Political Ruminations

Another Right Wing Lie About Obamacare and the Deficit

An article in the Washington Post today promotes yet another right wing lie about Obamacare aka the Affordable Care Act, claiming that the ACA increases the deficit rather than reducing it:

President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

Jonathan Chait proceeds to nail the Koch-funded author of the paper, Charles Blahous (all emphasis in this piece is mine):

That sounds pretty legit, right?

Actually, no. It’s not even remotely legit.

The first thing to understand here is that this is not a study by a government agency. It’s a paper by Charles Blahous. Who is Charles Blahous? He’s a Republican policy guy. By tradition, the president appoints a member of each party to serve as a trustee of Medicare and Social Security. Blahous, who served under George W. Bush and was active in his attempt to introduce private accounts into Social Security, is the Republican trustee. But the other trustee, Robert Reischauer, has zero to do with his paper. It was published by the Mercatus Center, a Koch-funded organization that produces some quality work as well as a fair amount of schlock that does not meet the standards of your typical university economics paper. This paper is an example of the latter.

The Affordable Care Act spends a bunch of money to cover people who are too poor or sick to afford their own health care. To pay for that, it raises some taxes and cuts a bunch of spending from Medicare. The new revenue and the spending cuts outweigh the cost of the new spending, which is why the Congressional Budget Office projected it to reduce the deficit. Projections always have a margin for error attached, but the CBO’s two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.

According to Chait, Blahous obtained his measure of the bills’s cost  using a conceptual trick:

Sen. Scott Brown Cozying Up to President Obama

MSNBC’s First Read on Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Ma) efforts to back away from Romney and GOP branding, emphasis mine:

It’s not every day you see this kind of press release from a Republican senator: “Two major pieces of legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) will be signed into law by President Obama at White House ceremonies this week. As the first to introduce both the STOCK Act and crowdfunding legislation in the Senate, Senator Brown was invited and will attend both signing ceremonies. ‘I’m honored to receive these invitations from President Obama and I look forward to standing next to him as he signs these bills into law.’” So we’ve seen likely Democratic opponent Elizabeth Warren star in Obama’s campaign documentary. And now Brown is shouting from the mountain top that he’ll be standing next to Obama at signing ceremonies this week. Brown has two major hurdles to overcome if he’s going to win a full term: One, he’s trying to win as a Republican in a blue state during a presidential year. And two, how does he avoid getting defined by Romney? Well, we see what Brown is TRYING to do, have photo-ops with Romney’s opponent. Here’s betting we see Brown use his appearances at these signing ceremonies in TV ads while trying like mad to avoid appearances with Romney.

Actually, Brown is running as an Independent  in Massachusetts, against a real champion of the middle class, Democrat Elizabeth Warren. The Koch brothers have contributed heavily to Brown’s campaigns.

Need any more be said?’

UPDATE: Brown + Romney = BFF’s!

Day 2 - House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, Refuses to Hold a Vote on American Jobs - the White House Responds

This is your daily reminder. On October 3, 2011, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) made it clear that he would not allow a vote in the House on the American Jobs Act.

WHERE are the JOBS, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Cantor?? The Washington Post:

After Cantor said Monday that House Republicans would not bring Obama’s $447 billion American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote, the White House struck back by releasing excerpts of the prepared remarks Obama was planning to deliver at Eastfield Community College in Mesquite, Texas, on Tuesday afternoon.

“I’d like Mr. Cantor to come down here to Dallas and explain what in this jobs bill he doesn’t believe in,” the president is planning to say. “Does he not believe in rebuilding America’s roads and bridges? Does he not believe in tax breaks for small businesses, or efforts to help veterans?”

He will also ask Cantor to “at least put this jobs bill up for a vote so that the entire country knows exactly where every Member of Congress stands.

House Majority Leader Says NO to American Jobs Act Vote

Today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) responded to President Obama’s entreaty to the House and the Senate, to vote on the American Jobs Act by the end of the month. Cantor’s response was that there will be no vote on this bill in the House. Period.

As you know, all spending bills must originate in the House, consequently, this bill is dead in the water. I intend to point this out daily. If you’re a Liberal blogger, I hope you will do the same, since it’s imperative that Cantor’s refusal to hold a vote on American jobs be common knowledge.

Washington (CNN) - House Majority Leader Eric Cantor flatly rejected President Obama's call for the House and Senate to hold a vote on his jobs bill by the end of the month, saying Monday the full bill, called the "American Jobs Act," won't get a vote in the House of Representatives. [...]

Instead Cantor announced the House will take up several measures this month that he believes House Republicans and the White House agree on, including the three pending free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

The Majority Leader also said the House would vote on a bill to permanently repeal the 3% withholding tax on businesses that hold government contracts and take up other bills that roll back regulatory barriers for businesses. Cantor said the President Obama has made comments supportive of both of these areas.

