E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe bold and the cautious… GOP takes a big risk with going bold on the spending-cut impasse and with Medicare/Medicaid… White House takes a beating for Gitmo reversal… Are we on the brink of a shutdown?... Obama meets with congressional leaders at 10:15 am ET to try to resolve the impasse… The difference between the lame duck and now: Obama had credibility with his base, while Boehner doesn’t (at least not yet)… Circle July 8 on your calendars… Ryan’s budget rollout… Two additional reasons why his plan seems DOA: Almost everyone likes Medicare, and excluding those 55 and older never seems to work… Today’s two referendums on Scott Walker… And 270 to win.
From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The bold and the cautious: There is something about winning an election that emboldens a political party. We saw it after 2008, when President Obama went big with his stimulus and health-care plans, as well as his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. And we’re seeing it again after 2010, with House Republicans refusing -- it seems for now -- to meet Democrats half way in reducing spending for the rest of the year; with Paul Ryan’s plan today to overhaul Medicaid and Medicare; and with Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) push on collective bargaining. Similarly, there’s something about trying to win an election that makes a political party VERY cautious. We saw it last year, when House Republicans refused to say anything about reforming entitlement programs, and when most didn’t dare touch Ryan’s “road map” for reform on the campaign trail. And we’re seeing it again now, with the Obama administration -- on the very day the president announces his re-election bid -- scuttling its promise to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in federal court.
*** GOP takes a big risk: So today’s question is this: What will win out in 2011 and 2012 -- boldness or caution? In his column today, National Journal’s Charlie Cook believes the bold House Republicans are taking a very big risk with going bold. “[T]alking with Republican pollsters, strategists and veteran campaign professionals recently, I now hear sounds of concern that haven’t been heard in almost two years. Among the worries the party now has is that a government shutdown could get blamed on the GOP. Additionally, these party insiders believe that taking on entitlements, specifically Medicare, could jeopardize the party’s hold on the House, its strong chances of taking the Senate and the stronghold that the party has been established with older white voters— not coincidentally, Medicare recipients.” Voters want both boldness and caution, and it's a balancing act.
*** White House takes a beating: While House Republicans are taking a big risk, the Obama White House is taking a beating for bowing to politics, reality, and caution in reversing its effort to try KSM in federal court. The New York Times editorial page puts it well: “That retreat was a victory for congressional pandering and an embarrassment for the Obama administration, which failed to stand up to it.” The about-face was a painful reminder that “Change you can believe in” sometimes becomes “Change doesn’t happen if the politics is no longer on your side.”
*** On the brink of a shutdown? The biggest story today, though, is the 10:15 am ET meeting at the White House to try and resolve the spending-cut impasse. The attendees: President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Senate Appropriations Chair Dan Inouye. Last week, we wrote not to believe the hype about a government shutdown -- mainly because while Boehner had said there was no deal, he never was rejecting the $33 billion compromise figure. But something happened yesterday. “I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough and many of the cuts that the White House and Senate Democrats are talking about are full of smoke and mirrors,” Boehner said in a statement yesterday. His office later followed up with this: “Tonight, Speaker Boehner informed House Republicans that tomorrow … House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren will issue guidance to all members on how the House would operate in the event Senate Democrats shut down the government.” Boehner's change of heart came after Senate Democrats and House Republicans couldn't agree on the number of permanent cuts vs. temporary cuts, and that's why Boehner went from vagueness regarding the $33 billion to being more definitive yesterday. More than ever before, we seem on the brink of a shutdown.
*** Credibility with the base: The biggest difference between the lame-duck battle over the Bush tax cuts and the current impasse over spending cuts is: Obama had the credibility to tell his base to accept temporarily extending the tax cuts for the wealthy in return for jobless benefits and a payroll tax cut. As you remember, Democrats weren’t happy with the compromise, but they eventually acquiesced (and then turned their attention to other issues, like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and New START). But Boehner doesn’t have that same credibility with his base, at least not yet. He can't tell the base, “Take this half a loaf.” They don't yet trust him. And that’s why we’re on the brink of a shutdown.
*** Circle July 8 on your calendars: By the way, we now have a date for the next big congressional battle, if we ever get to it. Reuters: “The United States will hit the legal limit on its ability to borrow no later than May 16, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Monday, ramping up pressure on Congress to act to avoid a debt default.” And that means the debt ceiling has to be raised no LATER than July 8.
