Home Blog Page 2839

Mitt Romney Embraces Ryan Plan to Destroy Medicare, Jack Up Costs to Seniors

1



According to PolitiFact, “the idea that the Paul Ryan budget proposal would ‘privatize Medicare’ is Mostly True.” According to Time Magazine, “If Ryan’s plan is adopted as is – and it won’t be – absent an individual mandate but with guaranteed issue and community rating, private insurance prices in the individual and small-group market would go through the roof. This would lead to more uninsured Americans.” An analysis by the Chairman’s Staff of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate finds that under Ryan’s plan, “Health Care Expenditures Would Double for Elderly in Every State.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that “seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets – or more than $12,510 a year.” Ouch. Finally, as the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains, under the Ryan Plan:

rising health care costs will quickly make a Medicare equivalent plan unaffordable to most beneficiaries. Also, since costs rise as beneficiaries age, a Medicare equivalent plan will become less affordable to the same beneficiary as she gets older. Finally, this plan implies a huge transfer of income from beneficiaries to health care providers and insurers, since the cost of delivering the same quality care will be substantially higher under Representative Ryan’s plan than under the existing Medicare system.

That’s what Mitt Romney is strongly embracing, in his desperate (pathetic) attempt to beat back Newt Gingrich. Every senior citizen in America needs to know this, as does everyone who’s currently counting on receiving Medicare when they retire. And, needless to say, none of those people should vote for Mitt Romney.

Former Reagan Senior Policy Analyst Puts 100% of Blame for Economy on “Crazy” Republicans

4

First, let’s set the stage for the following quote by Bruce Bartlett by ticking off a few items on Bartlett’s resume: 1) worked for libertarian Ron Paul; 2) worked for supply sider Jack Kemp, including “helping to draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which ultimately formed the basis of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut;” 3) worked as a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation; 4) served as a senior policy analyst in the Reagan Administration Office of Policy Development, as well as “deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department, where he served until the end of the administration of George H.W. Bush;” 5) worked at the Cato Institute and then the “National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank based in Dallas, Texas.”  Bottom line: Bartlett’s conservative economic credentials are impeccable, unassailable, you name it. With that in mind, here are his thoughts on who’s at fault for the U.S. economy:

“Basically we’re still stuck in the situation we were three years ago and we haven’t made any progress at all except that our problems are much worse because of political reasons, because we now have a crazy party in charge of one of the Houses of our Congress and they won’t allow anything to happen because it’s in their vested interest to make things worse,” Bartlett explained in his typically exasperated way. “Plus they have a theory that is completely nuts…. I’m very depressed. I’d love to see some program like this [paper] enacted. I see zero chance of it happening. The most we can hope for is that a complete crazy person like Newt Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, the Republicans lose so badly that they lose control of the House and don’t get control of the Senate and then maybe in a year we can finally talk about doing something rational such as what is discussed in this paper.”

When people with sterling Republican and conservative credentials start agreeing with we’ve been saying in the progressive blogosphere for the past 3 years, you really have a clear choice: trust Boehner/Cantor/Gingrich/Romney/Perry/Norquist; or open your eyes, look at the empirical evidence yourself, and realize that Bartlett’s calling things exactly as they are. It’s not a tough choice.

Newt Gingrich’s Poisonous Memo from 1995

2

Newt Gringrich played a pivotal role in making American politics more vicious, less honest, more destructive. Here, from a memorandum he circulated to freshmen members of Congress back in 1995, shortly after his Gingrich Revolution succeeded in taking over the House, is an illustration.  It’s Gingrich’s advice about “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.”

To his fellow Republicans, newly crowned Speaker Gingrich provided this instruction about how to talk about the “Us” versus how to talk about the “Them.”

***********

Gingrich wrote:

“Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the pos[i]tive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide, liberty, commitment, principle(d), unique, duty, precious, premise, care(ing), tough, listen, learn, help, lead, vision, success, empower(ment), citizen, activist, mobilize, conflict, light, dream, freedom, peace, rights, pioneer, proud/pride, building, preserve, pro-(issue): flag, children, environment; reform, workfare, eliminate good-time in prison, strength, choice/choose, fair, protect, confident, incentive, hard work, initiative, common sense, passionate

“Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay, failure (fail) collapse(ing) deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, “compassion” is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocrisy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive attitude, destructive, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs; pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandate(s) taxes, spend (ing) shame, disgrace, punish (poor…) bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, patronage.”

That was Gingrich. Here again am I:

Note, there was no concern about whether the words would fit any given person or idea of program from the side of the opponent. Language would simply be used as a weapon, without regard to truth or fairness. A tool of propaganda.

