..................................................................................................................................
Dear President Obama: don't cave to the GOP's extortion politics
The shutdown is political blackmail. If Democrats give in, the GOP will keep putting the US democracy and economy at risk
By Michael Cohen, October 6, 2013
To a casual observer of American politics the ongoing government shutdown and prospect of a cataclysmic debt default in the next two weeks may look like just another round of "DC dysfunction" between two parties hopelessly polarized and ideologically divided. It's not.
While the government shutdown is nominally about the Republican crusade against Obamacare, the issues at stake are far bigger than one law or even one president or one Congress. In reality, the psychodrama playing out in Washington is about the future of democracy in America.
And no, I'm not exaggerating. Unless the GOP's brand of extortion politics is thwarted, America's democratic institutions will be so badly subverted that the nation will simply find itself in the position of staggering from one manufactured crisis to another with potentially both political parties threatening economic and political Armageddon if they don't get their way. That is, quite simply, no way to run a democracy and it's why the only option facing President Obama and the Democratic party is to win this showdown and force the GOP to concede defeat.
It's important to understand at the outset that US democracy, for all of it many flaws, is one based on the idea of political compromise. In a system with so many obstacles to legislative outcomes – two houses of Congress, a separate executive branch and tons of minor obstruction points in each institution – there really is no other way to get things done.
That has dramatically changed in just the past few years. It's not that compromise was always achievable in the past (the failure to break the Southern block on civil rights legislation is an obvious example), it's that the search for common ground has simply been thrown asunder, replaced instead by extortion politics.
For example, traditionally, raising the debt limit has been something of a pro forma exercise in Congress, done multiple times (sometimes begrudgingly) to ensure that the federal government can continue to issue debt and thus pay its obligations. But beginning in 2011, the Republican party came to see the debt limit as a tool for what they could not accomplish either at the ballot box or through the legislative process – namely an instrument for political blackmail.
The result was a set of protracted negotiations between Congress and the White House in the summer of 2011, all conducted with the prospect of debt default (which would occur if the debt limit was not raised) hanging over the head of official Washington.
The result was the Budget Control Act, a pernicious piece of legislation that trimmed the federal budget by billions of dollars and led to sequestration – a set of mandatory spending cuts that has hamstrung the economic recovery and caused untold and unnecessary distress for millions of Americans. Unsatisfied with just that policy outcome, Republicans are now upping the ante – and using not just the debt limit but also the budget to get their way.
Once upon a time, government shutdowns occurred because both parties could not agree on budgetary priorities. Ironically, that isn't even the issue today as both sides have agreed on the basic parameters of a continuing resolution to fund the US government. Rather this is about Obamacare, which Republicans have been unable to thwart though the legal, elective or legislative process (and satisfy their goal of denying healthcare coverage to millions of Americans). So now Republicans are holding the federal government as a hostage to get Democrats to agree to any possible concession that would weaken Obamacare.
First their goal was fully defunding the legislation; then it was delaying it a year; now it appears to be repealing certain parts of the bill, including the employer subsidies for their own congressional employees' health care coverage (because nothing says compassionate conservatism like screwing over your own employees to make a political point).
But the GOP brinkmanship over Obamacare is nothing compared to what they are asking for this year in return for raising the debt limit. Unlike 2011, when they were demanding a dramatic reduction in government spending, they are now insisting on the full implementation of their policy agenda.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
Here are the GOP's demands for extending the nation's debt limit and preventing an economic catastrophe that would derail the fragile US recovery, likely spark a recession and fundamentally weaken America's economic competitiveness and in turn, national security:
One year debt limit increase
-Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014 (similar to what we did earlier this year).
-Want the year-long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.
One year Obamacare delay
Tax reform instructions
-Similar to a bill we passed last fall, laying out broad from Ryan Budget principles for what tax reform should look like.
-Gives fast track authority for tax reform legislation.
Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth
-Includes pretty much every jobs bill we have passed this year and last Congress
-All of these policies have important positive economic effects.
-Energy provisions: Keystone Pipeline, Coal Ash regulations, Offshore drilling, Energy production on federal lands, EPA Carbon regulations
-Regulatory reform: REINS Act, Regulatory process reform, Consent decree reform, Blocking Net Neutrality
Mandatory spending reforms
-Mostly from the sequester replacement bills we passed last year
-Federal Employee retirement reform
-Ending the Dodd-Frank bailout fund
-Transitioning CFPB funding to Appropriations
-Child Tax Credit Reform to prevent fraud
-Repealing the Social Services Block grant
Health spending reforms
-Means testing Medicare
-Repealing a Medicaid provider tax gimmick
-Tort reform
-Altering disproportion share hospitals
-Repealing the Public Health trust Fund
As Jonathan Chait points out, this is basically Mitt Romney's economic agenda. If that name doesn't ring a bell, Romney is the Republican presidential candidate who lost last year's presidential election by around 5 million votes. What Republicans are doing here is basically saying to the president (the guy who won by 5 million votes) "implement our policy agenda or we will cause a catastrophic debt default".
That isn't governing. It isn't democracy. It's a shakedown.
That Republicans would even risk the possibility of default to get their way should, in an ideal world (or at least one in which Americans paid more than passing attention to their government), invalidate their credentials as a political party.
Since that's unlikely to happen, the only appropriate course of action for President Obama and the Democrats to take is not simply to resist the Republican's ransom demands, but, in fact, to force them to cave in and pass a clean debt limit extension.
If they don't, Republicans will do it over and over and over again. Just as they are doing it again right now after they got a quarter loaf from the president in 2011. Moreover, what reason would there be for Republicans to ever moderate their politics? They wouldn't even need to win presidential elections. As long as they could hold on to their majority in the House (a majority lubricated by gerrymandered and polarized districts that encourage Republicans to take even more radical positions to appeal to their conservative supporters), they could simply hold the country hostage every couple of years to get their way.
This debate is not your garden-variety political crisis. It's the battle for the long-term viability of American democracy, and it's a battle that the Democrats simply must win even if it means risking default.
And no, I'm not exaggerating.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, October 7, 2013
That's just great... politicians reap windfalls while federal workers go without their paychecks
..................................................................................................................................
As workers wait, shutdown bolsters political profits
By Sara Kugler, October 6, 2013
As workers wait, shutdown bolsters political profits
By Sara Kugler, October 6, 2013
Six days into the shutdown with no clear end in sight, federal workers are trying to figure out how to make ends meet while not receiving a paycheck. Lawmakers are trying to figure out how to score a political win. And the American public are feeling the effects of losing essential government services, but aren’t quite sure who’s at fault. A CBS poll this week found that 44% of Americans blame Republicans for the shutdown, a greater percentage than blame Democrats–but still less than half the country.
On Saturday’s Melissa Harris-Perry, the panel of guests was quite clear about who should shoulder the blame for the shutdown fiasco.
“What’s the rule when you have a hostage situation?” asked NBC Latino contributor Raul Reyes on Saturday. “[The rule is] drop the gun and then we will talk.”
Reyes criticized House Republicans for calling for negotiations on the budget while still holding as collateral their ability to keep the government closed. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Luke Russert told host Melissa Harris-Perry that the government is unlikely to be re-opened for at least another week.
With little impetus on either side to back down, Russert sees what is happening now as a battle over messaging rather than specific terms of negotiations. Republicans have been introducing piecemeal bills selectively funding parts of government, a tactic Russert says is intended to put Democrats on their heels, and give Republicans talking points for campaign ads in competitive districts.
President Obama has made it clear he will reject all piecemeal spending bills. The Office of Management and Budget said in a statement that “consideration of appropriations bills in this fashion is not a serious or responsible way to run the United States government. Instead of opening up a few Government functions, the House of Representatives should re-open all of the government.”
But there is one bill that the White House has signaled President Obama would sign. The House today voted unanimously to approve retroactive pay for furloughed federal workers. The bill now heads to the Senate, but NBC News reports it is unlikely they will act on it Saturday.
House Democrats, led by Maryland delegate Chris Van Hollen and California delegate George Miller, are considering using the procedural “discharge petition” to force a vote on a clean Continuing Resolution, with reports of around 20 Republicans in the House who would vote for it. However, that procedure includes a 30-day waiting period, which wouldn’t allow the government to re-open until November. Barring the success of that plan, there seem to be few other options to end the shutdown, as internal conflict among Republicans has prevented them from considering the clean CR approved by the Senate more than a month ago.
While they wait for Washington to figure it out, some programs slated to be shut down have found ways to temporarily extend their services. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC, is using contingency funds from the Department of Agriculture combined with other funds to extend their work through the end of the month. Over half of all infants born in the United States benefit from food provided by WIC.
Conversely, Democrats and Republicans can agree on one aspect of the shutdown–it has been a successful agent for party fundraising. The DNC raised close to $850,000 in the day leading up to the shutdown, and the RNC brought in $1 million in the shutdown’s first three days. “When it comes to fundraising, losing is winning,” said syndicated columnist Bob Franken.
..................................................................................................................................Cornyn said, “yeah, we ought to legislate.” Haven't we been TELLING you that?
..................................................................................................................................
Republicans to block quick passage of back-pay bill
By Ted Barrett, October 7, 2013
Quick passage of a bill to provide back-pay to furloughed federal workers appeared in doubt on Monday when the No. 2 Senate Republican said it’s not time to address that issue right now.
“I think it’s really premature to be dealing with that until we resolve the underlying problem,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “We’ve offered a number of bills to try to alleviate some of the hardship and they’ve been swatted down out of hand.”
Cornyn said he didn’t expect Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring it to the floor because of GOP objections.
The House unanimously passed a bill on Saturday to provide back pay to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees impacted by the government shutdown, and the White House said it supported it.
In past shutdowns, Congress routinely approved similar measures.
“There is no sense of urgency for us to do it. The federal government is shut down,” said Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican of North Carolina who supports providing back pay but not until the government has reopened. “I think it’s very legitimate to take our time on this and hopefully Senator Reid will open it up for amendments and we can see how it ends up.”
Cornyn said if Democrats put the bill on the floor Republicans would not be okay with legislative shortcuts to pass it – such as a voice vote or unanimous consent agreement.
Asked if the bill should be subject to amendments and filibusters – procedures that could delay passage for several days - Cornyn said, “yeah, we ought to legislate.”
..................................................................................................................................
Republicans to block quick passage of back-pay bill
By Ted Barrett, October 7, 2013
Quick passage of a bill to provide back-pay to furloughed federal workers appeared in doubt on Monday when the No. 2 Senate Republican said it’s not time to address that issue right now.
“I think it’s really premature to be dealing with that until we resolve the underlying problem,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “We’ve offered a number of bills to try to alleviate some of the hardship and they’ve been swatted down out of hand.”