So, the anti-regulation Republican House will vote on bills that eliminate regulatory barriers for business, along with providing tax cuts for business.

But, American jobs for American workers? Pffft..........

Image courtesy of CNN
Via Bob Cesca

Gallup Poll: Americans Favor Increasing Taxes Paid by Corporations and the Rich

A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans, by a wide margin, favor both increasing taxes on upper income folks, and eliminating corporate tax loopholes in order to pay for President Obama’s American Jobs Act.

Meanwhile, at least a couple of multi-millionaires are fighting back.

Want to help? Call your House representatives today, and tell them to pass the American Jobs Act now.  If you don’t know who your representative is, go here to find out.

House Democrats Reject Lieberman-Coburn Plan to Cut Medicare

Democrats didn't react well to the Lieberman-Coburn legislation to cut Medicare, emphasis mine:

Leading congressional Democrats immediately recoiled Tuesday from a new proposal to cut $600 billion in Medicare spending over the next decade — in part by raising the eligibility age.

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) unveiled the proposal as part of a bipartisan effort to produce the kind of savings necessary to achieve the $2 trillion in debt reduction both parties say is needed to convince reticent lawmakers to vote to raise the debt ceiling. It would raise Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67 and assess higher premiums on wealthier seniors.

The proposal echoes Republican demands that entitlement reform — especially deep cuts in Medicare spending — be a part of any agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

But the swift rejection of the proposal among Democrats reflects the significant obstacles that remain to any agreement to cut the deficit and raise the nation’s legal borrowing limit.

Breaking: Lieberman and Coburn Unveil Plan for Medicare

And it sucks. Not as much as the Ryan plan sucks, but it still sucks.

The Lieberman-Coburn plan includes benefit cuts, and cost-shifting to seniors. It also raises the age for eligibility. The Hill:

But Lieberman and Coburn's proposal includes several politically risky benefit changes, such as making seniors pay more for their prescription drugs. It also would raise the eligibility age for Medicare.

The proposal would cap seniors' out-of-pocket costs depending on their income. The maximum would be set at $7,500 for people making less than $85,000 per year. Seniors with twice as much income would pay three times more in out-of-pocket Medicare costs.
Seniors also would pay more for their prescription drugs. Premiums only cover about 11 percent of the total costs for Medicare Part D, the senators said. They would require seniors to pay the full cost of their drug coverage. They said the change would free up between $5 billion and $10 billion in tax money.
The plan also would increase premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers drugs that are administered by a doctor. Part B premiums are more than $400 per year, and taxes currently cover only about a quarter of that cost. High-income seniors would have to pay the full cost of their Part B premiums under the Lieberman plan.
Both the changes to Part D and Part B premiums would only apply to seniors making more than $150,000 per year, or couples making more than $300,000.
"While it includes some much needed reforms to the Medicare program that achieve significant savings, we are opposed to additional cuts to patient care services provided by hospitals given all of the reductions we are already being asked to absorb," said a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association.
The plan hasn't been evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office, but they estimated that it would save $600 billion over 10 years. The proposal also includes a three-year patch to the formula that Medicare uses to pay doctors.

Will keep you updated as more information becomes available.

Colbert – Dancing on the debt ceiling

Colbert takes on Republicans over the debt ceiling.

Watch:

Co

Approximately half of the House Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling, knowing that it wouldn’t pass. ABC News, emphasis mine:

Earlier Tuesday the House’s No. 2 Democrat, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, told reporters that he would encourage his Democratic colleagues to either vote against the increase or vote “present” to avoid gifting Republicans with political

Senate Republicans Vote En Masse to End Medicare

In a vote held today, 40 out of 47 Republican senators voted to support the Paul Ryan Plan, which would end Medicare as we know it. Brian Beutler, emphasis mine:

The GOP continued its bloody walk into the Medicare buzzsaw Wednesday, when 40 out of 47 Senate Republicans voted in support of the House GOP budget, and its plan to phase out and privatize the popular entitlement program.

The test vote failed by a vote of 57-40. But the roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.

Voting with all of the Democrats against debating the plan were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- both 2012 incumbents -- along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against it because it wasn't radical enough.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) did not vote.

Democrats intentionally scheduled the vote less than 24 hours after a Democrat won a special election in New York's 26th -- and heavily Republican -- congressional district, on the strength of defending Medicare from a GOP onslaught. The outcome of that election heightened the political stakes, but sent few Republicans bolting for the exits.

"I've been surprised a lot of the times about how they're voting here," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a press conference after the vote.

“Rand Paul voted against it because it wasn’t radical enough.” Unbelievable.