*** Ryan’s rollout: The other big story today -- besides today’s White House meeting to resolve the spending-cut impasse -- is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s rollout of his 2012 budget plan, which includes an overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan holds a press conference at 10:30 am ET, and speaks at the conservative American Enterprise Institute at noon ET. As we wrote yesterday, there are a few reasons why Ryan’s proposals won’t likely go anywhere for now: 1) Ryan has no bipartisan cover; 2) Dems are still in control of the White House and Senate; and 3) Ryan didn’t back the bipartisan Deficit Commission recommendations. But there are two more reasons why the proposals are DOA. One, Medicare remains the best government brand out there. Almost EVERYONE loves the program, so good luck cutting it. Republicans got control of the House and "won" the health care PR battle by, well, to borrow a word that some are using a lot today: "demogogue-ing" Medicare. Two, excluding those 55 and older from changes NEVER seems to work. Just ask George W. Bush what happened with his Social Security reform.
*** The referendums on Scott Walker: The political fight in Wisconsin won't be ending any time soon -- with court battles and recall elections on the horizon. And today, there are two general-election races in the state that some may view as referendums on Gov. Scott Walker (R). In the race to replace Walker as Milwaukee County executive, nonpartisan (though Democratic leaning) Chris Abele faces off against Republican Jeff Stone. Abele has aired a TV ad comparing Stone to Walker (Stone has been quoted as saying that he and Walker share “similar aspirations,” while Walker has praised Stone). In a second race -- for state Supreme Court -- incumbent conservative David Prosser takes on more liberal challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg, and Democrats have played up a quote from a Prosser spokesperson saying the justice would be a “complement” to Walker. The contest has even featured this over-the-top ad.
*** Is Walker toxic? If Democrats win one or both of these races by tying the Republican to Walker, it could be further evidence that Walker is politically toxic in Wisconsin and that Dems have the momentum in the state. And these two contests are just the beginning: The first recall election of a GOP state senator looks like it will take place a couple of months from now…
*** 270 to win: Finally, the Web site 270toWin.com plugged in First Read’s presidential toss-up states. It found 70 scenarios how Obama could reach 270 electoral votes or higher, 50 scenarios how the GOP nominee could get to 270 and above, and 13 different ways we could see a 269-269 tie. Digest that last fact a minute: 13 different scenarios for a 269-269 tie. Cue the screams from electoral college reformers.
Countdown to continuing resolution’s expiration: 3 days
Countdown to NY-26 special election: 49 days
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 129 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 217 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 307 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
Obama and his administration are clueless about leading this nation. I hope he is a one termer.
I have not yet figured out if he is really clueless, or just a good liar.
I had a good laugh at some of the statements on blogs after President Obama announced his bid for re-election on yesterday. From what I read in the comments, I could only laugh at the thought of Right Winger, TEA Drinking Birthers squirming in their seats, faces getting red, veins pulsating as they had a mad scowling look on their faces realizing that President Obama is about to be in office for 2 terms.
Here are just a few postings from Republicans.
“He won cause he's part black.”
“I would rather had seen McCain in office back in 2000 or 2008 at least he watches out for veterans unlike the half breed that only cares about vacations and campaigning as well as digging us further into debt.”
“I wonder if any of the states will require Mr Obama provide a birth certificate this time?”
“you want change--get rid of the old--and in with the white...”
“Do not be fooled into thinking he is a Christian looking out for our way of life. Every day, he proves he is not a Christian and in fact his Islamic preferences come out.”
“Whatever...'Teleprompter boy' has about as much chance winning as flying.”
“At least Trump has proved he's a US citizen, Obwan has yet to do so!”
“If Obama gets in office again than I shall believe that he is certainly Imam Al-Mehdi - whom will lead "all" muslims.”
“Campaining is the only thing Obama really knows how. After getting the job he becomes like your normal welfare recipient do as little as possible while milking the system to the max.”
“he can send your kids,and grand kids to fight a war,that he alone created in the name of his faith! (Muslim)”
“anyone that would vote for that "cockroach presidnet obama" is just plain stupid”
“Obamacare run by the IRS.... Hello! He needs to take more vacation trips while he can and retire in Kenya in 2012.”
“A vote for Obama, is a vote for Islam.”