Cornyn said he didn’t expect Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring it to the floor because of GOP objections.
The House unanimously passed a bill on Saturday to provide back pay to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees impacted by the government shutdown, and the White House said it supported it.
In past shutdowns, Congress routinely approved similar measures.
“There is no sense of urgency for us to do it. The federal government is shut down,” said Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican of North Carolina who supports providing back pay but not until the government has reopened. “I think it’s very legitimate to take our time on this and hopefully Senator Reid will open it up for amendments and we can see how it ends up.”
Cornyn said if Democrats put the bill on the floor Republicans would not be okay with legislative shortcuts to pass it – such as a voice vote or unanimous consent agreement.
Asked if the bill should be subject to amendments and filibusters – procedures that could delay passage for several days - Cornyn said, “yeah, we ought to legislate.”
..................................................................................................................................
"Yoho"?? Shouldn't that be a "yahoo"?
..................................................................................................................................
He's a "trained veterinarian"? As opposed to an "untrained" one? Since veterinarians have to be trained AND licensed, that's an oxymoron.... leading to the obvious conclusion-- Yoho and his compatriots are morons.
..................................................................................................................................
The Dumbest Thing Said About the Debt Ceiling ... So Far
By Matthew Philips, October 7, 2013
Wait, really?
In a recent interview with the Washington Post, freshman Representative Ted Yoho, a Tea Party-backed Republican from Florida’s 3rd District, said the following about the possibility of the U.S. defaulting on its debt:
While the highlight of the piece is clearly that quote, it’s worth reading the entire story. The writer, David Fahrenthold, paints a vivid picture of Yoho, a 58-year-old trained veterinarian, as a lawmaker who sees himself as a guardian against expanding government and whose constituents, he believes, have sent him to Washington to stop the government from “running 100 miles an hour toward socialism.”
Through most of the debt-ceiling debates, both this year and in 2011, I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt to House Republicans who seem willing to allow the U.S. to default on its debt. They don’t actually want to trigger a default, but they are desperate—and, perhaps, nihilistic—enough to use it as a bargaining chip with a president they have so far been able to outmaneuver in negotiations. They understand what would happen, right?
Now, I’m not so sure.
..................................................................................................................................
He's a "trained veterinarian"? As opposed to an "untrained" one? Since veterinarians have to be trained AND licensed, that's an oxymoron.... leading to the obvious conclusion-- Yoho and his compatriots are morons.
..................................................................................................................................
The Dumbest Thing Said About the Debt Ceiling ... So Far
By Matthew Philips, October 7, 2013
Wait, really?
In a recent interview with the Washington Post, freshman Representative Ted Yoho, a Tea Party-backed Republican from Florida’s 3rd District, said the following about the possibility of the U.S. defaulting on its debt:
“I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets.”If by “stability” he means an unholy amount of fear and chaos rippling through the world’s financial markets, where basically all lending freezes up and the world’s safest, most liquid asset (U.S. debt) loses all its credibility, then yes, he’s right. A default would bring about all those things.
While the highlight of the piece is clearly that quote, it’s worth reading the entire story. The writer, David Fahrenthold, paints a vivid picture of Yoho, a 58-year-old trained veterinarian, as a lawmaker who sees himself as a guardian against expanding government and whose constituents, he believes, have sent him to Washington to stop the government from “running 100 miles an hour toward socialism.”
Through most of the debt-ceiling debates, both this year and in 2011, I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt to House Republicans who seem willing to allow the U.S. to default on its debt. They don’t actually want to trigger a default, but they are desperate—and, perhaps, nihilistic—enough to use it as a bargaining chip with a president they have so far been able to outmaneuver in negotiations. They understand what would happen, right?
Now, I’m not so sure.
..................................................................................................................................
Hey Kamikaze Caucus! We're ALREADY talking real money! Stop the squabbling!
..................................................................................................................................
Showdown, Shutdown, Shakedown
by Will Durst, October 7, 2013
Government’s closed, everybody! Go home. Except Congress, that is, whose members are still getting paid, classified as “essential workers.” Although right now, neither one of those words seems very apt or ept. Unapt and inept is more like it. Inapt? Unept?
A minority of the majority of one house of Congress continues to hold the country hostage. “Down on the floor, America, and hands behind your back. Anybody moves, shoot ‘em.” And if we don’t agree to their demented demands, we’ll never see our families or Panda Cam again.
To say that the Tea Party really, really doesn’t like the Affordable Care Act is like intimating spotted brown bananas make for substandard grouting material. That Mel Gibson is unlikely to receive a plethora of invitations to speak at JDL benefits. That the prognosis for a patient whose spleen transplant was performed with rusty garden tools… is not good.
The fraying tassels on the GOP fringe appear to be willing to sacrifice everything to deny their constituents access to health care coverage. Two lambs. The recovery. Their reputation. The harvest. Nation’s credit rating. A virgin. John Boehner’s tan.
What they should be looking for is a time machine, because this issue has already been settled. By the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. Which, according to all those Schoolhouse Rock videos, is pretty much all of them. Three out of three. Slam dunk. Total sweep. Full boat. Get a hammer and some planks to build a shelf for the freaking trophy, dude.
And if memory serves correctly, wasn’t last year’s presidential election a referendum on Obamacare? Every single Republican offered up as an alternative commander in chief railed against it with vein – popping intensity. And none won. Not to mention this same crew of Cruz’s crazies having made over 40 attempts to sink health care reform. All for naught. How many bites at the apple do you get before there is no apple?
So the government has totally ground to a halt, paralyzed by petty partisan squabbling. Or as they say inside the Beltway these days: a typical Thursday. Republicans complain Obama is not negotiating. Garnering their begrudging respect for following Reagan’s unbreakable dictum to refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
Besides, bills are negotiated, not settled law. If the Kamikaze Caucus gets their way on this, what’s next? Another showdown, shutdown, shakedown demanding Democrats dismantle NPR? A single representative from Oklahoma threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue if an oil derrick doesn’t replace George Washington on the $1 bill? Preschool intimidation to spur the repeal of the laws of gravity?
The extreme right wing of the party of the right is obviously convinced the public will regard this as one of those “a pox on both of their houses” deals. And they may be right. If Congress’ approval rating goes any lower, they’ll be able to look up to snake bellies. Losing ground on poisonous ticks. Pillow thorns.
And for a group ostensibly consumed with the deficit, these cry-cry-crybabies don’t seem too upset by the 300 million dollars the shutdown is costing every day. Because, hey! 300 million here. 300 million there. As Everett Dirksen is said to have pointed out, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
..................................................................................................................................
Showdown, Shutdown, Shakedown
by Will Durst, October 7, 2013
Government’s closed, everybody! Go home. Except Congress, that is, whose members are still getting paid, classified as “essential workers.” Although right now, neither one of those words seems very apt or ept. Unapt and inept is more like it. Inapt? Unept?
A minority of the majority of one house of Congress continues to hold the country hostage. “Down on the floor, America, and hands behind your back. Anybody moves, shoot ‘em.” And if we don’t agree to their demented demands, we’ll never see our families or Panda Cam again.
To say that the Tea Party really, really doesn’t like the Affordable Care Act is like intimating spotted brown bananas make for substandard grouting material. That Mel Gibson is unlikely to receive a plethora of invitations to speak at JDL benefits. That the prognosis for a patient whose spleen transplant was performed with rusty garden tools… is not good.
The fraying tassels on the GOP fringe appear to be willing to sacrifice everything to deny their constituents access to health care coverage. Two lambs. The recovery. Their reputation. The harvest. Nation’s credit rating. A virgin. John Boehner’s tan.
What they should be looking for is a time machine, because this issue has already been settled. By the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. Which, according to all those Schoolhouse Rock videos, is pretty much all of them. Three out of three. Slam dunk. Total sweep. Full boat. Get a hammer and some planks to build a shelf for the freaking trophy, dude.
And if memory serves correctly, wasn’t last year’s presidential election a referendum on Obamacare? Every single Republican offered up as an alternative commander in chief railed against it with vein – popping intensity. And none won. Not to mention this same crew of Cruz’s crazies having made over 40 attempts to sink health care reform. All for naught. How many bites at the apple do you get before there is no apple?
So the government has totally ground to a halt, paralyzed by petty partisan squabbling. Or as they say inside the Beltway these days: a typical Thursday. Republicans complain Obama is not negotiating. Garnering their begrudging respect for following Reagan’s unbreakable dictum to refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
Besides, bills are negotiated, not settled law. If the Kamikaze Caucus gets their way on this, what’s next? Another showdown, shutdown, shakedown demanding Democrats dismantle NPR? A single representative from Oklahoma threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue if an oil derrick doesn’t replace George Washington on the $1 bill? Preschool intimidation to spur the repeal of the laws of gravity?
The extreme right wing of the party of the right is obviously convinced the public will regard this as one of those “a pox on both of their houses” deals. And they may be right. If Congress’ approval rating goes any lower, they’ll be able to look up to snake bellies. Losing ground on poisonous ticks. Pillow thorns.
And for a group ostensibly consumed with the deficit, these cry-cry-crybabies don’t seem too upset by the 300 million dollars the shutdown is costing every day. Because, hey! 300 million here. 300 million there. As Everett Dirksen is said to have pointed out, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Tea Party conservatives' stance reflects personal animosity as much as principle
..................................................................................................................................
Republican Insurgents Forget Their Political ABCs
By Albert R. Hunt, October 6, 2013
“I am not a member of any organized political party,” the humorist Will Rogers said. “I am a Democrat.”
Even Will Rogers would be shocked at the disjointed and self-destructive congressional Republican Party of today. By forcing a government shutdown and possibly a credit default in a few weeks, a minority of rank-and-file Republican members have run roughshod over the leadership. They are pushing a futile effort to kill President Barack Obama’s health-care law, enacted in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court and hotly debated in last year’s presidential campaign.
In so doing, this band of proud right-wingers has violated almost every important political precept, including:
HAVE AN ENDGAME: In war, football, politics or other pursuits, it’s incumbent to fight with an endgame in mind; sometimes the goal isn’t achieved and needs adjusting. The Republicans forcing this crisis planned no endgame other than their hope that the president would cave to their demand to gut the Affordable Care Act. Republicans such as Bob Corker and John McCain in the Senate, and Paul Ryan and even Speaker John Boehner in the House, warned this was a fool’s errand, To no avail.
The range of possible endgames now illustrates the chaos or lack of strategy: killing the medical-device tax, which would add $30 billion to the deficit over time; eliminating some government regulations; or mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. This battle was supposed to be about curbing deficits and debt.