VIDEO: ALEC Involved in Prison Privatization & Anti-Immigrant Laws

Chilling.

Watch:

More on the activities of the right wing organization ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), an organization which is partially funded by David and Charlies Koch through their many foundations.

Sen. Orrin Hatch Wants to Raise Taxes on the Poor and the Middle Class

On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) suggested raising taxes on the poor and the middle class:

Well, Bastiat, the great economist of the past said, the place where you’ve got to get revenues has to come from the middle class. That’s the huge number of people that are there. So the system does need to be revamped. As far as, I think I made the point that if you just go with what the president says about the wealthy, you might get $36 billion compared to the $1.5 trillion expenditure this year, or should I say deficit this year. And the problem with that is that you hit about 800,000 small businesses where the jobs are created that would hopefully get enough people to pay taxes. So, yeah, we have an unbalanced tax code that we’ve got to change.

I tell you, if we get control of that committee, the Finance Committee, I intend to see that it’s changed. Not to hurt the poor. We should help the poor. But to make sure that there’s a civic duty on the part of every one of us to help this government to, uh, to be better.

Think Progress, emphasis mine:

Morning Quote: Bob Cesca

Bob Cesca on the “accomplishments” of the 112th Congress thus far:

Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner have introduced ideologically far-right, inconsequential and symbolic bills that kill Planned Parenthood and NPR. They've passed legislation that cuts spending for pregnant women. They've passed legislation that magically circumvents the constitutional lawmaking process. They refuse to raise taxes on the rich while trying to gut Medicaid and kill Medicare, even though supermajorities of Americans support both of these crucial healthcare programs -- including majority support from tea party Republicans.

Michigan's Republican Gov. Rick Snyder Granted Broad & Unprecedented Power

The Republican controlled Senate passed the emergency financial manager bill today, and the Republican controlled House passed a version of the same bill yesterday.

Gov. Rick Snyder did an end run around the people by forcing cities, towns and school districts closer to financial emergency via his own state budget cuts. This is nothing more than a union busting power play, no matter how Snyder tries to spin it.

The powers of the emergency financial managers, who would be appointed by Snyder at his whim, since the law does not require that an entity actually be in dire financial straits, are so broad it is likely that they are unconstitutional.

From my previous post, EFM powers include the following:  

~ Authority to dismiss all or any elected officials
~ Authority to privatize all or any city services, including schools
~ Authority to break any and all contracts entered in to by your city via your elected officials, including collective bargaining contracts
~ Authority to disincorporate a town or city
~ Authority to merge one school district with another school district

The Detroit Free Press:

LANSING -- The Senate has passed a bill to give much broader powers to emergency managers appointed to overhaul the finances of cities or schools facing collapse.

The 26-12 vote capped two days of debate, punctuated by protests from union supporters in the halls of the Capitol who object to giving emergency managers authority to nullify employee union contracts in municipalities or school districts where they're appointed. All Republicans voted for it; all Democrats voted against.

A demonstration Tuesday filled the inside of the Capitol and was called the largest protest ever seen inside the usually decorous building.

Democrats blasted the bill as a government power grab that would undermine collective bargaining in targeted communities with appointed, high-paid managers that have almost unlimited authority.

Rick Ungar of Forbes, emphasis mine:

What makes this law so unique is its extensive reach.

Not only can an emergency manager wipe out collective bargaining agreements, he or she can literally push aside duly elected city officials and prevent them from doing the job they were elected to do.

Clearly, this raises some questions of constitutionality and state overreach.

Be sure to watch Rachel Maddow discussing this travesty with Naomi Klein, and stay tuned.

Republicans Vote to Defund Planned Parenthood

Gah. They are such morons, it makes me want to pull my hair out. Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- The House has approved a Republican proposal to block federal aid for Planned Parenthood.

The 240-185 vote on Friday is a victory for anti-abortion forces led by Indiana GOP Rep. Mike Pence. He says taxpayer money should not go to groups that provide or promote abortion.

Democrats say Planned Parenthood provides contraception and other valuable family planning services, and that cutting off the money will make it hard for women to get such basic help.

It won’t get through the Senate, so once again, the Republican majority in the 112th Congress is wasting time and taxpayer dollars on promoting utter crap.

Also, Bob Cesca on the Washington Post’s silly wording:

I love that last paragraph from the very liberal Washington Post, by the way. Democrats say that? How about REALITY says that. It's a fact -- not a political opinion -- that Planned Parenthood "provides contraception and other valuable family planning services."

Bastards.

Related: Why Do Republicans Hate Women?

Government Shutdown Likely

Yesterday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) rejected a stopgap measure that would have prevented a government shutdown due to the inability of lawmakers to come to an agreement on the federal budget.