And if he was interested in a “Key Mechanism of Control,” just what was he seeking to “control”? It would seem to be the American people.

Control them. Not SERVE them.

*****************

Andy Schmookler is running for Congress in the 6th Congressional District of Virginia, challenging the incumbent Congressman, Bob Goodlatte.  An award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, Andy moved with his family to Shenandoah County in 1992.  He is a graduate of Harvard University and holds a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley.  

***************************************

To learn more about Andy, please go to his website. You may also follow Andy on Facebook and on Twitter.  

Tax Credits for Getting Lost in Space?

6

Crossposted at ProgressVA.

When you’re a Republican lawmaker, and even the ultra-conservative, anti-immigrant blogger Black Velvet Bruce Lee says your legislation is a contender to be “dumbest bill of the year,” you know you’re in trouble. But that’s just what he said about Del. Terry Kilgore’s bill to provide up to $8,000 in tax credits for those who want to launch their cremated remains into space, and I’m inclined to agree.

Julian Walker at the Virginian-Pilot reports, “In a brief interview Thursday, Kilgore, R-Scott County, said he submitted the bill on behalf of commercial space flight advocates.” The astronomical idea to incentivize wealthy individuals who want to launch their cremated remains into the cosmos via a commercial space flight not only sounds outlandish, it’s also coming at a time when Virginia is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall.

Also, if Kilgore’s idea is to help Virginia gain ground in the commercial space industry by providing a tax credit for rich people who want to be buried in space, one small problem might be that burials at space aren’t even a service the space facility provides, or even plans to, Cory Nealon at the Daily Press reports.

So not only are ultra-conservatives calling it a dumb bill, but the tax credit it would create may not even be possible to use. Incentivizing through tax credits can be an effective way of bringing new business to Virginia, but credits to make the final frontier your final resting place is just too far out there.

In the face of the Commonwealth’s looming $1 billion deficit, Virginians need their representatives to be looking for realistic ways to raise revenue, but instead conservatives like Kilgore continue to put forward nonsensical tax credits.

Should Virginia Democrats Go Convention, Not Primary, in 2013?

15

( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

36 years later, will it be Back to the Future for Virginia Democrats, as they decide whether to do away with a primary and return to a convention process for picking their 2013 party ticket?

After liberal Henry Howell shocked the Democratic establishment by winning a seemingly impossible victory in the 1977 gubernatorial primary (he was down 20 points in a poll published the weekend before the voting), many party movers and shakers began arguing for a switch to a convention process.

The move away from a primary – the first time in Democratic party history – caused me to ultimately bring what turned out to be a seminal case under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I challenged the delegate allocation formula, proving it discriminated against inner city and rural Democrats. The party officials subjected me to the usual personal attacks, then their lawyers weighed in, only to learn that my legal analysis, while unprecedented, was accepted as the correct interpretation of the law. So party leaders cut an unprecedented deal with the DOJ, and agreed to my view of the right general allocation formula.

As luck would have it, four years later, the lawsuit amazingly played a key role in Doug Wilder making history for reasons discussed in Dwayne Yancey’s book When Hell Froze Over.  Of course, that only made them more abusive toward me, as the book points out. Yet ironically, in retrospect, using a convention process probably worked to Wilder’s advantage, all things considered, in terms of his historic breakthrough in 1985, which was strongly opposed by these same party leaders (as Dr. Sabato has pointed out)!  Go figure, right?

I recited the history to underscore this point: process changes can produce unintended consequences; politics is full of surprises.

 

Still, the reason to change the process in 2013 is not wholly unrelated to 1981. Back then, Lt. Governor Chuck Robb had no opposition for the party’s nomination for Governor. This meant any primary would feature low voter participation levels in any LG or AG race. Robb’s key advisors didn’t want another Howell liberal on the ticket, rather a more suburban friendly, moderate threesome imagewise. So they hand picked Dick Davis and Jerry Baliles to be Robb’s running mates. Dick was a super guy, the nicest man, and not really all that conservative either! He was from Tidewater, and Jerry a super smart lawyer from the Richmond area. With Robb trying to become the first Governor in the modern era from NOVA, it presented a balanced ticket of new faces, not connected to the Howell era.

Dick and Jerry were challenged in the convention process by two guys more identified with the Howell populist approach. But Davis and Baliles prevailed, with the help of Robb’s network and their superior political skills. When the Robb-Davis-Baliles ticket swept the state, the party forget about primaries and stayed with the new convention process, until the 1997 GOP sweep made Democratic leaders try something new, this time going back to the primary.