Debt Ceiling
There is a sensible endgame: adopt a continuing resolution on the budget and extend the debt ceiling for several years (ultimately, it should be terminated). Congress then could replace the mindless across-the-board discretionary spending cuts under sequestration with a combination of cutbacks in entitlements, including some means-testing and changes to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other programs as well as increased revenue from modest reductions in deductions for the wealthy, without raising rates.
This would narrow the already declining budget deficits slightly in the short run, more substantially down the road, and leave some money for smart investments in areas such as infrastructure and health research. It’s a good bet that markets and business confidence would soar after such a deal.
With White House pressure, this would command support from a majority of congressional Democrats -- but not Republicans.
AVOID ANGER: Many of the core Tea Party conservatives despise the president and are convinced Obamacare is an assault on freedom. Their stance reflects personal animosity as much as principle. Hard-right Tea Party types such as Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota and Ted Yoho of Florida are in this category and are the face of the House Republican caucus.
Regardless of whether the Affordable Care Act is better than the current system, it isn’t a government takeover, as is often charged; a public option was rejected by the White House and the Democratic Senate. Now opponents say the individual mandate amounts to government coercion. That would be more convincing if the plan weren’t originally a Republican idea and the centerpiece of then-Governor Mitt Romney’s successful health-care reform in Massachusetts.
KNOW HISTORY: The misinformation about previous conflicts is stunning. Leading the chorus is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican leader during the previous major partisan shutdown in 1995-96. Gingrich, always eager to get attention, has urged Republicans to hang tough, arguing that he and his party benefited from the earlier showdown.
Gingrich Overreach
In reality, it was a disaster. The Republicans lost two seats in the next House elections, and the deadlock paved the way for President Bill Clinton’s big re-election. What did Gingrich get? Clinton agreed to provide the outlines of a long-term balanced budget, a commitment he relished. The subsequent balanced budgets had little to do with the shutdown.
Gingrich also claims this is nothing new, that shutdowns were routine when Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, was in charge. There were fights, but government kept operating even when budget authority expired; when the attorney general ruled that impermissible, shutdowns occurred for several days, usually over a weekend, and were of little practical consequence -- until the Gingrich miscalculation of 1995-96.
PLAYING SHORT BALL: Republican hard-liners insist it won’t hurt politically this time, never mind what the polls say. This showdown arouses the party’s base, they argue, and will help candidates in next year’s congressional elections.
Perhaps, but they confuse short-term gain with long-term damage, as occurred 17 years ago. Another example: In 1994, California Republicans rode a tide of anti-immigration sentiment to electoral victories but alienated Hispanics, which has cost them in elections since.
The shutdown and possible damage to the nation’s creditworthiness are Republican-induced crises. The president isn’t blameless. The Republicans are able to keep the Affordable Care Act in political play because the administration has done such a poor job of convincing and educating voters; compare Obamacare with public attitudes toward Medicare or the prescription drug law three years after they were enacted.
Jack Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri, says the president and especially Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “have too often told Republicans to go sit in the corner and be quiet, you’re shut out of this.”
Still, he shakes his head at what he considers the naive and dangerous attitude of Tea Party Republicans, that “politics is not about compromise, it’s about purity.”
Someone else whose head would shake is Will Rogers. In the Capitol Building’s Statuary Hall, each state gets two statues; Rogers is one of Oklahoma’s. The humorist’s condition for allowing this was that his statue would be on the House of Representatives side so he could “keep an eye” on them. These days, he wouldn’t want to look.
..................................................................................................................................
Republican Insurgents Forget Their Political ABCs
By Albert R. Hunt, October 6, 2013
“I am not a member of any organized political party,” the humorist Will Rogers said. “I am a Democrat.”
Even Will Rogers would be shocked at the disjointed and self-destructive congressional Republican Party of today. By forcing a government shutdown and possibly a credit default in a few weeks, a minority of rank-and-file Republican members have run roughshod over the leadership. They are pushing a futile effort to kill President Barack Obama’s health-care law, enacted in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court and hotly debated in last year’s presidential campaign.
In so doing, this band of proud right-wingers has violated almost every important political precept, including:
HAVE AN ENDGAME: In war, football, politics or other pursuits, it’s incumbent to fight with an endgame in mind; sometimes the goal isn’t achieved and needs adjusting. The Republicans forcing this crisis planned no endgame other than their hope that the president would cave to their demand to gut the Affordable Care Act. Republicans such as Bob Corker and John McCain in the Senate, and Paul Ryan and even Speaker John Boehner in the House, warned this was a fool’s errand, To no avail.
The range of possible endgames now illustrates the chaos or lack of strategy: killing the medical-device tax, which would add $30 billion to the deficit over time; eliminating some government regulations; or mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. This battle was supposed to be about curbing deficits and debt.
Debt Ceiling
There is a sensible endgame: adopt a continuing resolution on the budget and extend the debt ceiling for several years (ultimately, it should be terminated). Congress then could replace the mindless across-the-board discretionary spending cuts under sequestration with a combination of cutbacks in entitlements, including some means-testing and changes to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other programs as well as increased revenue from modest reductions in deductions for the wealthy, without raising rates.
This would narrow the already declining budget deficits slightly in the short run, more substantially down the road, and leave some money for smart investments in areas such as infrastructure and health research. It’s a good bet that markets and business confidence would soar after such a deal.
With White House pressure, this would command support from a majority of congressional Democrats -- but not Republicans.
AVOID ANGER: Many of the core Tea Party conservatives despise the president and are convinced Obamacare is an assault on freedom. Their stance reflects personal animosity as much as principle. Hard-right Tea Party types such as Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota and Ted Yoho of Florida are in this category and are the face of the House Republican caucus.
Regardless of whether the Affordable Care Act is better than the current system, it isn’t a government takeover, as is often charged; a public option was rejected by the White House and the Democratic Senate. Now opponents say the individual mandate amounts to government coercion. That would be more convincing if the plan weren’t originally a Republican idea and the centerpiece of then-Governor Mitt Romney’s successful health-care reform in Massachusetts.
KNOW HISTORY: The misinformation about previous conflicts is stunning. Leading the chorus is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican leader during the previous major partisan shutdown in 1995-96. Gingrich, always eager to get attention, has urged Republicans to hang tough, arguing that he and his party benefited from the earlier showdown.
Gingrich Overreach
In reality, it was a disaster. The Republicans lost two seats in the next House elections, and the deadlock paved the way for President Bill Clinton’s big re-election. What did Gingrich get? Clinton agreed to provide the outlines of a long-term balanced budget, a commitment he relished. The subsequent balanced budgets had little to do with the shutdown.
Gingrich also claims this is nothing new, that shutdowns were routine when Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, was in charge. There were fights, but government kept operating even when budget authority expired; when the attorney general ruled that impermissible, shutdowns occurred for several days, usually over a weekend, and were of little practical consequence -- until the Gingrich miscalculation of 1995-96.
PLAYING SHORT BALL: Republican hard-liners insist it won’t hurt politically this time, never mind what the polls say. This showdown arouses the party’s base, they argue, and will help candidates in next year’s congressional elections.
Perhaps, but they confuse short-term gain with long-term damage, as occurred 17 years ago. Another example: In 1994, California Republicans rode a tide of anti-immigration sentiment to electoral victories but alienated Hispanics, which has cost them in elections since.
The shutdown and possible damage to the nation’s creditworthiness are Republican-induced crises. The president isn’t blameless. The Republicans are able to keep the Affordable Care Act in political play because the administration has done such a poor job of convincing and educating voters; compare Obamacare with public attitudes toward Medicare or the prescription drug law three years after they were enacted.
Jack Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri, says the president and especially Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “have too often told Republicans to go sit in the corner and be quiet, you’re shut out of this.”
Still, he shakes his head at what he considers the naive and dangerous attitude of Tea Party Republicans, that “politics is not about compromise, it’s about purity.”
Someone else whose head would shake is Will Rogers. In the Capitol Building’s Statuary Hall, each state gets two statues; Rogers is one of Oklahoma’s. The humorist’s condition for allowing this was that his statue would be on the House of Representatives side so he could “keep an eye” on them. These days, he wouldn’t want to look.
..................................................................................................................................
Boehner whines and complains.... but it wasn't us who forced him to deal with the TP monkeys!
..................................................................................................................................
Boehner wanders the political brick road in search of courage
By Prairie Dog Press, October 5, 2013
Three GOP leaders could end the government shutdown and assuage the fear of a debt ceiling default within hours by calling for an up or down vote on a clean funding bill, but Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) lacks the courage, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virg.) hasn’t a heart and poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can’t find his brain.
The problem is that GOP leadership has been hijacked by a frightening band of flying (metaphorical) Tea Party monkeys. The head monkey is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and they are cheered on by an evil witch named Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
What has the TP monkeys so riled up? They don’t like the wizard in the White House. They don’t like his intelligence, they don’t like his popularity, they don’t like his skin color and they hate his law that would bring health care to all the people of the land.
Boehner worries about losing his job, but no longer gets emotional in public by wiping tears away with his tail eh, handkerchief, because he finds cursing more effective with the red-necked, bible-thumping, birthers and bigots known as Tea Party constituents.
During the 2011 sequester fight, Boehner told Senate Democrats to “get off your ass” in an effort to bully them into doing what Republicans wanted and four days into the 2013 government shutdown, Boehner bellowed, “this isn’t some damn game!”
The brash behavior by Boehner is geared to pass for the courage he lacks in doing the right thing for the people of the land, which would be to call for a vote without attaching unrelated demands to gut health care.
Boehner has also become good at mocking the wizard, which is something else that goes over big with TP monkey extremists.
This week, Boehner gathered all his fleeting courage to mimic wizard Obama after a meeting over the shutdown:
"’I'm not going to negotiate. I'm not going to negotiate. I'm not going to do this,'” whined Boehner in a childish attempt at mockery.
“They won’t even sit down and talk with us,” complained Boehner, clearly directing his message to the unreality bubble that exists for ultra-radical TP monkeys and conservatives, since good witch Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) had requested meetings on the bill 18 times.
Flying Tea Party monkeys and wimpy, hypocritical, GOP leaders are less popular with the people of the land than head lice, but they don’t seem to care. It’s like watching moths fly toward an open flame knowing the gerrymandering of their districts will keep them safe from political destruction for the near future.
But wizard Obama and his merry band of Democrats have the good of the people at heart…and good always triumphs over evil.
..................................................................................................................................
Boehner wanders the political brick road in search of courage
By Prairie Dog Press, October 5, 2013
Three GOP leaders could end the government shutdown and assuage the fear of a debt ceiling default within hours by calling for an up or down vote on a clean funding bill, but Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) lacks the courage, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virg.) hasn’t a heart and poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can’t find his brain.