“He is the Manchurian Candidate from Islam!”
“We need to give Obama a long break so he can devote his time and energy to his top priorities, vacation, basketball and entertaining his Muslim buddies.”
“So far he really hasn't proven he a an American citizen either. I never thought I would say something like that till "The Donald" got me thinking about it.”
“It's a shame the first minority President couldnt have come from a better back ground than Obama's. Being raised and educated on entitlements isnt how most Americans get thu life.”
“Im sure his biggest supporters will be the Muslims. Barry has done more to undermine the US and it's people so the Muslims and others can infiltrate this country under the radar.”
“After reading about the cost of Health Insurance..and looking out the Limo window and seeing the price of gas..Daddy Blue Gums is afraid to face the REAL world”
“the obama group will be around and tell all the white people that if you dont vote for obama, then you are a racist, well the only racist is that black muslim obama and his tater and rib vale hoping fat wife.”
“But doesnt Michelle have a nice hairdo. Maybe she'll be able to find a better pimp to dress her for this last year in office.”
“I prayed He would not run again.” Really? You got on your knees and prayed? SMH.
“Barry O has got to go in 2012.”
I'm quite sure this last little nugget will be the 2012 mantra. I just can't wait because this is when the Righties get creative. Like Obammy, Obarry, Obamama, Kenyan Boy and the list goes on. SMH.
You guys are truly haters.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
@Louis, got it the first time, thanks
Hi Louis,
I thank this post needs to be posted every day you are online. It's tells the truth and people need to open their eyes, and call these people out.
I am sure it would be an easy thing to come up with a list of stupid stuff that liberals have come out with . There are dummies on both sides, so the list really proves nothing.
@Don., the people that make those comments are always going to be there on both sides not sure why Louis and others think that racist or ignorant people only come from one side of the fence. Also not sure why people who dislike Obama's policies are labeled as racist???? I don't get that one at all especially since I have quite a few black friends who dislike his policies and do not plan on voting for him again. It's really childish and immature on the part of those who are racist and those who call it out without merit. I don't care if your a Dem, Rep, blue, black, white, brown etc...you can be a racist, prejudice, ignorant..etc....I recall past Presidents receiving insults and nasty comments so not sure why people think Obama would be treated any different than the others.
I agree completely with you. There are intelligent people on both sides and also ignorant people and racists on both. I just get upset when someone implies that everything is "black and white" and either liberals or conservatives are 100% correct. I am a moderate and realize they both have points to make, and both have things that I disagree with. A lot of the name calling and slamming of those with opposing views is not called for and I want to see a rational discussion of the issues. I disagree with Obama, just the same as I disagree with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid so I don''t think I qualify as a racist.
Louis we get your point, no need to post it over and over. It's like you are trying way too hard to prove only liberals can be good guys and all conservatives are spawns of the devil. I can go back and gather just as many ignorant name calling posts from the liberals on any given day. I don't really believe that paints a fair picture of either side.
No you can't ksw.
LouisJ all I have to do is pull up Bev's or Feistys comments for a week.. They may not be specifically racist but they are just as insulting and uncivil. Please try to be objective. I totally do not support any of the comments you posted but you cannot say the regulars on here are always civil and respectful. It does not count when you are only civil to those who always agree with you.
BRB...gotta' get me dem rose-colored glasses....
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Winston Churchill
"Finally, the Web site 270toWin.com plugged in First Read’s presidential toss-up states."
The problem with this is that a number of states that you listed yesterday as toss-up states are in no way tossups:
NM will not be a tossup. It is now one of the bluest states in the Union.
MN will not be a tossup. It has gone 12 of the last 13 elections for the democrats, survived both Reagan landslides and remained a blue state.
WI not be a tossup. Scott Walker and his antics practically guarantee that Obama will come damned close to his +13.90% landslide victory in 2012 once again.
In reality, there are well over 85-90 scenarios to get Obama over 270 and less than 25 to get the GOP over 270 if we rely on real empirical data and statistical precedent, which is what impassionate and neutral statisticians do. Obama is on course to win 55-43.5 in 2012 and come over 400 EV. That is the real story.
The last 2 years we had Obama, Pelosi and Reid posing as the three stooges.
