Blog Archives

If Romney ever told the truth we could all go back to bed…

From Bob Cesca in The Daily Banter:

A couple of months ago in Arizona, Mitt Romney attacked the president on this topic with a whopper lie: “He said he’d cut the deficit in half. He’s doubled it. He’s doubled it.”

Mitt Romney actually said that. Well, no, the president didn’t cut the deficit in half. And he hasn’t doubled it. Obviously. Romney lied again. Actually, the president is on course to erasing the entire deficit by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The 2017 budget deficit, which will reflect President Obama’s final spending requests (a similar dynamic to Bush’s last deficit of 2009), could end up being zero.

Conversely, the Tax Policy Center reported that the Romney tax plan would explode the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over ten years. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the reversal of the president’s deficit cutting policies like the Affordable Care Act, or another recession, or whatever Romney decides to do in Iran.

Romney is either incapable of telling the truth, or he has no intelligence to evaluate the numbers showing how things really are. Or… he is under the thumb of the not-running Republican managers and Super Pacs that are spending millions to show Obama in a false light.

It’s up to all of us to make sure the REAL TRUTH gets out and that Karl Rove,  Ricketts, The Koch Brothers and all their rich buddies are dipped in wax and burned like candles.

Do not, PLEASE, do not just ignore them and let it rest. Even if you are upset with SOME things Obama has done, who do you think is more likely to change over the next four years? Republicans?

Not a chance.

The reason I like E. J. Dionne:

Some excerpts on his commentary on the Supreme Court vs. the Health Care legislation:

Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?

It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.

The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.

…a court that gave us Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.

See what I mean. Clear and concise with an ability to combine seriousness with humor. After all, we have to live with this stuff.

Read the whole column HERE.

And what are the main complaints the Repiglicants have concerning the Affordable Care Act

In an article called “More good news about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): CBO says it will save money“, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub (a great blog, btw) brings one of the most important results of “Obamacare” to plain view: The Congressional Budget Office shows it will save money:

Remember, without the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. was experiencing health care cost inflation of about 15%annually.

You might not know it if you read conservative blogs, watch Fox News, or listen to the Republican candidates for president — all of whom seem to have their fact panties on wrong — but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the bill will reduce federal spending, still, even after accounting for recent changes in law and changes in the economy that will increase costs of the bill’s provisions.

Yeah, Obamacare saves money.

The new law will  not eliminate the problem of people not having insurance coverage to guarantee access to health care, a sad result of Republican efforts to cut the bill’s effectiveness.  But it’s a great first step to making America better, healthier, and economically more sound.

I guess you haven’t heard about the savings of the ACA from the garbage the Repiglicants are spreading in their goal to have the Supreme Court tear it down.

Now, certainly, the ACA could have been better… it could have been a single payer program which would have wiped the greed of insurance companies off the dish, leaving us with security for all.

Perhaps this could happen in a second Obama term. If he doesn’t make it in… if the Dems don’t retake the House and hold onto the Senate, we’ll probably never know.

If you’re an aging diabetic like me, with an increasing dependance on Medicare and, possibly, Medicaid, you will have a certain view of the efforts to kill ACA. If you are not, or are not related to someone who is, consider yourself very lucky (and probably in the minority.)

2 Quotes for the Morning – both about the Unreality of John Boehner’s economic views.

The Orange Cryer has Flipped!

If you heard the Speaker make hos speech the other day then you know he is insisting on spending cuts before the debt ceiling can be raised. He is also pushing the classic Republican point of view on cutting taxes on the rich because they will invest in American jobs. Of course they haven’t in the last couple of years as their taxes were slashed.

Perhaps Boehner is not aware that the “trickle-down theory” didn’t work for Reagan or either one of the Bushes. Republicans have limited historic vision… primarily because it is the multimillionaires that provide their funds.

As James Rowley and Mike Dorning said on Bloomberg this morning:

“Boehner’s statement in his Wall Street speech that government spending ‘is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital’ runs counter to the behavior of credit markets… Boehner also said the 2009 stimulus program ‘hampered job creation in our country,’ a view at odds with the Congressional Budget Office‘s findings last August. The stimulus package increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million and cut unemployment by between 0.7 percentage point and 1.8 percentage point, according to CBO.”

And Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post said:

“Even more alarming, because it has consequences beyond the debt-ceiling debate, is the incoherent, impervious-to-facts economic philosophy undergirding Boehner’s remarks.”

I suppose this means that, as long as we have Boehner sitting with his historical misinformation, we will have one hell of a time straightening out our economy.

Here’s something I agree with 100% – but it won’t happen.

I picked this up over at BuzzFlash:

Let Congress Test Out Paul Ryan‘s Medicare Plan on Themselves and Their Families: That Would Kill It Right Quick

by MARK KARLIN, EDITOR FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why is this man smiling?

If the politicians in DC are so serious about deficit reduction, then why don’t they start by cutting their own pay, health care benefits and pensions?

Doesn’t budget control begin at home?

And if Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is so terrific, why don’t Ryan and other Congressional supporters of his budget immediately pass a bill that will replace their health care benefits with the Ryan plan?