The problem is that GOP leadership has been hijacked by a frightening band of flying (metaphorical) Tea Party monkeys. The head monkey is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and they are cheered on by an evil witch named Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
What has the TP monkeys so riled up? They don’t like the wizard in the White House. They don’t like his intelligence, they don’t like his popularity, they don’t like his skin color and they hate his law that would bring health care to all the people of the land.
Boehner worries about losing his job, but no longer gets emotional in public by wiping tears away with his tail eh, handkerchief, because he finds cursing more effective with the red-necked, bible-thumping, birthers and bigots known as Tea Party constituents.
During the 2011 sequester fight, Boehner told Senate Democrats to “get off your ass” in an effort to bully them into doing what Republicans wanted and four days into the 2013 government shutdown, Boehner bellowed, “this isn’t some damn game!”
The brash behavior by Boehner is geared to pass for the courage he lacks in doing the right thing for the people of the land, which would be to call for a vote without attaching unrelated demands to gut health care.
Boehner has also become good at mocking the wizard, which is something else that goes over big with TP monkey extremists.
This week, Boehner gathered all his fleeting courage to mimic wizard Obama after a meeting over the shutdown:
"’I'm not going to negotiate. I'm not going to negotiate. I'm not going to do this,'” whined Boehner in a childish attempt at mockery.
“They won’t even sit down and talk with us,” complained Boehner, clearly directing his message to the unreality bubble that exists for ultra-radical TP monkeys and conservatives, since good witch Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) had requested meetings on the bill 18 times.
Flying Tea Party monkeys and wimpy, hypocritical, GOP leaders are less popular with the people of the land than head lice, but they don’t seem to care. It’s like watching moths fly toward an open flame knowing the gerrymandering of their districts will keep them safe from political destruction for the near future.
But wizard Obama and his merry band of Democrats have the good of the people at heart…and good always triumphs over evil.
..................................................................................................................................
The cost of Washington bickering? ONE MILLION JOBS!
..................................................................................................................................
Lew: Crossing debt ceiling dangerous and 'unthinkable'
By Gregory Wallace, October 6, 2013
If the United States were to get close to the debt ceiling deadline, or even go over it, the consequences would be unthinkable, warned U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
In a series of TV interviews, Lew sounded alarm bells over the fast-approaching limit to the U.S. borrowing authority. With the deadline just over a week away, Lew blasted lawmakers for "playing with fire" by not raising the debt limit.
"We crossed the debt limit in May," Lew said on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley. "Since May, we've been creating some room to borrow by using what are called extraordinary measures -- they've been used so many times they're not as extraordinary as they used to be."
He blamed the predicament on "extreme parts of Congress."
"We're going to a place we've never gone and it's very dangerous," he said in a separate interview on Fox News. "We've never crossed this line so we're just speculating over what happens if the unthinkable happens."
When the U.S. nearly hit its debt ceiling in 2011, the consequences bruised the economy badly enough.
The fallout from a similar brinksmanship in 2011 over the debt limit was grave, Treasury cautioned in a report last week.
The government's credit rating was downgraded, consumers lost confidence in the economy, the stock market tumbled, and other signs of volatility spiked. This time, those consequences would be worse, it said.
"The American economy would be well-served by getting some stability and certainty," Lew said on Fox News. "These manufactured crises and this brinksmanship is bad for the economy."
It's been the year of brinksmanship.
It started off with the so-called fiscal cliff on January 1, which lawmakers barely managed to avoid with a last-minute deal.
Lawmakers also allowed the deep spending cuts, or sequester, to go through. The spending cuts were supposed to be so terrible that no one believed Congress would allow them to pass.
And last week, the federal fiscal year ended with a government shutdown after lawmakers couldn't agree to a budget measure.
Lew noted the next deadline -- expected around October 17 -- isn't actually the debt ceiling, but the end of accounting tactics he has used to delay a federal government default since May.
The government would continue to take in new revenue. Combined with $30 billion that Lew expects would be left in federal coffers, it wouldn't be enough to pay all the bills, which can amount to $60 billion on some days.
Overall, stock markets are still in positive territory for the year. Lew warned that might not continue, and economists have said the debt ceiling standoff could throw the U.S. economy into recession. One prominent economist said in a recent report that the Washington bickering has cost the U.S. economy one million jobs.
..................................................................................................................................
Lew: Crossing debt ceiling dangerous and 'unthinkable'
By Gregory Wallace, October 6, 2013
If the United States were to get close to the debt ceiling deadline, or even go over it, the consequences would be unthinkable, warned U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
In a series of TV interviews, Lew sounded alarm bells over the fast-approaching limit to the U.S. borrowing authority. With the deadline just over a week away, Lew blasted lawmakers for "playing with fire" by not raising the debt limit.
"We crossed the debt limit in May," Lew said on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley. "Since May, we've been creating some room to borrow by using what are called extraordinary measures -- they've been used so many times they're not as extraordinary as they used to be."
He blamed the predicament on "extreme parts of Congress."
"We're going to a place we've never gone and it's very dangerous," he said in a separate interview on Fox News. "We've never crossed this line so we're just speculating over what happens if the unthinkable happens."
When the U.S. nearly hit its debt ceiling in 2011, the consequences bruised the economy badly enough.
The fallout from a similar brinksmanship in 2011 over the debt limit was grave, Treasury cautioned in a report last week.
The government's credit rating was downgraded, consumers lost confidence in the economy, the stock market tumbled, and other signs of volatility spiked. This time, those consequences would be worse, it said.
"The American economy would be well-served by getting some stability and certainty," Lew said on Fox News. "These manufactured crises and this brinksmanship is bad for the economy."
It's been the year of brinksmanship.
It started off with the so-called fiscal cliff on January 1, which lawmakers barely managed to avoid with a last-minute deal.
Lawmakers also allowed the deep spending cuts, or sequester, to go through. The spending cuts were supposed to be so terrible that no one believed Congress would allow them to pass.
And last week, the federal fiscal year ended with a government shutdown after lawmakers couldn't agree to a budget measure.
Lew noted the next deadline -- expected around October 17 -- isn't actually the debt ceiling, but the end of accounting tactics he has used to delay a federal government default since May.
The government would continue to take in new revenue. Combined with $30 billion that Lew expects would be left in federal coffers, it wouldn't be enough to pay all the bills, which can amount to $60 billion on some days.
Overall, stock markets are still in positive territory for the year. Lew warned that might not continue, and economists have said the debt ceiling standoff could throw the U.S. economy into recession. One prominent economist said in a recent report that the Washington bickering has cost the U.S. economy one million jobs.
..................................................................................................................................
Not what the Founders intended? Were you there?
..................................................................................................................................
Restoring Free Political Speech
..................................................................................................................................
Restoring Free Political Speech
John Roberts faces another constitutional watershed.
WSJ, October 6, 2013
The Supreme Court re-opens for business this week, and one of its first cases is a splendid opportunity to restore the First Amendment as a bulwark of free political speech. The result in McCutcheon v. FEC will likely hang on whether Chief Justice John Roberts has the courage of his constitutional convictions and is willing to overturn the misbegotten logic of Buckley v. Valeo (1976).
Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee are challenging limits on the total amount of money a person can contribute to multiple candidates and political parties. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, Mr. McCutcheon donated $1,776 to each of 15 candidates as well as sums to the RNC and other political party committees. Though his donations were all below the legal limits to individual candidates and political parties, he was prevented by the aggregate limits from making the donations he wished.
Donors are currently limited to contributing $5,200 to a candidate for each election cycle ($2,600 each for the primary and general election). But they are barred from exceeding overall ceilings of $48,600 for direct contributions to candidates and $74,600 to non-candidate political committees. So though a contributor might give $1,000 to 48 candidates, further donations violate federal law, even if they are well below the $2,600 threshold per candidate.
This ought to be an easy call for the Court. In Buckley, the Justices allowed Congress to limit contributions based on the fear of corruption or the appearance of corruption. In the case of contributions to a single candidate, there is at least in theory the risk of a political quid pro quo, though that fear turns out to have been exaggerated.
There is little such risk of quid-pro-quo corruption if a donor spreads his donations among dozens of candidates. Under the McCain-Feingold law, Congress already treats all "related" PACs as a single PAC and counts any donations earmarked for a candidate against the individual contribution limit to that candidate. A donor can't evade the individual limits by donating to PACs.
However, the aggregate limits do restrict how much donors can participate in politics. A donor may want to contribute the maximum to 100 candidates but can't. This violates his First Amendment right to political speech. The limits on aggregate donations also harm political participation by limiting donations to political parties. This has diminished the role of parties with the paradoxical result of empowering the wealthy who can donate to independent political groups without limit.
The Roberts Court has already recognized that laws limiting spending on political ideas are "censorship to control thought." As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Citizens United in 2010, "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to speak for ourselves," and that includes spending on political speech. Eliminating aggregate spending limits is a logical extension of this principle.
The larger constitutional drama, however, will be whether the Justices use McCutcheon as an opportunity to go further and finally address Buckley. In that case the Court held limits on political expenditures to its "strict scrutiny" standard as a violation of free speech but allowed limits on contributions because of the risk of quid-pro-quo corruption. This was always dubious but looks even worse after 37 years of experience.
We now know that nearly all campaign contributions go to finance expenditures on political speech. They pay for TV ads, mailings or phone calls that advocate for a candidate or his ideas. There is thus no practical difference between a campaign donation and a campaign expenditure, and both are forms of political speech. As for the danger of corruption, the sheer amount of spending on politics today reduces the influence of any single campaign donor. Even large donations aren't likely to buy corrupt favors in campaigns with many such donors and huge sums spent.
The Court seems interested in this broader question because it has granted argument time to GOP Senator Mitch McConnell's lawyer Bobby Burchfield, who wrote an amicus brief arguing for holding contributions to the same "strict scrutiny" standard as expenditures. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas have already signalled their readiness to overturn Buckley, and our guess is that Justice Samuel Alito would too.
Assuming the four liberals go the other way, that makes Chief Justice Roberts the swing vote. The left is already warning him in the media, much as they did so successfully last year in advance of his salvaging of ObamaCare. They will denounce a ruling they don't like as "activist" though it would merely restore the First Amendment's central role in protecting free political speech. Thanks to the historic blunder of Buckley, political participation is more heavily regulated today than are video games and pornography. That is not what the Founders intended.
The Chief Justice prefers to be an incrementalist, but now is the time to advance a core constitutional principle. The vote in McCutcheon will be 5-4 whether it is a narrow ruling striking down aggregate limits or a broader one striking down part or all of Buckley, and the liberal denunciations will be as loud. If President Obama is able to replace one of the five nonliberal Justices, the Roberts Court may never get another chance.
