DOWNLOADS: (186)

PLAYS: (1868)

Embed

As Samuel Knight at the Washington Monthly took note of this Sunday, it seems the White House may be getting the message that they're going to have a lot of trouble from their own party if they continue to remain open to chained CPI for Social Security as part of some deficit deal with the Republicans. I was happy to see new White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough push back at David Gregory's assertion that it was necessary to raise the Medicare retirement age to address the problems with the program.

David Gregory did his best to repeat one Republican talking point after another while pressing McDonough on whether the administration is going to be willing to cross his base and go after our social safety nets to get some deal on deficit reduction and as McDonough correctly pointed out, raising that age for Medicare isn't going to do a thing to reduce costs, it just shifts them around:

While on on ABC’s “This Week,” he was questioned about John Boehner’s assertion that President Obama lacks “the guts…to take on the liberal side of his own party” in budget negotiations.

McDonough responded with talking points, stressing that the White House will strengthen the middle class and the economy while seeking to pay back debt “in a balanced way.”

White on NBC’s “Meet The Press” he issued similar responses to David Gregory’s questions on the same issue, saying that President Obama would not seek to reduce government investments and weaken programs that help middle class families at a time when the economy is improving but still fragile. He also indicated that President Obama would not isolate Congressional Democrats that want to raise taxes on the wealthy, reiterating the President’s insistence on doing debt reduction “in a balanced way.”

In terms of the social safety net, McDonough told Gregory that the President wouldn’t seek to raise the retirement age, calling it a “cost shifter.” He said that Affordable Care Act plans to rein in Medicare spending will lead to the sort of outlay reductions sought by Simpson-Bowles.

But more importantly than what he said is what he didn’t say: that the President, according to a Jay Carney press conference earlier this week, “remains open to the chained CPI” as part of social security reform.

That McDonough wasn’t instructed to discuss the chained CPI indicates that either the White House isn’t actually keen on it, or that it simply isn’t eager to brag about its openness to the idea.

Let's hope it's the former. Once again, David Gregory remained true to form, where he can't seem to manage to make it though an interview without asking how much pain can be inflicted on the working class.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (661)

Embed

This Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and regular Mark Halperin decided to go after President Obama for what he said on a campaign stop in Florida this week, where he talked to voters about Mitt Romney's plans to turn Medicare into a voucher system and balance the budget off of the backs of seniors rather than asking the rich to pay more in taxes.

They both tried to paint the President as unfairly attacking Romney and for not differentiating between those who are on the program today and those who would be affected by the changes. Then Halperin admits that Paul Ryan's plan, which Romney has endorsed, is indeed radical and that there very well could be changes to current seniors' benefits. Halperin also thinks Republicans deserve some credit for "at least trying more new ideas" and that Democrats had better get on board to "save" these programs. Sorry Mark, but eliminating and privatizing them is not "saving" any of our social safety nets, it's gutting and getting rid of them. And it's not "new" since Republicans have been trying to get rid of the New Deal programs since the day any of them were enacted.

It is enough to make someone's head spin watching these two attempt to play the false equivalency game here and pretend "both sides" are equally at fault on the here and that anything the President said is unfounded. As Halperin admits, Republicans do want to fundamentally change Medicare and I don't think any current seniors want to see those benefits cut for their children. And I don't believe President Obama is out there misrepresenting what the Republicans would like to do. He told voters Romney and the Republicans would like to turn Medicare into a voucher program and they don't want to raise taxes on millionaires. Those things are true. Republicans have already talked continually about how it would not affect current seniors when Paul Ryan first proposed his budget, and it didn't make their ideas any less popular.

Rough transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (201)

PLAYS: (280)

Embed

There are a lot of other talking points that could be debunked in this segment from Mike Huckabee's show on Fox, like pretending that throwing seniors at the mercy of the "free market" and the for-profit private insurance market would somehow give them the ability to keep those costs down. Ezra Klein wrote a very good article last month which explains why Rep. Tom Price is not telling the truth when he calls Paul Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare "premium support." It's not.

And par for the course, Price is not asked to explain why Republicans want to keep the current Medicare system in place for those over 55 years of age if privatizing it is such a wonderful idea and would keep costs down.

Here's Klein's article -- Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is not Bill Clinton’s fault:

Finally, it was a very different plan. The idea of giving Medicare beneficiaries a choice of private plans in addition to traditional Medicare fee-for-service — in wonk parlance, “premium support” — does have Democratic backers. Some months ago, in fact, I interviewed Henry Aaron, a center-left health-care expert who is one of the idea’s creators. And he said the problem with Ryan’s plan is that it’s not premium support.