In fact, why not run a test program with the Koch brothers, members of their Americans for Prosperity and elderly Tea Party supporters? All of them should volunteer to immediately go on the Ryan Medicare, drastically limited “voucher program” – which would leave a high percentage of seniors unable to afford medical insurance – as sort of a test model of Ryan’s plans for privatizing and shrinking Medicare.

Then we can see the actual results of a plan that would raise health care costs by adding the profits of corporations and administrative costs to Medicare, while drastically reducing benefits due to the small amount of money allocated to vouchers for each senior – and the for-profit insurance industry profit motivation to deny as much care as possible.

If Ryan is the “visionary” much of the corporate media makes him out to be, let Americans see his “vision” actualized by a trial implementation of his proposed program.

Let Ryan be the first volunteer, after he cuts his pay, pension and other Congressional benefits.

So what do you think? Any chance Ryan and his buddies will take Mark Karlin up on this one?

Yeah… you bet.

So let’s see…the Republicans want to cut the deficit, but they also want t0 repeal Health Care at a deficit cost of $230 Billion…

The Congressional Budget Office, which is not affiliated with either Party, released a report today on the effects that repeal of the Health Care law will be a major deficit pig.

This from HuffPo:

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON — Repealing health care reform will add $230 billion to the deficit over the next decade, leave 32 million fewer people with insurance and lead to higher costs for those who are covered, the Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Thursday.
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf elaborated on the analysis in a blog post:

“As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.”

blog it

Here’s an Article by Art Perlo…

…picked up from John Case’s socialist-economics mailing group:

People before Profits: Sound bites about jobs

In my home state of Connecticut, I am bombarded with ads from businesswoman Linda McMahon. She has already spent over $24 million of her huge fortune in an effort to capture Connecticut’s open Senate seat. McMahon’s rhetoric echoes fellow Republicans around the country who say: “Government doesn’t create jobs. Small business creates jobs. Cut job-killing government spending. And Cancel the stimulus.”

This article will examine some of these sound bytes.

When does small business creates jobs?

The Republicans are fond of saying that small business creates 70 percent of all jobs. They don’t tell you that small business is also responsible for 70 percent of all layoffs. That’s the nature of small
business. They start up and go out of business all the time.

When businesses, small or large, hire more workers they have more customers. If customers are cutting back, business cuts back. It’s that simple.

Don’t take my word for it. The National Federation of Independent Business asked its members, “What is your single most important problem?” The answer was not taxes, not unions, not labor, not government red tape. The biggest problem for small business is poor sales — not enough customers! And there are no customers because we are all broke, unemployed, drowning in mortgage and credit card debt.

When union’s workers are able to win higher wages, their income flows back into the local economy. Yes, unions are good for small, local business!

But the fastest way to create jobs in the private sector is to increase government spending.

Unemployment compensation, food stamps and other safety net programs are immediately spent at the local supermarket, gas station, and other businesses. A study by the Congressional Budget Office found this kind of government spending among the most effective in creating jobs!

Government spending on infrastructure, education, and medical care helps the businesses that supply these industries. And government workers’ paychecks are also spent supporting businesses in the local and national economy.

McMahon and Republicans are against government spending and against unions. So they are really against small business and small business job creation.

Is government spending evil?

McMahon’s TV ads say, “Cut job-killing government spending.” This makes no sense at all. Almost every dollar spent by the government creates jobs.

The federal, state or local governments directly employ more than one of every six workers at 17 percent. And for every worker with a government paycheck, another worker is employed by a private business selling supplies or services to the government, or providing the things the workers buy with their paychecks.

Since January 2009, the economic crisis has caused state and local governments to cut employment by 397,000. Without the federal funds provided by the stimulus, those job losses would have been more than double. McMahon and the Republicans want to cut the stimulus, throwing hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters out of work, and forcing states and cities to raise taxes or cut services.

Job-killing deficits?

The final piece of economic nonsense is the claim that eliminating the federal deficit is the biggest priority, and that deep spending cuts will somehow help the economy. Most of the media accept this as self-evident. But it is wrong.

Linda McMahon, like most Republican candidates, refuses to say what programs she would cut to eliminate the deficit. But The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that the Republican plan to cut the Federal budget to 2008 levels would force a 20 percent reduction in
non-defense discretionary spending. Biomedical research would be crippled. Local schools, already hard hit, would see federal funds disappear. Local taxes would rise. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear. The Republican plan could easily throw the economy back into the free fall that President Obama inherited in January 2009.

Deficits don’t kill jobs. Spending cuts kill jobs.

Creating Jobs

McMahon actually supports two big budget-busters: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich. But the biggest cause of the deficit is the recession itself — unemployed workers and closed businesses don’t pay taxes. Spending for necessary, productive purposes today will help revive the economy and make it possible to cut deficits in the future.

Between two and five million people have jobs or increased hours today because of the stimulus bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But stimulus funds are running out, and those jobs will start to disappear in the next months. The best hope for jobs, both public and private sector, is extending and increasing stimulus measures. Enacting President Obama’s $50 billion infrastructure proposal, and the Local Jobs for America Act which funds state and local governments, would be important first steps. That won’t be possible if Republicans like Linda McMahon, with their job-killing priorities, win in November.