We can argue about where to make cuts and every area needs to be looked at. If we do nothing, the country collapses . Its as simple as that. But that fact that we are arguing about the seriousness of the situation really scares me and is stupid. If people cannot see any problems with the US borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend , I don't think there is any hope at all for the US. We have already maxed out of grandchildren's credit cards and are in way to deep to tax our way out. Politicians and the rest of us denying the problems will save nothing.
WHY is it that NO media talking head will confront ANY republican with one simple fact: The last 3 GOP presidents signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets and pushed thru massive tax cuts for the rich in order to create a debt and budget crisis DELIBERATELY!!! Are they suppressing the story of "starve the beast" so Americans wont know who REALLY caused this crisis?? How do the media benefit from this??? It would be the biggesst story since Watergate! The silence from the media is DEFEANING!
All the politicians are guilty. I cant understand any reader of MSNBC could possibly consider the media to be conservative biased. There are loads of questions I would love to see them confront Democrats on.
Forget about $33 billion... end corporate welfare immediately and save over $100 billion and that is from the conservative Cato Institution.
Throw out the lobbyists and remove corporations from the government teet and we can balance our budget.
I am an independent to, but I am sure it will take more than this to balance the budget currently 1.6 trillion per year.
Just because the idiot republicans previously allowed deficit spending does not mean that you continue to allow it to go on forever. Obama has taken deficit spending to a whole new level. This carelessness needs to stop and FINALLY the republican party got the message. If only the democrats would follow suit (wishful thinking--Reid even wants to continue a subsidy in his home state for cowboy poetry--go figure!).
sofork? that isnt true. Did you know that bush's last budget had a deficit of $1.3T BEFORE Pres. Obama was even sworn in??? Did you think Pres. Obama could eliminate that in ONE YEAR?? Hell, it took Clinton FIVE YEARS to eliminate the $250B budget deficit that GHWB left him! When a budget finishes in deficit in a fiscal year, a LOT of carries on in the years after! So all this about Obama spending to a new level is just nonsense. Yes he spent money in a time of economic crisis but he inherited the majority of the deficit from Bush. Rememeber, Bush started off with NO deficit-- in fact a surplus! And THAT is the true damage all these republican deficits did to the financial health of this country! What REALLY burns me is that they did it DELIBERATELY!
We can't go on blaming particular parties or presidents. That to me is stupid. As soon as Bush took office, the unsustainable tech bubble that was built during Clinton years burst. The point is not to blame Clinton, but to show problems in one administration can manifest itself down the line in another president. Also the Congress in previous administrations that forced Fannie Mae to insure loans of homeowners that could not afford them was a large contributor to the housing crises, that was not entirely the bankers fault.
sofork - you do realize the spending that Obama and the Dems did was to keep our entire economy from collapsing so that there would be no jobs, no manufacturing, no food on the shelves, nothing. That was what the stimulus package was about. All Ryan's plan appears to do is more wealth distribution from the middle class to the wealthy. Under his plan, we truly will become a two class society, the rich and the poor like any other third world country. The problem with most of Congress is that they are so far out of touch with the people. They are all highly privileged people who've always had all the benefits of the rich.
Fannie Mae to banks...
Fannie Mae, Hey will guarantee the principle on these loan you would not normally write since they may be risky, can you make those loans and make a profit on the interest.
Banks....ummm ok
Yeah, they really pressured them to make those loans...LOL
Don...but you are right in that problems don't just go away with whoever created them, they explode for the next guy to clean up, i.e. Bush did have to deal with a retreating economy (big drop in March, 2001) that was absolutely cratered after 9/11
I think that it still needs to be determined if the stimulus plan actually "saved" America. To say that implies the the US is out of the woods. The spending of money borrowed from our granchildren may have served to "tide us over" somewhat but eventually the stimulus will end and no one knows for sure what will happen . I understood that in 1929 the stock market crashed started to recover for several years and then another large crash occurred later, Declaring the country " saved" may be analogous to Bush declaring the IRAQ war over many years ago.
So let me get this straight. Republicans are protecting America's biggest socialist program? Medicare? No more commy and socialist mumbo jumbo from the peanut gallery, PERIOD!
I would totally respect Ryan and crew if they cut Medicare because it does cost a ton of money but that would mean falling on their sword and losing power. But in my mind that's how Congress should be designed to work, make tough choices in the people's best interest rather than your own, lose power for the greater good (i.e. what the Dems did on the Affordable Health Care Act for America). If it's good you'll be rewarded on the next cycle. In the meantime take your lumps for the people. AND COMPROMISE FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
You are right. We need more independent politicians that have some concern for our country and not just politics as most are.