Premium support, Aaron explained, was designed to create competition without allowing cost-shifting. The key feature was that payments kept pace with the cost of health care. That way, either there’d be savings from competition, or there wouldn’t be savings. And you can see that in the bipartisan committee’s proposal. They authors write that “on average, beneficiaries would be expected to pay 12 percent of the total cost of standard option plans.” And as far as I can tell, that defined the federal contribution, no matter the growth in health-care costs. You could save money by choosing a cheaper plan, but the government couldn’t save money by simply covering less and less of your costs each year. Premium support, in other words.

That’s not how Ryan’s plan works. For one thing, it eliminates traditional fee-for-service Medicare. For another, Its savings come from capping the growth of federal spending at inflation — which is much, much, much slower than the rate of health-care cost growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that, in 2022, Ryan’s plan would have a typical beneficiary shouldering 61 percent of the cost of a standard plan, and by 2030, because the government would limit its contributions, they’d be paying 68 percent. That’s very different than a plan that holds the average contribution to 12 percent of the plan’s cost. But it’s absolutely central to how the Ryan budget saves money. It’s the core of his proposal.

And as my fellow C&L contributor Jon Perr pointed out to me today, Tom Price is not exactly the best spokesman for saving Medicare, since he thinks it was a mistake from the beginning as Jon noted in this post -- GOP Medicare Killers Now Pretend to Be Saviors:

In 2009, Missouri's Roy Blunt argued that "government should have never gotten into the health care business." That same month, Georgia Rep. Tom Price, a one-time orthopedic surgeon and then chairman of the Republican Study Group, proclaimed:

"Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare."

When asked at a 2009 rally, Rep. Price refused to defend Medicare after stating "we will not rest until we make certain that government-run health care is ended."

Partial rough transcript of Price below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (8647)

PLAYS: (531)

Embed

At a time when we've got some of the greatest income disparity in the United States since the Gilded Age, Villager David Brooks thinks we're not going to be able to solve the problem with our deficit unless seniors and the middle class are ready for some "shared sacrifice." Which in Villager speak means fixing those problems on the hides of those who can afford it least while the rich keep their tax breaks.

Brooks does agree that we need to raise taxes on the rich "to some degree" but of course qualifies that with the typical talking point that no matter how high their taxes were raised, it would not fix the deficit problem.
And like every other Republican out there he pretends our Congress would ever actually vote to close the tax loopholes for the rich and not just end up sticking it to the middle class instead in the name of fiscal responsibility while their big money donors keep their deductions in place.

I would love to see David Brooks have to spend a few days in some senior citizens' shoes with an expensive medical condition living on a fixed income instead living off of his wingnut welfare he relies on weekly to sell Americans on horrid economic policies that do nothing but make sure the rich get richer while the rest of the country sees their jobs being shipped overseas, their standard of living being lowered and their social safety nets being dismantled.

Someone needs to send David Brooks the charts in this post from Matt Yglesias and ask him why in the hell seniors or the middle class should be being asked to sacrifice any more than they have already given the income disparity we're seeing in the United States right now -- The Declining Effective Tax Rate Of America’s 400 Highest Earning Individuals. I'm sure he'll think it's horribly unfair and it's class warfare that anyone dares to point out that the have mores in this country aren't going to be happy until we have no middle class left and most of us are living in squalor , but somehow I expect he'll get over it since it's his class that's winning.

Transcript via PBS below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1421)

PLAYS: (1450)

Embed

Sean Hannity brought on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to discuss his great "Republican victory" standing up for the millionaires in his state. Although Christie would not say how many jobs he thought it would create, he explained to Hannity why he thought taking a page right out of Ronald Reagan's play book and following his policy of trickle-down economics was going to mean more jobs for his state.

Somehow Christie and Hannity failed to bring up what parts of the New Jersey budget he was willing to cut to keep those tax cuts for millionaires in place. Imagine that? No mention of the students who walked out to protest his sweeping state aid cuts in education. And no mention of how he doesn't mind raising taxes on senior citizens.

NJ Democrats Try To Override Christie Veto Of Millionaire Tax, Prevent Tax Increase For Seniors:

Late last month, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) followed through on his threat to veto a millionaire’s tax passed by the state legislature. The bill would have implemented a surcharge on income above $1 million, raising $635 million to fund property tax relief for senior citizens and the disabled (among other programs).

New Jersey Democrats are planning to hold a vote to override Christie’s veto today, but lockstep opposition from the state’s Republicans is rendering success unlikely. As the Newark Star-Ledger reported, “Republican leaders have vowed not a single GOP vote will flip.”