In 2007 in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, the Chief wrote that "we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship." The only way to honor that proper reading of the First Amendment is to restore the pre-Buckley constitutional order.
Hmmmm, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Does Not Rule Out Taking Action On The Debt Ceiling By Himself
By Brett LoGiurato, October 5, 2013
Read into this what you will, but President Barack Obama did not specifically rule out working around Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit if Congress does not permit a hike before an Oct. 17 deadline.
In an interview with The Associated Press that was published on Saturday, Obama ducked the question of whether he is "willing to take other action" to prevent default. He only said that he expected Congress would pass a bill to raise it.
Here's the key exchange:
Q: But if they don't, if they get up to this deadline and they are not willing to pass this clean debt ceiling that you're asking them to do, would you be willing to take other action to prevent default?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't expect to get there. There were at least some quotes yesterday that Speaker Boehner is willing to make sure that we don't default. And just as is true with the government shutdown, there are enough votes in the House of Representatives to make sure that the government reopens today. And I'm pretty willing to bet that there are enough votes in the House of Representatives right now to make sure that the United States doesn't end up being a deadbeat. The only thing that's preventing that from happening is Speaker Boehner calling the vote.
The possibility that Obama will have to work around Congress to raise the debt has been increasingly discussed by analysts over the past week.
Some — including President Bill Clinton — have said he can do that by invoking the 14th Amendment, a Reconstruction-era amendment that says that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
But usually, he and members of his administration make a point of noting that it is not a legally-tenable option. Just this past week, on a conference call previewing a report warning of the economic catastrophe of breaching the debt ceiling, a Treasury Department official said the administration doesn't believe anyone except Congress can raise the debt ceiling.
And here's what Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in the daily press briefing on Thursday:
"This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the power to the President to ignore the debt ceiling. So we do not believe that the 14th Amendment provides that authority to the President. Moreover, even if the President could ignore the debt ceiling, the fact that there is significant controversy around the President’s authority to act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling and would not be taken seriously by the global economy or the markets."
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Does Not Rule Out Taking Action On The Debt Ceiling By Himself
By Brett LoGiurato, October 5, 2013
Read into this what you will, but President Barack Obama did not specifically rule out working around Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit if Congress does not permit a hike before an Oct. 17 deadline.
In an interview with The Associated Press that was published on Saturday, Obama ducked the question of whether he is "willing to take other action" to prevent default. He only said that he expected Congress would pass a bill to raise it.
Here's the key exchange:
Q: But if they don't, if they get up to this deadline and they are not willing to pass this clean debt ceiling that you're asking them to do, would you be willing to take other action to prevent default?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't expect to get there. There were at least some quotes yesterday that Speaker Boehner is willing to make sure that we don't default. And just as is true with the government shutdown, there are enough votes in the House of Representatives to make sure that the government reopens today. And I'm pretty willing to bet that there are enough votes in the House of Representatives right now to make sure that the United States doesn't end up being a deadbeat. The only thing that's preventing that from happening is Speaker Boehner calling the vote.
The possibility that Obama will have to work around Congress to raise the debt has been increasingly discussed by analysts over the past week.
Some — including President Bill Clinton — have said he can do that by invoking the 14th Amendment, a Reconstruction-era amendment that says that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
But usually, he and members of his administration make a point of noting that it is not a legally-tenable option. Just this past week, on a conference call previewing a report warning of the economic catastrophe of breaching the debt ceiling, a Treasury Department official said the administration doesn't believe anyone except Congress can raise the debt ceiling.
And here's what Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in the daily press briefing on Thursday:
"This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the power to the President to ignore the debt ceiling. So we do not believe that the 14th Amendment provides that authority to the President. Moreover, even if the President could ignore the debt ceiling, the fact that there is significant controversy around the President’s authority to act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling and would not be taken seriously by the global economy or the markets."
..................................................................................................................................
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Why are Republicans so furious about individuals being able to purchase health insurance?
..................................................................................................................................
ANIMOSITY TOWARD AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IS HARD TO FATHOM
By Cynthia Tucker, October 5, 2013
Rena W. is a 35-year-old small-business owner -- the co-owner, actually, of an Atlanta hair salon. She works hard but doesn't make enough money to purchase health insurance.
A mother of three, Rena has high cholesterol and hypertension. Last month, she suffered a mini-stroke, a calamity that brought confusion, a brief bout of aphasia and a trip to the emergency room. She has recovered, but now owes the hospital $17,000 for her treatment, a debt that she says will take her years to repay.
Rena is just the sort of hardworking American for whom the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- routinely called "Obamacare" -- is designed. She can now purchase a policy that will pay for the medical care she needs and insure against any more medical emergencies. (If only she'd had that insurance a bit sooner, she would not be burdened by debt.)
But for reasons that are hard to grasp, Republicans are apparently willing to throw the American economy over the cliff -- and to further destabilize an already-shaky global economy, as well -- just to keep Rena from being able to buy affordable health insurance. If the government shutdown doesn't force President Obama to forsake his signature legislative accomplishment, many Republicans say, they will refuse to lift the debt ceiling, sending the country into default for the first time in history.
Again, this is all to prevent people like Rena from being able to purchase health insurance.
Having listened to the inflammatory, paranoid and highly creative debate over Obamacare since 2009, having witnessed countless tea party rallies and heard numerous critics outline the law's alleged dangers, I still don't understand the motives of its most deranged adversaries. I do know that all the other industrialized democracies ensure that the vast majority of their citizens have access to medical care, and none of those nations have gone up in smoke. They endure, with populations who are at least as healthy as Americans and who pay much less for their doctor's visits and medicines.
Here in the United States, conservatives have railed against an expanding social safety net at least as far back as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which birthed the Social Security system to prevent old-age penury. The campaign to create Medicare brought similar warnings of dire consequences, with no less a true-blue conservative than Ronald Reagan insisting that it would put the country on the slippery slope to socialism.
In a recorded message, he told listeners that if they didn't oppose the creation of government-sponsored health care for retirees, "one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
As you know, none of those dire predictions came to pass, and both Social Security and Medicare are wildly popular. Still, that hasn't stopped a certain mind-bending cognitive dissonance: Many in the Republican Party's tea party camp, where Obamacare is regarded as the devil's own handiwork, are themselves beneficiaries of Medicare, which is closer to socialism than virtually any other government program. Go figure.
Among conservative intellectuals, it's popular to pretend that Republicans will eventually replace Obamacare with a much better program that would promote affordable health care without any of the alleged flaws of the current law. But the most honest among them admit that congressional Republicans have no current plan to replace Obamacare, only to repeal it.
Rena had managed, until now, to avoid medical crises by buying her prescriptions from discount pharmacies and paying out-of-pocket for annual checkups. Her children are covered by Medicaid. She is married, but her husband also lacks health insurance -- which contradicts the popular notion that single motherhood is to blame for the growing crisis of the have-nots.
She is one of those who play by the rules, working hard and hewing to the American dream. She's an owner of a genuine small business, not a wealthy law partner or successful online entrepreneur of the sort Republicans tend to point to when they talk about "small-business owners." Aren't conservatives big supporters of that commercial sector?
So why, again, are Republicans so furious that she will be able to purchase health insurance?
..................................................................................................................................
ANIMOSITY TOWARD AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IS HARD TO FATHOM
By Cynthia Tucker, October 5, 2013
Rena W. is a 35-year-old small-business owner -- the co-owner, actually, of an Atlanta hair salon. She works hard but doesn't make enough money to purchase health insurance.
A mother of three, Rena has high cholesterol and hypertension. Last month, she suffered a mini-stroke, a calamity that brought confusion, a brief bout of aphasia and a trip to the emergency room. She has recovered, but now owes the hospital $17,000 for her treatment, a debt that she says will take her years to repay.
Rena is just the sort of hardworking American for whom the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- routinely called "Obamacare" -- is designed. She can now purchase a policy that will pay for the medical care she needs and insure against any more medical emergencies. (If only she'd had that insurance a bit sooner, she would not be burdened by debt.)
But for reasons that are hard to grasp, Republicans are apparently willing to throw the American economy over the cliff -- and to further destabilize an already-shaky global economy, as well -- just to keep Rena from being able to buy affordable health insurance. If the government shutdown doesn't force President Obama to forsake his signature legislative accomplishment, many Republicans say, they will refuse to lift the debt ceiling, sending the country into default for the first time in history.
Again, this is all to prevent people like Rena from being able to purchase health insurance.
Having listened to the inflammatory, paranoid and highly creative debate over Obamacare since 2009, having witnessed countless tea party rallies and heard numerous critics outline the law's alleged dangers, I still don't understand the motives of its most deranged adversaries. I do know that all the other industrialized democracies ensure that the vast majority of their citizens have access to medical care, and none of those nations have gone up in smoke. They endure, with populations who are at least as healthy as Americans and who pay much less for their doctor's visits and medicines.
Here in the United States, conservatives have railed against an expanding social safety net at least as far back as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which birthed the Social Security system to prevent old-age penury. The campaign to create Medicare brought similar warnings of dire consequences, with no less a true-blue conservative than Ronald Reagan insisting that it would put the country on the slippery slope to socialism.
In a recorded message, he told listeners that if they didn't oppose the creation of government-sponsored health care for retirees, "one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
As you know, none of those dire predictions came to pass, and both Social Security and Medicare are wildly popular. Still, that hasn't stopped a certain mind-bending cognitive dissonance: Many in the Republican Party's tea party camp, where Obamacare is regarded as the devil's own handiwork, are themselves beneficiaries of Medicare, which is closer to socialism than virtually any other government program. Go figure.
Among conservative intellectuals, it's popular to pretend that Republicans will eventually replace Obamacare with a much better program that would promote affordable health care without any of the alleged flaws of the current law. But the most honest among them admit that congressional Republicans have no current plan to replace Obamacare, only to repeal it.
Rena had managed, until now, to avoid medical crises by buying her prescriptions from discount pharmacies and paying out-of-pocket for annual checkups. Her children are covered by Medicaid. She is married, but her husband also lacks health insurance -- which contradicts the popular notion that single motherhood is to blame for the growing crisis of the have-nots.
She is one of those who play by the rules, working hard and hewing to the American dream. She's an owner of a genuine small business, not a wealthy law partner or successful online entrepreneur of the sort Republicans tend to point to when they talk about "small-business owners." Aren't conservatives big supporters of that commercial sector?
So why, again, are Republicans so furious that she will be able to purchase health insurance?
..................................................................................................................................