As the clock ticks down to March 4, when the current stopgap funding measure expires, Boehner shot down what many considered to be the surest way to keep government agencies running while the two chambers hammer out the differences between their respective spending bills.

"We are hopeful that the Senate will take up the House‑passed bill that comes out of here today, tonight, tomorrow morning, whenever it is, and we hope that they will move it," he said at a press conference. "But I am not going to move any kind of short‑term CR at current levels. When we say we're going to cut spending, read my lips: We are going to cut spending."

Boehner’s remarks provoked a swift reaction from Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who said that Boehner is threatening a shutdown with out being willing to negotiate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., retorted that Boehner was resorting "to threats of a shutdown without any negotiation." Officials added that Democrats would seek a short-term bill without any cut in spending levels, a position sharply at odds with Boehner's.

The sparring occurred as the House labored to complete work on veto-threatened legislation to cut more than $61 billion from the budget year that's more than a third over. That bill also would provide funding to keep the government operating until Sept. 30.

Today, Jerry Hartz, a senior aide to Nancy Pelosi, said that a government shutdown "is more likely than not".

Hartz reportedly weighed in on the contentious issue at a routine meeting with Democratic chiefs of staff. According to Politico, his remarks were unsolicited. One unidentified chief of staff told the outlet the remarks appeared to reflect a "genuine" concern.

Nancy Pelosi on what this action would say about Republicans:

So much is at stake. It's a failure to say we've taken the leadership of the United States and the first thing we're going to do is shut down the government to the detriment of our people [and] to our security.

Related: Results of 1995 Government Shutdown Should Act as a Warning to Republicans

Obama Threatens to Veto GOP Budget Measure

Breaking….from The Hill, emphasis mine:

In a statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget said cuts included in the Republican continuing resolution would hamstring the U.S. economy and compromise national security.

"If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill," the statement said. 

The White House said the cuts in the GOP plan "will undermine our ability to out-educate, out-build, and out-innovate the rest of the world."

The statement said the GOP proposal goes too far and "proposes cuts that would sharply undermine core government functions and investments key to economic growth and job creation, and would reduce funding for the Department of Defense to a level that would leave the department without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements."

The House GOP measure would cut this year's spending by $61 billion, though conservative Republicans want to make further cuts.

Nancy Pelosi on the Republican War Against Women

Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] during a conference call with reporters on Thursday, emphasis mine:

They're advancing extreme legislation, It's dangerous to women's health, disrespects the judgment of American women -- I don't know if they even gave that a thought -- and it's the most comprehensive and radical assault on women's health in our lifetime. It's that bad.

What you can do to stop them.

Updating Daily Political News Brief

What we're reading today:

Good news for the Affordable Care Act came in the form of a Mississippi judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit.

Egyptian government officials have joined the protests in Cairo, as the cries for Mubarak’s resignation grow louder.

Gov. Jan Brewer [R-AZ] struck out at Mayor Bloomberg [I-NYC] over the Arizona gun sales sting conducted by his administration.

President Obama will take questions from reporters today at a press conference regarding the crisis in #Egypt. There is chatter on the Hill that he is talking to Egyptian officials regarding a plan for Mubarak to resign immediately. UPDATE: the Obama administration is now in talks with Egyptian officials, and has said that the U.S, wants Mubarak to resign immediately.

What happened to the Republican chatter about shutting down the federal government?

We know that thanks to the rulings of activist judges in the matter of the Affordable Care Act, the case will very probably go to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. Looking forward, Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT] is calling for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the consideration of the case, because she is partisan. Using that criteria, of course we should also excuse Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy. Ridiculous. H/T Ashby

The government has agreed to grant full collective bargaining rights to 40,000 airport screeners. Stay tuned for the massive Republican meltdown! H/T Ashby

Are the decisions Clarence Thomas made serving on the Supreme Court making his wife rich?

A Republican wants to raise taxes? Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA] believes a tax increase is essential for deficit reduction.

No, President Obama did not order blackouts.

Sen. Ben Nelson on Health Care Repeal Efforts

Senator Nelson [D-NE] sums it up nicely.

The repealers who have their own government health insurance are very eager and ready to make sure that others don't get it through the law that's in place

Republican Health Care Repeal Effort Killed in the Senate

As was entirely predictable. And will Republican members of the 112th Congress be held accountable for wasting time - a full month - and taxpayer money, in order to promote this losing proposition? We all know the answer to that. Steve Benen:

What we're left with is a wasted a month in which Republicans, instead of working on meaningful legislation or efforts to improve the economy, made their party's base feel good about itself. Had the repeal measure passed the consequences would have been severe -- higher deficit, higher taxes on small businesses, higher costs for consumers, higher rates of uninsured -- but Republicans did it anyway, in large part because they had the luxury of consequence-free posturing. They knew from the outset that families wouldn't actually suffer from this stunt because the crusade would inevitably fail.