The end result of Christie’s veto, if it is not overridden, will be to increase taxes on seniors while cutting them for the wealthy. In fact, according to the state’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, “a retired couple living on a fixed income of $40,000 would see an increase of $1,320 in taxes under the governor’s plan while a family making $1.2 million would receive a tax cut of $11,598.”

As Citizens for Tax Justice added, “there is glaring hypocrisy in Christie using his anti-tax pledge to justify his veto of the millionaire’s tax”.

And no mention of course of how his budget cuts are undermining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

While states face tough decisions in cutting crucial services, some right-wing governors are slashing vital services for more vulnerable constituents while protecting the wealthy ones. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) called for "layoffs of 1,300 state workers, closings of state psychiatric institutions, an $820 million cut in aid to public schools" and a sharp cut in New Jersey Transit. Christie defends the cuts on the middle class, the poor, and schoolchildren as "shared sacrifice and fairness." However, when the state legislature asked for such a "sacrifice" via a tax on residents making over $1 million, Christie vetoed the legislation as an "irresponsible" mistake "of raising taxes on the highest taxed people in the nation." While the tax would've raised $635 million to fund public services for senior citizens and the disabled, his override will "increase taxes on seniors while cutting them for the wealthy." He is also backing a cap on property taxes that would force the state to further slash vital services.

As Ryan McNeely noted this is Why Conservatives Love Chris Christie:

The conservative movement is enamored with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, calling him the next Reagan and suggesting that he run for President in 2012. And in fact, though former Gov. Corzine was very unpopular, Christie managed to pick up the governorship of my home state while maintaining orthodox conservative views — no small feat in a state that went for Barack Obama by over 15 points.

So why do conservatives have Christie-mania? Probably because he puts the interests of multi-millionaires ahead of the well-being of low-income seniors.

Hannity just proved his point during this interview, begging him to think about running for President.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1842)

PLAYS: (8037)

Embed

Jebus. Marsha Blackburn won't pull back from the fear mongering on "death panels" and it's even too much for Joe Scarborough to take. Blackburn actually says " but to have that heavy, long arm of the Federal government reach into something that is a very, very personal, personal decision is distasteful to me, and I think it is distasteful to our nation's seniors".

I've got two words for you Marsha. Terri Schiavo.

DOWNLOADS: (1682)

PLAYS: (5104)

Embed

Greta Van Susteren asks Michael Steele the question that should be asked of Republicans every time they claim they really care about "reforming" health care/insurance. Why didn't your reform it when you had control of the House, the Senate and the White House? Of course she forgets that we did get the Republicans idea of health care reform when they were in charge, with the giveaway to the big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what is this "bill of rights" that you've unleashed? And -- well, let me just start there. What is this "bill of rights"?

STEELE: Well, the "bill of rights" is really kind of a placeholder as we begin the fall discussion on health care. We watched at the beginning of the spring and summer the administration say we were going to have a health care bill by July 31 with no real input or discussion by the American people, let alone the Republican members of Congress. They were going to try to get it done by then. We raised some concerns and we talked a little bit more about it and laid out clearly what we thought we should be doing.

Town halls began to take place as citizens began to get ahold of it. And in the process of this discussion, the one thing that struck me that was being left behind was our seniors. When the administration's kind of slipped out there the idea of cutting $500 billion from the Medicare program with no indication of whether that's going to be cutting waste or if that's going to be cutting the substance of programs or what that was, I thought it would be appropriate to put a placemaker out here to very clearly delineate what we should be doing and how we should be doing it on behalf of the seniors as we begin this debate in the fall.

So I wanted to lay out about six principles that kind of talked about the -- you know, the doctor-patient relationship, the role of government, the decision-making process involving seniors or their caregivers, and I wanted to be as fairly clear as I could about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, but this -- so this is not an exact answer to the 1,500-page bill that the Democrats have put forward. This is sort of just your principles of how you and the Republican Party would like to see things proceed, so just broad-based principles, right?

STEELE: It's broad-based principles and -- and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate will come back with the legislative, you know, bills and amendments to the HR 3200 or whichever bill the House and Senate are going to be working on, to put into law those guidelines or those protections, if you will, for our seniors.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are the Republicans sort of sitting back, waiting to see what the Democratic bill is so they can then punch some holes in it or rewrite it, or are they -- or are they writing their own, saying, Look, scrap the Democrats. This is the bill we should have.

STEELE: Well, I think -- well, this is -- that's a very good question, Greta, and I'll tell you why, because between the House and the Senate, there have been over 800 pieces of legislation and amendments to various bills introduced by Democrats in the House and the Senate that have been rejected outright. So they've tried that, writing the bill, if you will, or putting their input into the documents that have been produced, and it has all been rejected.