So, this plan is basically give the Baby Boomers what they wanted and leave the clean up to the rest of us.
It's time that we all admit the failure of the generation born into the most cushy birth imaginable. Most of the people making these decisions are baby boomers, and most of the pundits who are trying to shape the debate are as well.
It's time the boomers to include themselves in the solution rather than just heaping the problems on the rest of us. That includes Republicans as well as Democrats. If I had a dollar for the number of times I have heard the Republican Party spew out the word responsibility, I would be living the high life. I would bet that most of the people who are in the top 1% are boomers. They have reaped most of the benefits of tax cuts and loopholes created over the last 30-40 years, which has been the period where the baby boomers have thrived.
Pay up, guys, and stop taking so much from the till as well.
Isn't it obvious that the expected "Hope and Change" is not coming? Obama, Pelosi and Reid have failed to turn things around by SPENDING MORE....... It's now time for "Courage and Change." GO Paul Ryan !!
"Courage and Change."
"Courage and Change."
Obama will come out with his plan after all the polls are out! Remember, he is from Chicago.
Perhaps the reason for Congressman Ryan's budget proposal is less nefarious than many of you think. Maybe the reason his proposal puts social programs on the table is that no matter what, we as a nation have to start talking about them. By putting his plan on the table, at the very least, Congressman Ryan has shown the courage of his convictions. Perhaps now, the 434 other Congressmen, and the 100 Senators that we have elected as our representatives, can actually review the document, find areas of commonality, and work toward compromise on the remaining issues. We can't ignore the problems forever, and whether the ultimate solution involves changes to benefits, including means testing, and a gradual increase in retirement ages, and cuts in the DOD, and / or any other programs, someone has to be the first out of the gate to make a proposal. I, for one, applaud Congressman Ryan's efforts, he knows he's going to be crucified, and yet he's still making the attempt. Maybe we should all support the attempt to communicate, you may not like the proposal, but at least it's available for discussion.
You are correct. I give him credit for actually proposing something as opposed to denying there are problems,
From a 40 year old's point of view, perhaps some of this makes sense. From a 75 year old's point of view it's terrifying. I noticed all but one of the presenters of Rep. Paul Ryan's plan are very young. In Ryan's plan only the very wealthy could afford health care. He said we'd keep Medicare but would have a voucher program. Problem is that the vouchers wouldn't cover enough medical expenses so the middle class couldn't afford it. Seniors live on limited income and social security and would have to do without health care. Ryan talks a good game, but he's an unrealistic, callow youth. I guess people my age would be put out on an ice floe to get rid of us. That would go for the disabled as well. There was nothing mentioned about reducing foreign aid, closing military bases (we have 900 around the globe and could easily shut down 300, the National Guard could stay home where they need to be to protect our homeland and the soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan). Humm, perhaps we could just euthanize the disabled, the old folks, sick children and get them out of the way. That way his plan might work. What's wrong with a fairer tax system? The taxes my husband and I pay are in no way fair compared to our millionaire friends who pay less and make three times as much. I heard nothing about a fairer tax system in Ryan's plan. He plans not to raise taxes from their present levels. We've worked hard, saved, paid into Medicare and Social Security. Since we've paid for them why are they considered entitlements.
You are correct that the US should be looking at cutting waste. That would solve the problems if it were politically viable, but politicians will never go for that. I am on Medicare too and rely on it. The whole problem is that the US did absolutely no long term planning and is making promises that no way will they ever be able to keep. Any politician that denies that Social Security and Medicare cuts are not coming is lying to us.
Even if the US prints gobs of money to inflate our dollars to worthless status in order to pay bills, we still lose.
Summertime,
I read a very short blurb on MSN that indicates the plan only impacts those 54 and younger, so the current seniors, and those age 55 and older will continue under the existing plan, 54 and under will fall into the revised plan. That may alleviate some of the concerns of the seniors, there's effectively no change for them. Those 54 and younger will have to make some changes in their plans, but for the most part, are young enough to make that change in advance of retiring. Not sure if my assessment is correct, just a quick glance, and a short article.