But it wasn’t until 2009 that Democrats had a gubernatorial primary. The results need no reiteration. Perhaps no Democrat could have been elected statewide that year. But this doesn’t alter a basic fact: Deeds won the primary easily, yet got crushed in the general. Would a convention process have picked a stronger nominee, perhaps one that would not have led the party to such a defeat? There is no way to know for sure. But my gut says Creigh couldn’t have won a convention process.

Personally, I believe primaries are more democratic than a party-run, insider convention process. On the other hand, the incredible cost of a primary, along with the realities of voter participation, caution against being blinded by rose-colored glasses. Accordingly, in terms of 2013, it may be that a convention process is actually the more democratic, given the political landscape where the rubber meets the road.

Indeed, without a battle at the top of the ticket, primary turnout will approach a record low in the modern era. Thus, in a multi-candidate field, a strong regional candidate, with little appeal elsewhere in the state, can win with far less than a majority. A true asset of a convention is that it requires a candidate to put together a majority coalition. Moreover, we have never had tried a convention process in the internet age.

Our new digital politics, at least in theory, seems to offer far more democracy than under previous conventions, while reducing the cost of a campaign, thus encouraging those outside the party inner circle to compete.

This is to say: It may be, upon reflection, an internet-driven Convention process could be an acceptable, even more democratic process as opposed to what is shaping up right now as a very low vote 2013 primary scenario. Moreover, the Davis vs. Baliles convention fight of 1985 was a wide-open battle that could have gone either way, a very competitive and democratic process. The fear that party insiders can control a 2013 convention in the Internet Age is surely even less a risk than 28 years ago.  

So what should it be, Convention or Primary in 2013?

It comes down to the heart vs. the head. I sued in 1981 because the primary process, compared to the change being proposed, was not only fairer, but the change championed violated the rights of the most loyal Democrats. But one has to always realize any process, in the end, is only as useful as the results it produces.

We want a fair, open process in 2013, which gives as many qualified candidates an opportunity to triumph on merit — which in politics includes the ability to ultimately win the general election. It is therefore not merely a philosophical question, but a practical one as well, and time specific too.

What was right in 1977 or 1981 or 2009 is not the end of the discussion, but rather the beginning.

At this point in time, I think an open mind on the question of Primary vs Convention makes the most sense for a sensible Democrat. I lean toward a primary. But I am willing to listen to the arguments for another process, since the right answer is not clear cut to me.

AG’s Office Politicizing the Abortion Regulation Process

0

Crossposted at ProgressVA.

Yesterday, ProgressVA reported on how Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will even further politicize his office by refusing to step down while running for in the Republican primary for Governor of Virginia. Today there is a prime example of how he has been doing it already.

The Virginia Coalition to Protect Women’s Health, which ProgressVA supports, called out Cuccinelli for using the office of the Attorney General to influence the regulatory process of women’s health clinics in order to, in effect, end a woman’s right to choose and access to safe and legal abortion services in the Commonwealth. The Coalition states,

“As a coalition of women’s health providers and advocates, we are shocked at the degree to which the McDonnell administration has chosen to ignore the recommendations of medical experts to push its own politicized agenda.

“Politics – not public health – is the driving force behind the regulations, which are clearly part of an unprecedented political campaign at the state and federal levels to undermine women’s access to safe, legal reproductive health care services.

“We are truly dismayed to learn of the state’s hypocrisy in convening a panel of medical professionals, and then rejecting their advice when it didn’t advance the state’s goal of shutting down abortion providers. Not only does this demonstrate that the Attorney General’s office has no regard for women’s constitutional right to reproductive choice, but it also shows disdain for the rulemaking process and disrespect for medical professionals who volunteered their time and expertise to uphold patient health.”

The Coalition is speaking out against the regulations today at a State Board of Health meeting in Richmond. As a result of Cuccinelli politicizing the process that resulted in the restrictive regulations, the Coalition is calling on Governor McDonnell to reject them. Virginians deserve regulations that genuinely prioritized the health of Virginia’s women, and that are not influenced by the ideological beliefs of Ken Cuccinelli.

Video: Omar Samaha Shares His Thoughts on Virginia Tech Shootings

0

Omar Samaha’s 18-year-old sister Reema was killed in the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16, 2007. He talked with Gary Nurenberg about his experience then and on Dec. 9, 2011.

Among other things, Samaha asks, “We learned so much because of April 16…so why are we not taking those lessons now and turning them into laws and policies and regulations to try and prevent this from happening again?”  Good question. Any good answer(s)?