GOP lawmakers, in other words, had the best of both worlds -- they could try to gut the system and screw over millions (which makes the base happy), knowing all the while that they were only putting on a show (which makes families who need the benefits happy). It was a ridiculous charade, an insult to the political process, and a reminder that the GOP is in desperate need of grown-ups, but in the end, the stunt served its intended, shallow purposes.

This little vanity exercise was also a reminder of just how little seriousness Republicans bring to their policy work. Like their House counterparts, the Senate GOP spent the day making up numbers, condemning the CBO, and repeating long-discredited attacks, but what they never got around to doing was explaining how they might want to improve the old, dysfunctional health care system. Not one Republican lawmaker this month has spent time presenting a credible alternative or talking about how they might try to help people who need it.

They love tearing down; they loathe building up.

With yesterday's vote, every Republican in the Senate effectively told American families, "We'll gut the health care system now, and maybe figure something else out later. In the meantime, good luck -- and don't get sick." Those who find this compelling probably aren't paying close enough attention.

Bastards.

Update on the GOP Battle Against the Affordable Care Act

I was embroiled in personal issues over the past couple of weeks, and consequently missed posting about several significant events in the Republican battle to repeal the the Affordable Care Act, which I think is definitely important enough to keep up with, thus, this catch-up post..

First, on January 20, the Republican controlled House voted unanimously to repeal the ACA, or as Republicans like to [falsely] call it, “the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”. . HuffPost:

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans voted unanimously on Wednesday to fully repeal health care reform, though Senate leaders have said they will not take up the lower chamber's bill. Instead, the fight will move to the less glamorous arenas of funding and rule writing. The vote was 245-189, with three Democrats -- Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Mike Ross (D-Ark.) -- voting for repeal.

This despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not support repeal, and many more would not support repeal had the GOP not engendered and publicized so many lies about the ACA, not the least of which is the so called job killing aspect of it [the truth is that insuring 30 million more people would create thousands of jobs in the health care industry], and the blatant lie that the law would increase the deficit. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the law would decrease the deficit, and repealing it would increase the deficit by 200 million. deficit  From the CBO blog:

House Votes to Cut Public Financing of Presidential Candidates & Party Conventions

Just what we need. Less transparency, more reliance on corporate contributions, more politicians beholden to their corporate masters. WTF??

From HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — Eager to cut spending, the Republican-controlled House voted to end multimillion-dollar federal subsidies for presidential candidates and national political conventions on Wednesday, the first of what party leaders promised will be weekly, bite-sized bills to attack record deficits.

The 239-160 vote sent the measure – and the fate of the familiar $3 check-off box on income tax returns – to the Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats.

"Eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over ten years, and would require candidates and political parties to rely on private contributions rather than tax dollars," said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "In times when government has no choice but to do more with less, voting to end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be a no brainer."

Gah.

VIDEO: President Obama's Remarks at the Signing of the DADT Repeal Act of 2010

Full transcript here. 

Compromise Version of the 9/11 Responders Health Care Bill Passes in the House and the Senate

The two obstructionists, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) agreed to a compromise which reduced the total compensation package to $4.3 billion, down from $6.2 billion. The “time span was also significantly limited to five years each for the health treatment program.”

“I’ll stand in the way of anything that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t spend our money wisely, so you know, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, we’re in such a hole, Jon, that we don’t have the luxury of not getting things right,” Coburn told ABC News today after announcing the deal.

Last night on CNBC, Coburn defended his obstruction of the bill and his insistence that it lavishes too much money on dying 9/11 first responders, saying “we’re spending four times as much money as we need to.” Coburn said that the actual cost of pre-deal bill would be $11 billion (he disputed the way the Congressional Budget Office scored it), and suggested that it was not paid for, saying, “we don’t have an extra $11 billion right now.” ....

Of course, the bill would not require an “extra” $11 billion. The bill is entirely paid for by offsets, some of which were changed at the GOP’s behest. As ThinkProgress has noted, these offsets — which at one point included a tax on foreign corporations — led the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby against the measure. ...

The Senate passed a compromise version of the 9/11 first responders bill this afternoon. "The measure was passed on a voice vote with no one objecting after Democrats and Republican critics reached a compromise reducing the bill's cost from $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion." The House will vote on it later today.

I still feel pissed off that this did not pass with out Republican obstruction, in its original form, and with out making these responders fear for their futures. Taking care of these people who took care of us should have been something that we could all agree on.