Tea partiers are simply different from other conservatives-- they believe that compromise is capitulation, and capitulation is EVIL
..................................................................................................................................
The shutdown is a Republican civil war
By Ezra Klein, October 5, 2013
We’re used to brinkmanship in Washington resulting from conflict between Democrats and Republicans. But this shutdown is different. It’s a fight between Republicans and Republicans -- or, more specifically, Republicans and the Tea Party.
In 1995 and 1996, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proudly led Republicans into their shutdown fight with President Bill Clinton. In 2011, Speaker John Boehner was enthusiastic about using a possible shutdown and default as leverage for Republicans to make good on the promises they'd made in the last election.
But Boehner didn’t want this week’s shutdown. He didn’t want to sign onto Ted Cruz’s doomed effort to defund Obamacare. Boehner’s strategy was to pass a clean bill to fund the government at or near current sequestration levels - - a major victory for Republicans, by the way -- and then secure additional spending cuts in negotiations over the debt ceiling.
The dysfunctions of the House Republican Conference are often blamed on the so-called Hastert rule. The Hastert rule, which isn’t an actual rule, is named after former House speaker Dennis Hastert, who famously tried to bring to the floor only bills that had the support of a majority of House Republicans. Boehner has generally followed it, which is why he won’t allow the Senate’s immigration bill on the floor; it may have the support of a majority of the House, but it doesn’t have support from a majority of House Republicans.
What’s strange and fascinating about the shutdown debacle, however, is that a majority of House Republicans were with Boehner: They didn’t want a shutdown. “Two-thirds want a clean CR,” Rep. Peter King told the National Review, using the acronym for a “continuing resolution” to fund the government. “Including some of the people who got elected as tea party candidates from the South. You talk to them, they think this is crazy.”
The White House thinks it’s crazy, too. “One faction of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government doesn’t get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election,” President Obama said this week.
The question that’s puzzling Washington is how a minority of the majority is managing to dominate the House of Representatives.
Robert Costa, Washington bureau chief for the National Review, estimates that there are only “30 to 40 true hardliners” among House Republicans. He says more than 100 House Republicans are solidly behind Boehner. But Boehner’s troops are scared. “Could they stand firm when pressured by the 30 or 40 hardliners and the outside groups?” he asked.
You’d think they could. Or, at the least, you’d think Boehner could. Typically, party leaders protect the mainstream members from the demands of the fringe. They control fundraising and committee assignments and the floor schedule, which gives them substantial power over individual members. And if outside groups want a seat at the table, they need to stay on leadership’s good side, which tends to keep them from going too far off the reservation. But the Republican leadership no longer has the strength to play that role. “What we’re seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power,” Costa said.
Having previously failed to rally tea party adherents behind him in negotiations over the fiscal cliff, Boehner can no longer serve that function in the House. “Ever since Plan B failed on the fiscal cliff in January and you saw Boehner in near tears in front of his conference, he’s been crippled,” Costa said.
Boehner faces no plausible threat from traditional conservatives in his conference. They believe he’s one of them, they’re comforted that he’s speaker, and they’re generally terrified that a tea partier might replace him if he retires or is pushed out. The threat to Boehner comes from the right of his conference. Consequently, he panders to the fringe; as long as they’re happy, he’s safe.
Members of the Republican establishment are agog. Cruz “pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away,” said conservative stalwart Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. But the real problem is that House Republican leaders didn’t push back.
The reason the establishment has such trouble with the tea party is that the tea party really, truly means it. They don’t want to cut a deal. They don’t want to get the most that they reasonably can. Most represent extremely safe Republican districts and don’t care about positioning the party as a whole for the next election. Traditional politicians such as Boehner have no playbook for dealing with a powerful faction that’s completely uninterested in strategic or pragmatic concerns.
Back in 2011, the Republican establishment was sufficiently in sync with the tea party to harness their recklessness against the Obama administration. Boehner argued that his new members were just wild enough to crash through the debt ceiling and harm the economy, which gave him crucial leverage in his negotiations with the White House.
But then Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, and the Republican establishment began to alter its approach. The tea party, however, didn’t. Now Boehner and other mainstream Republicans dealing with tea party legislators face the same problem Democrats faced in 2011: It’s hard to negotiate with people who don’t care about, or even really believe in, the consequences of burning the place down.
Boehner’s problems aren’t such a surprise to Christopher Parker, a political scientist at the University of Washington and co-author of “Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America.” In 2011, Parker began running massive surveys of self-described conservatives in 13 states. He controlled for every demographic characteristic and political opinion he could think of. Tea partiers, he found, were simply different from other conservatives. In one telling example, 71 percent of tea party conservatives agreed Obama was “destroying the country” -- an opinion shared by only 6 percent of conservatives who didn’t identify with the tea party.
On measure after measure, tea party members expressed fear that the country was changing in fundamental ways. They were much likelier to view Obama as a literal threat to the nation. They were more conspiratorial in their interpretation of politics. They viewed politics as less like a negotiation among stakeholders and more like a struggle for survival.
“You’ve got about 52 members of the Republican conference who are affiliated with the Tea Party in some official way,” Parker said. “That’s a bit less than a quarter of all House Republicans. That’s enough in the House. They refuse to compromise because, to them, compromise is capitulation. If you go back to Richard Hofstadter’s work when he’s talking about when the John Birch Society rode high, he talks about how conservatives would see people who disagree as political opponents, but reactionary conservatives saw them as evil. You can’t capitulate to evil.”
The problem for Boehner and the rest of the Republican establishment is that the tea party ethos is now being turned against them. After all, mainstream conservatives will compromise with “evil” (or, if you prefer, “Democrats”). For tea partiers, that makes them suspect, too. In fact, one way tea party Republicans can prove they haven’t sold out to Washington’s ways is by opposing any compromise Boehner proposes.
The conventional wisdom in American politics used to be that Republicans followed their leaders while Democrats were barely unified enough to be considered an organized political party. Today, the reverse is true. Democrats largely follow their leaders while Republicans have splintered into two distinct political groups that uneasily share a single party.
That’s the real challenge complicating the shutdown and the debt ceiling. The problem isn’t that Boehner and Obama can’t reach an agreement. It’s that Boehner and Obama and the tea party can’t.
..................................................................................................................................
The shutdown is a Republican civil war
By Ezra Klein, October 5, 2013
We’re used to brinkmanship in Washington resulting from conflict between Democrats and Republicans. But this shutdown is different. It’s a fight between Republicans and Republicans -- or, more specifically, Republicans and the Tea Party.
In 1995 and 1996, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proudly led Republicans into their shutdown fight with President Bill Clinton. In 2011, Speaker John Boehner was enthusiastic about using a possible shutdown and default as leverage for Republicans to make good on the promises they'd made in the last election.
But Boehner didn’t want this week’s shutdown. He didn’t want to sign onto Ted Cruz’s doomed effort to defund Obamacare. Boehner’s strategy was to pass a clean bill to fund the government at or near current sequestration levels - - a major victory for Republicans, by the way -- and then secure additional spending cuts in negotiations over the debt ceiling.
The dysfunctions of the House Republican Conference are often blamed on the so-called Hastert rule. The Hastert rule, which isn’t an actual rule, is named after former House speaker Dennis Hastert, who famously tried to bring to the floor only bills that had the support of a majority of House Republicans. Boehner has generally followed it, which is why he won’t allow the Senate’s immigration bill on the floor; it may have the support of a majority of the House, but it doesn’t have support from a majority of House Republicans.
What’s strange and fascinating about the shutdown debacle, however, is that a majority of House Republicans were with Boehner: They didn’t want a shutdown. “Two-thirds want a clean CR,” Rep. Peter King told the National Review, using the acronym for a “continuing resolution” to fund the government. “Including some of the people who got elected as tea party candidates from the South. You talk to them, they think this is crazy.”
The White House thinks it’s crazy, too. “One faction of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government doesn’t get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election,” President Obama said this week.
The question that’s puzzling Washington is how a minority of the majority is managing to dominate the House of Representatives.
Robert Costa, Washington bureau chief for the National Review, estimates that there are only “30 to 40 true hardliners” among House Republicans. He says more than 100 House Republicans are solidly behind Boehner. But Boehner’s troops are scared. “Could they stand firm when pressured by the 30 or 40 hardliners and the outside groups?” he asked.
You’d think they could. Or, at the least, you’d think Boehner could. Typically, party leaders protect the mainstream members from the demands of the fringe. They control fundraising and committee assignments and the floor schedule, which gives them substantial power over individual members. And if outside groups want a seat at the table, they need to stay on leadership’s good side, which tends to keep them from going too far off the reservation. But the Republican leadership no longer has the strength to play that role. “What we’re seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power,” Costa said.
Having previously failed to rally tea party adherents behind him in negotiations over the fiscal cliff, Boehner can no longer serve that function in the House. “Ever since Plan B failed on the fiscal cliff in January and you saw Boehner in near tears in front of his conference, he’s been crippled,” Costa said.
Boehner faces no plausible threat from traditional conservatives in his conference. They believe he’s one of them, they’re comforted that he’s speaker, and they’re generally terrified that a tea partier might replace him if he retires or is pushed out. The threat to Boehner comes from the right of his conference. Consequently, he panders to the fringe; as long as they’re happy, he’s safe.
Members of the Republican establishment are agog. Cruz “pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away,” said conservative stalwart Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. But the real problem is that House Republican leaders didn’t push back.
The reason the establishment has such trouble with the tea party is that the tea party really, truly means it. They don’t want to cut a deal. They don’t want to get the most that they reasonably can. Most represent extremely safe Republican districts and don’t care about positioning the party as a whole for the next election. Traditional politicians such as Boehner have no playbook for dealing with a powerful faction that’s completely uninterested in strategic or pragmatic concerns.
Back in 2011, the Republican establishment was sufficiently in sync with the tea party to harness their recklessness against the Obama administration. Boehner argued that his new members were just wild enough to crash through the debt ceiling and harm the economy, which gave him crucial leverage in his negotiations with the White House.
But then Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, and the Republican establishment began to alter its approach. The tea party, however, didn’t. Now Boehner and other mainstream Republicans dealing with tea party legislators face the same problem Democrats faced in 2011: It’s hard to negotiate with people who don’t care about, or even really believe in, the consequences of burning the place down.
Boehner’s problems aren’t such a surprise to Christopher Parker, a political scientist at the University of Washington and co-author of “Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America.” In 2011, Parker began running massive surveys of self-described conservatives in 13 states. He controlled for every demographic characteristic and political opinion he could think of. Tea partiers, he found, were simply different from other conservatives. In one telling example, 71 percent of tea party conservatives agreed Obama was “destroying the country” -- an opinion shared by only 6 percent of conservatives who didn’t identify with the tea party.