Clarence Thomas’ Wife Embraces The Nuttiest Climate Science Denier

4

Lord Monckton confronted by youth climate change activistsGinni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, does weekly video conversations with some of the most extreme voices in conservative politics for the website The Daily Caller. I wouldn’t even describe her guests as Republicans – most are from the extreme conservative fringe, well outside the party mainstream. And they’re not interviews – the website describes them as “sit downs” and Thomas doesn’t hide her full political support (“What can people do who believe in what you are saying?”).

One of Thomas’ most recent fawning videos was with infamous science denier Lord Christopher Monckton. Revealingly, Monckton doesn’t just deny climate science – he denies President Obama was born in the United States. Monckton has also called American climate activists “Hitler Youth.” He had to be admonished to stop falsely claiming to be a member of Britain’s House of Lords. And if all that wasn’t enough, Monckton believes people with HIV should be quarantined.

It’s telling how Thomas introduces the session.  

The left despises Lord Christopher Monckton,” she writes. No need to start with scientific credentials or the public good – right to bare-knuckled politics. While Thomas is clearly trying to ingratiate Monckton with her audience that despises the left, the statement simply isn’t true. I love Lord Monckton! He’s my favorite climate science denier! What better face of the movement of wealthy polluters trying to protect their reign over our land, air & water than this upper-class twit?

But Thomas’s ridiculous source for climate propaganda comes into more serious question when you consider that Justice Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito are the final two holdouts on the Supreme Court still refusing to accept climate science or carbon regulations under the Clean Air Act. This puts Justice Thomas to the far right, beyond even Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia. If Lord Monckton’s considered a credible climate voice, it’s no wonder the Thomases are so misinformed.

Here you might be asking, but shouldn’t a Supreme Court justice’s spouse be allowed his or her own career? Unfortunately, Ginni and Clarence have repeatedly proven an inability to separate their personal & professional lives:

  • Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore in 2000 even though Ginni was working at the conservative Heritage Foundation gathering resumes for appointments in a possible Bush administration
  • Common Cause revealed Justice Thomas failed to disclose nearly $700,000 of Ginni’s Heritage Foundation income on Supreme Court reporting forms, prompting House Democrats to call for an investigation
  • After quitting Heritage, Ginni formed her own consulting firm, “So you can hire Ginni Thomas to help determine whether a bill will pass constitutional muster if it comes before, you know, her husband,” as Slate’s Dave Weigel put it

Can you imagine what Glenn Beck would’ve done to the Thomases if they were liberal? He’d have needed a second chalkboard to diagram all that.

Above and beyond climate change, I was blown away Thomas asking Lord Monckton, “How are today’s politicians transferring real legislative power away from the consent of the governed as laid out by our founders?” If the Founding Fathers heard someone asking a hereditarily-titled British aristocrat for advice on how to run America’s government, they’d urge that person to take the next loyalist boat back to George III’s kingdom.

Cross-posted from The Green Miles

Virginia News Headlines: Friday Morning

3

Here are a few Virginia news headlines for Friday, December 9. Oh, and and check out the early White House Happy Hanukkah celebration (the holiday begins this year at sundown on December 20).

*Keep federal pay freeze out of payroll tax extension, senators say (Thank you Senators Warner and Webb!)

*Why Kaine won the debate (“1) Allen has little fiscal credibility to launch critiques on the Obama agenda because of his own voting record. 2) Allen is more partisan and represents the politics of division, whereas Kaine represents balance who will play well with others.”)

*Slain Virginia Tech officer identified

*’12 Senate Race Will Be a Slugfest

*Va. Senate battle produces more million-dollar races

*Ward Armstrong ponders a move – to Richmond (If Ward DOES move to Richmond, then he has one less excuse for being a DINO.)

*McDonnell proposes spending more money on transportation, but without raising taxes (Utter charade. No vision + no money = no progress on transportation. Nice job, Bob! Also, the Washington Post agrees.)

*Cuccinelli: Metrorail could hit funding snag (“Cuccinelli’s position stands in contrast to that of Gov. Bob McDonnell”)

*Allen: Kaine not serious about wooing tea partyers

*Cuccinelli, a future gubernatorial rival, defends Bolling in lawsuit

*Occupiers give McDonnell raucous reception in Norfolk

*Warner introduces bill to aid start-ups

*Va. trooper is shot on I-95

*Va. Tech says there is no longer a threat on campus, says normal activities can resume

*Campus seeks answers after Virginia Tech officer is killed

*Mitt Romney dips into Richmond for closed, private, high-dollar fundraiser

*Allen visits Va. Beach to work for votes, raise cash

*Fairfax wants to curb campaign signs

*Metrorail ridership falters as subways chart growth

*Smithfield agrees to end use of gestation crates by 2017

*Bill: Send your ashes to space, get a tax break (What on EARTH? Get it? Earth? Space? Heh.)