Via Think Progress

History Made, START Treaty Ratified

President Obama becomes the first Democratic president in U.S. history to sheperd ratification of an arms-control treaty to its completion during his tenure. From Think Progress:

The New START Treaty was approved in the Senate by a vote of 71-26. Thirteen Republicans, a quarter of the Republican caucus, broke with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). This is the first time an arms control treaty has ever passed without the support of the minority leader. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said yesterday, “In today’s Senate, 70 votes is yesterday’s 95.”

A year ago, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for his vision of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons. The ratification of the START treaty is a small but important step toward this goal. It ensures that nuclear stability is maintained and lays the groundwork for future negotiations with Russia, paving the way for deeper cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. While the START treaty has been called a modest treaty, the implications of its failure would have been anything but and would have caused dangerous upheaval in the post-Cold War nuclear order.

Morning Quote: President Obama on Signing DADT Repeal Act

       White House Photo, Chuck Kennedy

At the signing ceremony for the DADT Repeal Act this morning, President Obama:

We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’ We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes all men and women are created equal. Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals we uphold today.

Would this have happened under a Republican president? Not in a million years.

RELATED:

• Full Transcript - President Obama's Remarks on Signing DADT Repeal Act

• VIDEO

UPDATE: It appears that the military is prepared to quickly move forward on the certifications. From Huffington Post:

Although several military service chiefs expressed opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, President Obama has spoken to them since the measure passed, and they are all ready to move forward expeditiously on implementing and certifying the changes.

"The President called every single service chief separately, talked to them, and they are all about moving this forward very quickly," said a White House official who helped lead the president's DADT repeal effort. "They're soldiers; they understand this is the law of the land, and they're going to get this done. They went through a process that was beyond repute to show we can do this, and I think you'll see a very, very fast process."

In a press conference on Wednesday, Obama reiterated that point, saying they "all said that we are going to implement this smartly and swiftly, and they are confident that it will not have an effect on our military effectiveness."

 

 

Transcript: Full Remarks by President Obama at the Signing of the DADT Repeal Bill

Watch the video here.

---

Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

Department of Interior

Washington, D.C.

9:10 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hey, folks, how are you?  (Applause.)  It’s a good day.  (Applause.)  It’s a real good day.  As some of my colleagues can tell you, this is a long time in coming.  But I am happy it’s here.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.  Please be seated.

It was a great five-star general and President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who once said, “Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness and consideration, and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.”  

By repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" today, we take a big step toward fostering justice, fairness and consideration, and that real cooperation President Eisenhower spoke of.  

Morning Quote: Rachel Maddow on DADT Repeal

Rachel Maddow’s comments to MSNBC News after the Senates vote on DADT repeal:

This is the president’s victory. This is something about which the President took a lot of criticism, a lot of abuse. Um, a lot of skepticism from his otherwise most loyal supporters on this. But this is an issue on which the President did not waver. He continually insisted that this was possible, that it would get done. It in fact was not possible for the President to do this through executive action. This is something that had to happen legislatively if it was really going to happen in a definitive way. The President did not waver. He did work on the Senate to make this happen. He insisted that it was possible against a lot of people, including me, saying it was not possible. This is a difficult promise kept. It's not just a promise kept. It was one that was hard to keep, that cost a lot of political capital, and a lot of work, and this is the President's victory today, and his base will reward him for it. [emphasis mine]

Very classy comment from Ms. Maddow.

Watch:

 

A Few Things to Note on DADT Repeal Implementation

Despite the passage of the DADT Repeal Act in both Houses of Congress, the DADT repeal won’t be implemented immediately, due to further requirements yet to be met, the most obvious being the President’s signing of the bill.

Not so well known or obvious, is the certification process by President Obama, and his top military advisors, who must certify that lifting the ban won't negatively affect the fighting ability of the troops.

Once the certification takes place, there is a 60-day waiting period prior to implementation by the military.

Thus, it will be a few months before we see the actual implementation of the repeal. Considering the struggle that it took to get to this point, not so long at all.

Andrew Sullivan, from his post entitled "Obama's Long Game: 65-31"

Like 2009's removal of the HIV ban, which was as painstakingly slow but thereby much more entrenched, this process took time. Without the Pentagon study, it wouldn't have passed. Without Obama keeping Lieberman inside the tent, it wouldn't have passed. Without the critical relationship between Bob Gates and Obama, it wouldn't have passed. It worked our last nerve; we faced at one point a true nightmare of nothing ... for years. And then we pulled behind this president, making it his victory and the country's victory, as well as ours.

We also know now what a McCain administration would have done: nothing. The disgraceful bitterness and rancor and irrationality that the Senator has shown these past few months reveal just how important it was to defeat him and his deranged, delusional side-kick in 2008.