So I think in this instance, what I thought was, Let's put a placemarker in place, then let's just follow back up. And now that the rhetoric has heated up from the American people, maybe the House leadership will pay attention to what Republicans want to put on the table because, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all this conversation about all bipartisanship and bipartisanship that, when, in fact, the House and Senate leadership are not doing anything to bring Republicans to the table in any meaningful way, and the president is giving lip service to this idea, when he's not encouraging, and in fact, demanding that we work together in bipartisan fashion on this problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I understand that a lot of Republicans want reform. In fact, most have said some reform is needed. I understand that they don't like the public option, or the government option. I understand that they say there's no bipartisanship. But can you sort of, you know -- you know, bring me in on the secret why the Republicans didn't do health care reform when they owned the House, the Senate and the White House? Do you have any idea?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1880)

PLAYS: (10099)

Embed

Lawrence O'Donnell actually uses the "L" word with Rep. John Culberson. This is the end of an over ten minute segment where O'Donnell continually asks Culberson whether he would have voted for Social Security and for Medicare and Culberson gets mad at him for interrupting him, which he does. He interrupts him though because he's trying to avoid giving him a straight answer to his questions.

After finally getting Culberson to admit that he would have voted for both Social Security and Medicare, O'Donnell calls him out for the fear mongering done by Republicans on the issue of health care reform, and tells him they're lying to the American people every time they demonize socialized medicine, but refuse to vote to repeal Medicare.

Culberson obviously wasn't too happy with O'Donnell for both the interrupting or for calling him a liar. His retreat was to attack MSNBC and say no one watches them, and go on the defensive about being called a liar and say that O'Donnell doesn't know him personally.

I hate to break this to you Congressman, but he doesn't have to know you personally to watch you and the rest of the Republicans fear mongering about socialized medicine. Culberson then goes on to prove O'Donnell's point.... by attacking government run health care and more fear mongering.

You can watch the entire exchange at MSNBC's web site.

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (482)

Embed

Marsha Blackburn takes Ed's Psycho talk prize for the day with her fear mongering over Medicare.

SCHULTZ: Oh, it's "Psycho Talk" time tonight.

It's kind of hard to be picking these psycho talkers these days because there's so much material out there. You know, these lies they've been spreading in the Republican Party about health care reform.

Today it's Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She's a dandy. She takes the "Psycho Talk" prize with her fear mongering over Medicare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKBURN: I think that people want to be certain that they don't end up with a bureaucrat in the exam room between them and their physician. Our seniors are saying, look, don't diminish Medicare. We have been paying into Medicare. That is prepaid for us. It's been coming out of our paycheck for 40 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: A bureaucrat in the exam room? Can we get some videotape of that? Oh, wouldn't that be something?

Now, this is the same mad Marsha who said last month, we're not going to try emergency every time we have a Katrina or every time we have a tsunami. And she wants us to believe that she's campaigning against health care reform because she cares about people? She cares about keeping her top campaign contributor happy, that's what she cares about. That's the health care industry, of course.

Republicans campaigned against Medicare, did they not, for years? They called it socialized medicine. They tried to kill it at every opportunity they had. And now they're pretending that, oh, we're on the side of the seniors.

They're against reform that will cut costs for everyone. They're against reform that will close the doughnut hole on prescription drug coverage for seniors.

And oh, Congresswoman Blackburn from Tennessee, for lying about Medicare and playing the fear card, you're guilty of pandering misinformed, cowardly "Psycho Talk."

DOWNLOADS: (1250)

PLAYS: (3804)

Embed

Rachel Maddow talks to the AARP's John Rother about the fear mongering astroturf ad campaigns targeted specifically to scare the hell out of seniors on health care reform.

BARACK OBAMA: The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't-it's too expensive to let her live anymore. I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera.

The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican then-House member, now-senator named Johnny Isakson from Georgia who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people's options. And somehow, it's gotten spun into this idea of death panels. I am not in favor of that. So just-I want to-I want to-I want to clear the air here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Also, the president would like to make clear that he is not in favor of rubbing chewing gum into everyone's hair, nor is he in favor of forced sex changes, nor is he in favor of making everyone wear nude-colored panty hose on their hands like mittens all year around just for the pure inconvenience of it all. He'd like to make that clear.

What's being called a debate about health care policy right now is so far from an actual debate about health care policy that the charge from his critics that the president of the United States has to rebut in public is whether or not he wants health care reform because he secretly wants to kill all of the old people. And apparently he doesn't.

As we've discussed before, the health care reform is a secret plot to kill old people rumor was started by a woman named Betsy McCaughey. She is the person who in "The New York Post" and on right-wing talk radio first promulgated this idea that Medicare covering consultations about living wills is secretly the murder of the elderly.

Continue reading »