On measure after measure, tea party members expressed fear that the country was changing in fundamental ways. They were much likelier to view Obama as a literal threat to the nation. They were more conspiratorial in their interpretation of politics. They viewed politics as less like a negotiation among stakeholders and more like a struggle for survival.
“You’ve got about 52 members of the Republican conference who are affiliated with the Tea Party in some official way,” Parker said. “That’s a bit less than a quarter of all House Republicans. That’s enough in the House. They refuse to compromise because, to them, compromise is capitulation. If you go back to Richard Hofstadter’s work when he’s talking about when the John Birch Society rode high, he talks about how conservatives would see people who disagree as political opponents, but reactionary conservatives saw them as evil. You can’t capitulate to evil.”
The problem for Boehner and the rest of the Republican establishment is that the tea party ethos is now being turned against them. After all, mainstream conservatives will compromise with “evil” (or, if you prefer, “Democrats”). For tea partiers, that makes them suspect, too. In fact, one way tea party Republicans can prove they haven’t sold out to Washington’s ways is by opposing any compromise Boehner proposes.
The conventional wisdom in American politics used to be that Republicans followed their leaders while Democrats were barely unified enough to be considered an organized political party. Today, the reverse is true. Democrats largely follow their leaders while Republicans have splintered into two distinct political groups that uneasily share a single party.
That’s the real challenge complicating the shutdown and the debt ceiling. The problem isn’t that Boehner and Obama can’t reach an agreement. It’s that Boehner and Obama and the tea party can’t.
..................................................................................................................................
Do you receive Social Security? Better lobby your Congressional Representatives to pass the debt ceiling increase, or you might not get your checks!
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Just Played His Big 'Trump Card' On The Debt Ceiling
By Brett Logiurato, October 3, 2013
Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.
"GOP strategists like Karl Rove surely know that it's just a matter of time before President Obama throws a game-changer — warning senior citizens that their Social Security checks won't be mailed because of John Boehner," Valliere wrote in a note to clients.
A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.
"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."
Earlier on Thursday, the Treasury Department warned in a big report that breaching the debt ceiling could inflict economic calamity "more severe than any seen since the Great Depression."
"The United States has never defaulted on its obligations, and the U.S. dollar and Treasury securities are at the center of the international financial system," the report said.
"A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse."
The Treasury says that the debt ceiling needs to be raised by Oct. 17 to avoid potential default on some U.S. obligations. After that date, the Treasury would have only approximately $30 billion to meet all of its commitments. On some days, expenditures can go as high as $60 billion.
Obama says that he won't negotiate over raising the debt ceiling, calling it Congress' responsibility. House Republicans, meanwhile, have looked to extract some kind of concession out of Obama in exchange for a debt-ceiling hike.
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Just Played His Big 'Trump Card' On The Debt Ceiling
By Brett Logiurato, October 3, 2013
Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.
"GOP strategists like Karl Rove surely know that it's just a matter of time before President Obama throws a game-changer — warning senior citizens that their Social Security checks won't be mailed because of John Boehner," Valliere wrote in a note to clients.
A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.
"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."
Earlier on Thursday, the Treasury Department warned in a big report that breaching the debt ceiling could inflict economic calamity "more severe than any seen since the Great Depression."
"The United States has never defaulted on its obligations, and the U.S. dollar and Treasury securities are at the center of the international financial system," the report said.
"A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse."
The Treasury says that the debt ceiling needs to be raised by Oct. 17 to avoid potential default on some U.S. obligations. After that date, the Treasury would have only approximately $30 billion to meet all of its commitments. On some days, expenditures can go as high as $60 billion.
Obama says that he won't negotiate over raising the debt ceiling, calling it Congress' responsibility. House Republicans, meanwhile, have looked to extract some kind of concession out of Obama in exchange for a debt-ceiling hike.
..................................................................................................................................
Yeah, try it! You might like it (in spite of yourselves)!
..................................................................................................................................
A Staunch Republican Tries Obamacare ... And Discovers That It's Actually Pretty Awesome
By Henry Blodget, October 3, 2013
One mystery of the government shutdown is why Republicans are so apoplectic about the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation that aims to make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
One theory is that the Republican leadership is scared that Obamacare actually won't be as bad as they have been saying it will be — that, in fact, Americans (including Republican constituents) will quite like it.
If Americans like Obamacare, the theory goes, this will be a big blow to the Republicans' big sales pitch over the past 30 years, which is that more government is always bad. (This despite the popularity of Medicare, Social Security, and other programs that even many Republicans support.) And this, in turn, the theory goes, will be a big blow to the Republican Party.
Well, it seems at least one Republican is pleasantly surprised by the reality of Obamacare.
Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress caught up with Butch Matthews, a 61-year-old former small business owner from Little Rock, Arkansas. Matthews, a diehard Republican, was skeptical of Obamacare. But the new law has already allowed him to buy insurance that is both much better, and much cheaper, than the astronomically expensive pre-Obamacare plan he was clinging to from Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Matthews' old Blue Cross plan cost $1,069 a month and had a $10,000 deductible.
The plan he just bought on the Arkansas state exchange has a $0 premium (after the government subsidy he gets because of his low income level) and only a $750 deductible. It's also a "Silver" plan, which has much better benefits than the vastly more expensive "Bronze" plan he ditched.
Mukherjee asked Matthews whether he had any advice for fellow Republicans now that he has learned that Obamacare actually isn't that bad.
Here's what he had to say:
..................................................................................................................................
A Staunch Republican Tries Obamacare ... And Discovers That It's Actually Pretty Awesome
By Henry Blodget, October 3, 2013
One mystery of the government shutdown is why Republicans are so apoplectic about the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation that aims to make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
One theory is that the Republican leadership is scared that Obamacare actually won't be as bad as they have been saying it will be — that, in fact, Americans (including Republican constituents) will quite like it.
If Americans like Obamacare, the theory goes, this will be a big blow to the Republicans' big sales pitch over the past 30 years, which is that more government is always bad. (This despite the popularity of Medicare, Social Security, and other programs that even many Republicans support.) And this, in turn, the theory goes, will be a big blow to the Republican Party.
Well, it seems at least one Republican is pleasantly surprised by the reality of Obamacare.
Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress caught up with Butch Matthews, a 61-year-old former small business owner from Little Rock, Arkansas. Matthews, a diehard Republican, was skeptical of Obamacare. But the new law has already allowed him to buy insurance that is both much better, and much cheaper, than the astronomically expensive pre-Obamacare plan he was clinging to from Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Matthews' old Blue Cross plan cost $1,069 a month and had a $10,000 deductible.
The plan he just bought on the Arkansas state exchange has a $0 premium (after the government subsidy he gets because of his low income level) and only a $750 deductible. It's also a "Silver" plan, which has much better benefits than the vastly more expensive "Bronze" plan he ditched.
Mukherjee asked Matthews whether he had any advice for fellow Republicans now that he has learned that Obamacare actually isn't that bad.
Here's what he had to say:
“I would tell them to learn more about it before they start talking bad about it,” he noted. “Be more informed, get more information, take your time and study and not just go by just what you hear on one side or the other. Actually check the facts on it.”
“I still am a very strong Republican, but this… I’m so happy that this came along,” he continued. “Our home is paid for, vehicle’s paid for, this is our expense that we have. We have more expense on medical care than everything else put together, so this is going to be a great help for us.”So maybe Republicans can learn to love Obamacare? Maybe sooner rather than later? So we can get our government open again?
..................................................................................................................................
Congress? These are REAL PEOPLE whose lives you are affecting!!!!
..................................................................................................................................
Coded message from the National Weather Service? ‘PLEASE PAY US’
By Eric Pfeiffer, October 4, 2013
Someone at the Anchorage, Alaska, branch of the National Weather Service seems to have a very important message regarding the federal government shutdown: “PLEASE PAY US.”
The acrostic message appears to have been included in the first paragraph of a weather alert issued from the office on Friday. In an acrostic message or poem, the first letters of each sentence in a paragraph combine to spell out a word that is separate from the larger text.
Employees at the National Weather Service, like many other federal government workers, have continued to show up for their jobs even as the government is in its fourth day of a shutdown, meaning those employees are not likely to be compensated for their labor.
NBC News attempted to contact someone at the office but no one was taking credit, or blame, for the release.
A permanent link to the NWS update containing the acrostic message was changed a few hours after it was discovered. But technically, the original message is still up on the weather service site but is being pushed farther down the page as each new meteorological alert is issued.
..................................................................................................................................
Coded message from the National Weather Service? ‘PLEASE PAY US’
By Eric Pfeiffer, October 4, 2013
Someone at the Anchorage, Alaska, branch of the National Weather Service seems to have a very important message regarding the federal government shutdown: “PLEASE PAY US.”
The acrostic message appears to have been included in the first paragraph of a weather alert issued from the office on Friday. In an acrostic message or poem, the first letters of each sentence in a paragraph combine to spell out a word that is separate from the larger text.
Employees at the National Weather Service, like many other federal government workers, have continued to show up for their jobs even as the government is in its fourth day of a shutdown, meaning those employees are not likely to be compensated for their labor.
NBC News attempted to contact someone at the office but no one was taking credit, or blame, for the release.
A permanent link to the NWS update containing the acrostic message was changed a few hours after it was discovered. But technically, the original message is still up on the weather service site but is being pushed farther down the page as each new meteorological alert is issued.
..................................................................................................................................
PARTY BRANDS: Democrats-- compassion; Republicans-- action (whatever that means)
..................................................................................................................................
With Government Shut Down, Which Political Party Brand Takes Bigger Hit?
By Robert Passikoff, October 3, 2013
After years of dealing with financial crises on a last-minute basis, House Republicans and Senate Democrats couldn’t get organized enough to break the politically charged budget standoff over President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Unable to organize an accord, lawmakers allowed the government to shut down. We know how this will effect government services, but how does the shutdown effect how the electorate sees the political parties themselves?
We use a highly validated emotional brand engagement assessment to measure B2B and B2C brands and we did the same thing for each of the major political parties. The assessment combines psychological inquiry and higher-order statistical analyses to “fuse” emotional and rational values, in this case those dealing with how the electorate sees their Ideal political party. Brand engagement assessments, whether for pizza or political parties, measures what consumers think – as opposed to what they say they think, and from a brand perspective provides an accurate read to how consumers, or in the case of political parties and their candidates, the electorate, will behave. We’ve used this model of engagement-ties-closely-to-behavior for every Presidential election since Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and the metrics have predicted the winner in every election – except in 2000, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore. You to be the judge about that one.