Many of us appreciated his "long game" from the beginning. We understood that to use an executive order to enact civil rights for gays and lesbians serving in the armed forces would have been a stopgap measure, one easily overturned immediately upon the next Republican administration taking office.

Not to gloat, but I hope that those of you who have been burning the president at the proverbial stake because you doubted his "long game", are chastened. You should be.

Quote of the Week

President Obama, in his statement after  the Senate voted to repeal DADT:

It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.

Well said sir. Well said.

It's DONE! Senate Votes for Repeal of DADT

Finally. And due to President Obama’s refusal to take the easy way which would have likely resulted in the reinstatement of DADT during the next Republican administration. From Think Progress:

Moments ago, in a vote of 63-33 the Senate invoked cloture on a bill to repeal the 17-year-old Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, paving the way for final passage in the coming days hours. The House passed the measure on Wednesday.

Democrats delivered eloquent speeches in support of open service. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said, “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places for this country.” Immediately before the vote, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who has been the strongest advocate of repeal in the Senate, urged his colleagues to repeal the ban, saying “We’ve come to a point in our history, I hope, where neither race nor religion, ethnicity, or gender, or sexual orientation should deprive Americans of serving the country as the patriots they are.”

Do Americans Really Want the Bush Era Tax Cuts Extended?

In a word, yes.

While much of the Left online, in terms of both bloggers, and commenters, are very ambivalent about the Obama-GOP tax cut deal, and in fact, many of these same people wanted to let the tax cuts expire completely if they could not be extended for the middle class only, the rest of America wants the tax cut deal enacted. Gallup Polling Matters:

The most important thing to recognize: Americans want some type of action taken before the end of the year to avoid all Bush era tax cuts expiring. Americans do not want the tax cuts to go away as a result of the inability of the warring factions in Washington to agree on what to do about them.

• 66% of Americans support the extension of the tax cuts
• 66% of Americans support the extension of unemployment benefits
• 78% of moderate Republicans support the extension of the tax cuts
• 62% of moderate Republicans support the extension of unemployment benefits
• 64% of moderate Democrats support the extension of the tax cuts
• 85% of moderate Democrats support the extension of unemployment benefits

So could we now please see an end to the endless bitching and the “why didn’t Obama let them all expire” mantra? We online are not the entirety of the American public.

Morning Quote: Jill Biden on the DREAM Act

From her op-ed on the Miami Herald, Jill Biden:

For two centuries immigrants have come from across the world to help build America. The young people awaiting action on the DREAM Act are no different. For our nation, the DREAM Act means success. It means enabling a new generation of immigrants who have grown up as Americans to improve themselves and help build our country through hard work, determination and patriotism. Those are American values they already possess.

A Comparison of Priorities in the Obama Tax Deal

A chart from the Wonk Room illustrates the most basic difference between the two parties and the gains made in this plan.

The chart aptly illustrates how many people benefitted [millions] from Democratic priorities vs Republican priorities, as well as noting the total cost in billions.

On the Democratic side, we get an extension of the tax cuts for the middle class, a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, a 1-year payroll tax cut of 2.5% [employee side only], and extended tax credits from the 2009 Recovery Act. These components of the deal will benefit 156 million people, and cost $214 billion in deficit spending.

On the Republican side, they get an extension of the tax cuts for the rich, and a 1-year cut in the estate tax, and those components, the Republicans priorities, benefit 4.8 million people at a cost of $133 billion in deficit spending.

Stay tuned.

RELATED:

- FULL VIDEO & TRANSCRIPT: Obama Press Conference on Tax Cuts - Dec. 7, 2010
- White House: We Wanted a Fight
- TRANSCRIPT: Details on Obama Tax Cut Plan

Morning Quote: Sen. Tom Coburn Lies to Senior Citizens About Health Care Reform

A flashback quote from the era of health care reform. The outright lies, myths, and hyperbole flew during the battle for health care reform in 2009, and 2010, and included this fabrication from Sen. Tom Coburn (R- OK) who made this claim on the floor of the Senate in December of 2009

I have a message for our seniors: “You’re going to die sooner.”

 

TRANSCRIPT: Details on Obama Tax Cut Plan

TRANSCRIPT

Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance

The framework agreement announced by the President secures vital tax relief and investments in our workers that will create jobs and accelerate economic growth. The plan has three key accomplishments:

• Working families will not lose their tax cut. A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st. That’s avoided under this framework agreement, and working families won’t see their tax cuts go away next year.
• Focused on high impact job creation measures. The framework agreement includes some of the best measures for jumpstarting growth and job creation, including a full year of emergency unemployment insurance benefits, an about $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families and a continuation of tax credits for working families. This is on top of growth generated by extension of the middle-class income tax rates.

