs cut to make their voices heard and get on the phone, email, write letters, call and make sure that both President Obama and your members of Congress know to how you feel.

They need to be hearing from someone besides the Ed Rendell and Pete Petersons of the world. I'm grateful that we've got Ed Schultz giving us a break from the otherwise constant drumbeat on his network, calling going after our social safety nets adult, serious and balanced in exchange for Republican hostage taking. on raising the debt ceiling after their party spent like drunken sailors and now don't want to pay their credit card bill.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (565)

Embed

Bernie was still pushing for one item that would help with our deficit that sadly has gone nowhere with those looking out for the 1 percent since it was introduced over a year ago, a tax on Wall Street speculation:

Legislation was introduced on Wednesday to impose a financial transaction tax on the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives. The measure would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. "This bill offers us a clear choice. We can balance the budget on the backs of working Americans and senior citizens on fixed incomes or we can ask the gamblers on Wall Street to pay a little bit more in taxes," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a cosponsor of the bill.

Under the proposal, there would be a speculation fee of 0.03 percent on credit default swaps, derivatives, stocks, bonds, and other financial transactions. It would yield about $200 billion in new revenue over the coming decade. The lead sponsor in the Senate is Tom Harkin. Rep. Peter DeFazio filed companion legislation in the House.

DOWNLOADS: (132)

PLAYS: (835)

Embed

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says President Barack Obama is a "small ball guy" but it's time for him to start "manning up" on cuts to earned benefits like Medicare and Social Security.

Speaking to Fox News host Martha MacCallum on Monday, Graham suggested that Republicans should not agree to tax rate hikes on the rich and should hold a debt ceiling increase hostage until Democrats agreed to "entitlement reform."

"Here's where the president is going to have a rude awakening," the senior senator from South Carolina opined. "In February or March, you have to raise the debt ceiling and I can tell you this, there's a hardening on the Republican side. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling, we're not going to let Obama borrow any more money or any American Congress borrow any more money until we fix this country from becoming Greece. And that requires significant entitlement reform to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy."

MacCallum noted that Obama told business leaders last week that he would not "play that game" with Republicans because "we’ve got to break that habit" of allowing them to use the debt ceiling in budget negotiations.

"Yes, we will play that game, Mr. President, because this is not a game," Graham insisted. "The game you're playing is small ball. You're talking about raising rates on the top 2 percent that would run the government for 11 days. You just got re-elected. How about doing something big that's not liberal? How about doing something big that really is bipartisan? Every big idea he has is a liberal idea that drowns us in debt."

"How about manning up here, Mr. President, and use your mandate to bring this country together to stop us from becoming Greece?" he continued. "So when it comes debt ceiling time, Mr. President, you're going to have a Republican Party that's going to make sure we save Medicare and Social Security from bankruptcy and we save this country from becoming Greece."

Graham concluded: "He's a small ball guy. He's afraid of his own party."

A Washington Post fact check on Monday determined that Graham's assertion that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would go "bankrupt" was overblown because "the facts do not justify such rhetoric."

"In this case we are going to bump Graham up to Three Pinocchios," the Post's Glenn Kessler wrote. "Not only did he repeat the error of treating all of Medicare as one entity, but he did the same with Social Security. Moreover, his reference to Medicaid makes little sense, even if one has very expansive definitions of the words 'bankruptcy' and 'imminent.'"

(h/t: Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (87)

PLAYS: (436)

Embed

It seems this ongoing feud between former Sen. Alan Simpson and anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist isn't going to end any time soon. Simpson went after Norquist again on Hardball this Tuesday while doing his usual fearmongering over the "fiscal cliff."

Alan Simpson on fiscal cliff: ‘Go big or go home’:

Piecemeal measures won’t save us from the fiscal cliff, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), told Hardball’s Chris Matthews on Tuesday. His advice for his former colleagues: “Go big or go home.”

“On Dec. 31st there’s a mess floating around right now, about $7.2 trillion bucks worth of stuff…[we’ve] got to do something,” Simpson said. [...]

Simpson said some lawmakers “love their party more than they love their country,” and that they would wait until the last minute to strike a deal. “They’re going to react right down to the last point when there’s going to be blood and hair and eyeballs all over the floor and they’re going to come up with something, but let me tell you, if it’s just kicking the can down the road, the can is now a 55 gallon drum filled with explosives. You can’t play that game anymore,” said Simpson.

If there’s no real deal, he said, “the markets are going to chop us up and it will be an unknown day.”

The former lawmaker also took a hit at conservative activist Grover Norquist’s crusade to get members of Congress to vow never to raise taxes.

“So how do you deal with guys who came to stop government, or Grover wandering the Earth in his white robe saying you want to drown government in the bathtub. I hope he slips in there with it,” Simpson said.

Of course Matthews let him get away with the typical false equivalency game they've been playing, where they pretend that the likes of Norquist is the equivalent of those on the left who don't want to see our social safety nets destroyed and calls everyone "loons." There's nothing "looney" about wanting to protect the poor, the elderly and the middle class and allowing people to retire with dignity, instead of having to work until they drop dead.