When it comes to Political Parties, four engagement drivers (and attendant expectation levels voters hold for each of those drivers) define the Ideal. The order of engagement drivers (and their associated expectations) vary in terms of what’s important to Democrats and Republicans, hence different party views and political brand affiliation. The drivers can be briefly described as follows:
Action: Does the party have a comprehensive, realistic, well-considered plan for solving the problems facing the country?
Compassion: Does the party care about all the people?
Perception: Does the party have a deep understanding of the problems facing the county?
Resolve: Does the party have the strength and leadership to guide the country?
Democrats see their Ideal Political Party as follows:
Perception
Resolve
Compassion
Action
Republicans view their Ideal Political Party this way:
Resolve
Perception
Action
Compassion
For Democrats, the driver with the highest expectations is “Compassion.” For Republicans it’s “Action.” Again, you be the judge about that.
We took this measure during the 2012 Presidential election, so it provides an up-to-date benchmark against which to measure how 253 registered Democrats and 267 registered Republicans (all non-government workers) rated how well their party upheld these values post-government shutdown. The Ideal is calculated to be 100%, and here’s how things currently stand.
Democratic Party Republican Party
2012 83% 77%
2013 76% 65%
If you do the math, The Democratic party saw their brand engagement strength decrease by 7%, the Republicans brand by a bit more, -12%. One brand engagement certainty we’ve seen play out over the years is something called the “Engagement Rule of Six,” which states that where brands are stronger than the competition, consumers are six times more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in uncertain circumstances, which is a pretty fair description of a Federal government shutdown. So the usual finger pointing and political rhetoric notwithstanding, it’s likely the Democratic brand will come out a bit better than the Republican brand.
It was Will Rogers who noted, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” That was 81 years ago, and Democrat or Republican, the sentiment is worth taking to heart. Because whether a political party or a consumer brand, if you are so disorganized that you are unable to meet customer expectations, you always lose in the marketplace. Or, as is likely in this case, the voting booth.
..................................................................................................................................
With Government Shut Down, Which Political Party Brand Takes Bigger Hit?
By Robert Passikoff, October 3, 2013
After years of dealing with financial crises on a last-minute basis, House Republicans and Senate Democrats couldn’t get organized enough to break the politically charged budget standoff over President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Unable to organize an accord, lawmakers allowed the government to shut down. We know how this will effect government services, but how does the shutdown effect how the electorate sees the political parties themselves?
We use a highly validated emotional brand engagement assessment to measure B2B and B2C brands and we did the same thing for each of the major political parties. The assessment combines psychological inquiry and higher-order statistical analyses to “fuse” emotional and rational values, in this case those dealing with how the electorate sees their Ideal political party. Brand engagement assessments, whether for pizza or political parties, measures what consumers think – as opposed to what they say they think, and from a brand perspective provides an accurate read to how consumers, or in the case of political parties and their candidates, the electorate, will behave. We’ve used this model of engagement-ties-closely-to-behavior for every Presidential election since Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and the metrics have predicted the winner in every election – except in 2000, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore. You to be the judge about that one.
When it comes to Political Parties, four engagement drivers (and attendant expectation levels voters hold for each of those drivers) define the Ideal. The order of engagement drivers (and their associated expectations) vary in terms of what’s important to Democrats and Republicans, hence different party views and political brand affiliation. The drivers can be briefly described as follows:
Action: Does the party have a comprehensive, realistic, well-considered plan for solving the problems facing the country?
Compassion: Does the party care about all the people?
Perception: Does the party have a deep understanding of the problems facing the county?
Resolve: Does the party have the strength and leadership to guide the country?
Democrats see their Ideal Political Party as follows:
Perception
Resolve
Compassion
Action
Republicans view their Ideal Political Party this way:
Resolve
Perception
Action
Compassion
For Democrats, the driver with the highest expectations is “Compassion.” For Republicans it’s “Action.” Again, you be the judge about that.
We took this measure during the 2012 Presidential election, so it provides an up-to-date benchmark against which to measure how 253 registered Democrats and 267 registered Republicans (all non-government workers) rated how well their party upheld these values post-government shutdown. The Ideal is calculated to be 100%, and here’s how things currently stand.
Democratic Party Republican Party
2012 83% 77%
2013 76% 65%
If you do the math, The Democratic party saw their brand engagement strength decrease by 7%, the Republicans brand by a bit more, -12%. One brand engagement certainty we’ve seen play out over the years is something called the “Engagement Rule of Six,” which states that where brands are stronger than the competition, consumers are six times more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in uncertain circumstances, which is a pretty fair description of a Federal government shutdown. So the usual finger pointing and political rhetoric notwithstanding, it’s likely the Democratic brand will come out a bit better than the Republican brand.
It was Will Rogers who noted, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” That was 81 years ago, and Democrat or Republican, the sentiment is worth taking to heart. Because whether a political party or a consumer brand, if you are so disorganized that you are unable to meet customer expectations, you always lose in the marketplace. Or, as is likely in this case, the voting booth.
..................................................................................................................................
Cruz: “Democrats have invoked my name as the root of all evil in the world.” Well, maybe not the world, but DC will serve, won't it?
..................................................................................................................................
Cruz, battered by Democrats and some Republicans, presses the shutdown fight
By Maria Recio, October 4, 2013
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is an increasingly isolated figure in the Senate as the government shutdown that Democrats blame him for continues.
But the Senate newcomer is as defiant as ever, even in the face of public rebukes by some in his own party.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., called Cruz “a fraud” on CNN this week. On Friday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., spoke out on the Senate floor against Cruz’s “ill-conceived strategy” tying federal government funding to eviscerating the Affordable Care Act, a connection that has made a deal between Republicans and Democrats impossible.
“It was ill-conceived because, again, we knew that with the president in the White House and the Senate Democrats in charge, that they were not going to defund their signature piece of legislation, as much as I support repealing that legislation,” said Ayotte.
Her very public smackdown of Cruz – “It’s time for a reality check” – deftly did not cite him by name but left little doubt that he was her target.
Ayotte’s comments followed a private lunch Wednesday of Senate Republicans, where Ayotte and others, including Sen. Dan Coates of Indiana, reportedly had a showdown with Cruz over a political action committee sympathetic to him that has targeted the 25 GOP senators who joined Democrats on a procedural vote last week to fund the government.
Cruz spoke out against such a legislative move during his recent a 21-hour floor speech about the shutdown. His refusal to disavow the actions of the group, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has as enraged some fellow Republicans, including Ayotte and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Cruz tried Friday without success to bring up bills passed by the House of Representatives that fund selected agencies, with no support from his fellow Republican senators. Democrats blocked his every move, but Cruz said he would stick to his guns.
Cruz acknowledged that he has become a polarizing figure: “Democrats have invoked my name as the root of all evil in the world.”
Cruz told McClatchy on Thursday that he would not engage in personal attacks, especially “anonymous quotes” that have started to dog him from fellow Republicans.
“My focus is on stopping the Harry Reid shutdown,” Cruz said, referring to the Senate majority leader, a Democrat from Nevada.
When he accused Reid and President Barack Obama of believing that a shutdown was “in their partisan interest,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, warned him about Senate rules against impugning a member’s motives.
But Cruz is influential with the tea party House members – he got enough of them to stand up to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and demand the defunding of Obamacare – and it is in the GOP-controlled House where the vote must come that will break the logjam over the shutdown.
While there are signs of volatility, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said that most Republicans were standing firm, even as some more mainstream Republicans in the House and the Senate appear to be tiring of the standoff and its impact on their party.
“I think we’re heading toward the endgame,” Carter said in an interview. “We’re not sure what it is.”
Dan Holler, spokesman for Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, is admiring of Cruz’s determination.
“What happened during August, when members heard from constituents at town meetings, was a pretty awesome thing,” he said. “That really changed the debate inside Washington.”
Cruz, who is scheduled to appear on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, predicted that “it’s likely this shutdown will continue for some time.”
..................................................................................................................................
Cruz, battered by Democrats and some Republicans, presses the shutdown fight
By Maria Recio, October 4, 2013
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is an increasingly isolated figure in the Senate as the government shutdown that Democrats blame him for continues.
But the Senate newcomer is as defiant as ever, even in the face of public rebukes by some in his own party.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., called Cruz “a fraud” on CNN this week. On Friday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., spoke out on the Senate floor against Cruz’s “ill-conceived strategy” tying federal government funding to eviscerating the Affordable Care Act, a connection that has made a deal between Republicans and Democrats impossible.
“It was ill-conceived because, again, we knew that with the president in the White House and the Senate Democrats in charge, that they were not going to defund their signature piece of legislation, as much as I support repealing that legislation,” said Ayotte.
Her very public smackdown of Cruz – “It’s time for a reality check” – deftly did not cite him by name but left little doubt that he was her target.
Ayotte’s comments followed a private lunch Wednesday of Senate Republicans, where Ayotte and others, including Sen. Dan Coates of Indiana, reportedly had a showdown with Cruz over a political action committee sympathetic to him that has targeted the 25 GOP senators who joined Democrats on a procedural vote last week to fund the government.
Cruz spoke out against such a legislative move during his recent a 21-hour floor speech about the shutdown. His refusal to disavow the actions of the group, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has as enraged some fellow Republicans, including Ayotte and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Cruz tried Friday without success to bring up bills passed by the House of Representatives that fund selected agencies, with no support from his fellow Republican senators. Democrats blocked his every move, but Cruz said he would stick to his guns.
Cruz acknowledged that he has become a polarizing figure: “Democrats have invoked my name as the root of all evil in the world.”
Cruz told McClatchy on Thursday that he would not engage in personal attacks, especially “anonymous quotes” that have started to dog him from fellow Republicans.
“My focus is on stopping the Harry Reid shutdown,” Cruz said, referring to the Senate majority leader, a Democrat from Nevada.
When he accused Reid and President Barack Obama of believing that a shutdown was “in their partisan interest,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, warned him about Senate rules against impugning a member’s motives.
But Cruz is influential with the tea party House members – he got enough of them to stand up to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and demand the defunding of Obamacare – and it is in the GOP-controlled House where the vote must come that will break the logjam over the shutdown.
While there are signs of volatility, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said that most Republicans were standing firm, even as some more mainstream Republicans in the House and the Senate appear to be tiring of the standoff and its impact on their party.
“I think we’re heading toward the endgame,” Carter said in an interview. “We’re not sure what it is.”
Dan Holler, spokesman for Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, is admiring of Cruz’s determination.
“What happened during August, when members heard from constituents at town meetings, was a pretty awesome thing,” he said. “That really changed the debate inside Washington.”
Cruz, who is scheduled to appear on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, predicted that “it’s likely this shutdown will continue for some time.”
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)