White House: We Wanted a Fight

A senior spokesman for the White House told ABC News that they [the White House] wanted a fight, but Congressional Democrats “wouldn’t throw a punch”.

"We wanted a fight, the House didn't throw a punch," a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. "The House wouldn't vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they'd lose a vote on it."

"It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren't any Jets," the official said. "Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn't hold his caucus together."

"This isn't a debate in a lab somewhere," the official continued. "People's taxes were going to go up, and then we were going to have a Senate with a slimmer margin and House under Republican control."

Another senior White House official said that under the new Congress, it was likely all the White House would have been able to get as a concession was maybe seven months of extended unemployment insurance, as opposed to the current deal -- with a payroll tax reduction, business write-offs for investments, and continued child and college tuition tax credits.

The spokesman also indicated that despite the rage coming from Democrats, this was a good deal, emphasis mine.

1) We wanted a fight on these tax cuts, and Congressional Democrats never took up the charge and held a vote;

2) This is a good deal -- and we weren't willing to let taxes go up on middle class Americans, or to deprive the unemployed of insurance benefits, just to prove a political point.

Watch:

RELATED:

- TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Statement to the Press on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits
- White House: We Wanted a Fight
- TRANSCRIPT: Details on Obama Tax Cut Plan
- VIDEO: Obama to Democrats .. This is a long game. Not a short game.
- VIDEO: Obama …It’s tempting not to negotiate.

VIDEO: The Real People Who Are Unemployed

Nice flick, but yet another example of Democratic messaging failure, since it was the Republicans who refused to extend unemployment benefits, twice, both on December 1, and on December 4, who filibustered this lifeline. Not "Congress", NOT the Democrats.

And, it is 2.5 million Americans who have been cut off. That figure does not include their family members or pets who also rely upon those benefits.

RELATED:   President Obama Calls on Republicans to End Obstruction of Unemployment Benefits, Urges Congress to Pass Critical Aid for Millions of Americans

Via Bob Cesca

John McCain McWeasel Hates 9/11 Responders / Heros

Once again, the Senate will attempt to pass a health care bill for 9/11 responders [Zadroga bill] next week. It has already passed in the House, where Democrats have a clear majority. In the Senate, however, we need one more Republican to break the Republican filibuster of the bill. One more.

T.J. Gilmartin, a 9/11 responder who now suffers from breathing problems, made an attempt to win over that one more Republican when he ran in to John McCain on a trip to Washington recently. Via Think Progress, this is how Gilmartin’s encounter with John McCain McWeasel went down:

“I thought I could talk to him. I mean, he’s a real hero, not like us. We’re just little half heroes.

“Our country took care of him when he came back. He was a POW. I respect that.

“I wasn’t stalking him or anything, but then I saw him in a hallway going to an elevator near the rotunda.

“It was a floor up from where they have the badges.

“I stepped in front of him, and I was very respectful. I told him who I was and I asked for his help on the Zadroga bill.

“It lasted maybe 10 or 15 seconds.

“He said ‘Thank you for your service.’

“And ‘I can’t help you.’

“Then, bang, he stepped around me and onto the elevator.

“If his eyes were daggers, I’d be dead. They’d all be in my heart.

“John McCain was pathetic. I would have thought more of him.”

Apparently, only those with money to spend need bother to lobby our lawmakers. I am so embarrassed for McCain, for the GOP, for all those who consider themselves above the rest of us by virtue of their bank accounts. Truly despicable behavior.

Stay tuned for the outcome of the vote this week.

Adding…. the image is yesterday’s headline from the New York Daily News, via Think Progress.

Senate Republicans Vote to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class

And they did this because the vote did not include tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans. They also voted “no” on the extension of unemployment benefits for the same reason. They are holding the unemployed and the middle class hostage for their patrons, the wealthiest among us. For shame. Arthur Delaney:

Senate Republicans and a handful of Democrats Saturday defeated a bill to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and a plethora of tax provisions for the middle class not because of the bill's trillion-dollar deficit impact, but because it did not include tax cuts for the rich.

"In economic times like these, 9.8 percent unemployment, you should not raise taxes on anyone," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told HuffPost.

Two bills were defeated. By a vote of 53-63, the Senate rejected a bill by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that would have preserved Bush era tax cuts for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but would have allowed cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year to expire. Four Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined Republicans in voting against the measure. The Senate also rejected a bill by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would have extended all the cuts, but not for anybody making more than $1 million.

The Baucus bill would have preserved Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits Programs created in 2008 as a customary response to rising unemployment. The programs provide up to 73 weeks of federally-funded benefits for when layoff victims exhaust the standard 26 weeks of state-funded aid. The programs lapsed last week, threatening a holiday cutoff for two million unemployed.

Bastards.