LiLA, I don't think that's going to be the case. First of all, the vouchers aren't indexed to inflation in any way, shape, or form. If 10 years from now the vouchers prove to be inadequate to buy insurance (and they will) you're out of luck. Secondly, it's an enormous handout to the big insurance companies. Thirdly, the Ryan Roadmap reestablishes preexisting conditions clauses. How many seniors DON'T have some sort of preexisting condition that could be used to preclude coverage? Finally, the plan will RAISE TAXES on 95% of Americans while giving the top 1% a 15% tax cut!
That's right, it's just another Republican plan to make the regular citizen work longer for less while enriching the wealthy elites.
John,
That's why it's available for review, so that people can see what it includes, find areas of agreement, and work on areas of disagreement. If I read the MSN posting correctly, and I may not have, the seniors do not get impacted by any change. To quote President Obama on a different subject "If they like their insurance, they can keep it".
Keep in mind the process here, the President submits a budget request, the House and the Senate draft budget resolutions, and then they go to conference to resolve differences. We've now seen the House budget resolution, we haven't seen the Senate version yet, and the likely end result will be some ammalgamation of the two.
I haven't read the entire document, merely a summation on MSN. Perhaps you are right with respect to the points made above, I won't know until I find time to read the resolution, but in either case, it's a starting point, not the end point. Let's see what the Senate has to say, then make judgements about the outcome. I still think Congressman Ryan deserves credit for standing up and taking the heat from all parties.
It is simply shocking!!! When one political party doesn't get their agenda put through: in this case healthcare, they tear-down the other party's plan, and simply repackage the same plan. I thought that forcing citizens to buy insurance was unconstitutional?!? Already private physicians are NOT accepting any new Medicare patients. Medicaid patients are being brutilized by "Community Clinics". If we have learned anything from all this, it should be that our Federal legislators need to be locked-up in a 'rubber room'. They have no business dealing with the issue of healthcare.
I can appreciate the "improvements" along the way, but it also goes to prove that there was no long-term planning done in the process. How many times since the 1980s did Congress have to "fix" Social Security? and Medicare?
They are all idiots. You can't legislate beneficial societal value by using a dollar scale.
You will never See "long term planning" in politics. Only "today" and keeping voters happy seems to be important.
The only reason Social Security needs fixing is because they didn't do as promised and hold the money in a sacred trust, but funded the Viet Nam war and government spending that should have been covered by taxes. I think Medicare is in trouble because of the extraordinary amount of fraud. Of course, if you suggest regulation, republicans go balistic.
I think the reason that Republicans oppose a lot of regulation is that the government track record for managing things is so poor. I agree that what we need is capitalism and the proper amount of good regulation. But giving the politicians too much power to run anything would be a disaster. Liberals can criticize corporations, but the US government has to be the absolute worst as far as managing money.
I really expect politicians usually only make things worse, not better.
Don, I agree with you, however, I'm glad the FAA grounded the Southwest flights. I'm glad the FDA is taking Johnson & Johnson to task for tainted drugs made in Puerto Rico. I hope they will inspect the nuclear power plants so we won't be in the same boat as Japan, I thrilled that we have USDA inspected meat. I wish we still had federal regulations for electricity, phones, etc. Reagan did us a disservice with deregulation. I happily pay my taxes when I'm grateful when someone is lost at sea and the Coast Guard comes to the rescue, or a child is lost in a forest and the rangers search for him. I could go on, but you get my point. We need a certain amount of regulation to keep everyone safe and keep the greedy from exploiting the less fortunate. What I'd like to see is more accountability at the government level. Private industry needs to be accountable, why not government. As I see it, Congress doesn't represent the people any more. They represent big business and their own interests.
Does anyone else find irony in the Republican stance that the federal government cannot require citizens to make a commercial purchase of health insurance (individual mandate) while they propose mandating a commercial purchase of a Medicare policy from health insurers? This is bi-polar politics if I've ever seen it!
For one thing Health Insurance is not a Government program so they have no business telling me I have to buy something. Medicare is a Gov program so not sure how that all is going to work, is the Gov still funding it? If so then it is different than the HCR.
MSG - government requires auto insurance. Should we protest that?
Summertime - In reality, car-insurance coverage is not mandated to all Americans, all adults, or even all licensed drivers (one can maintain a license but not auto insurance if he or she does not plan to drive a car). Auto insurance is but one price that must be paid in order to enjoy the privilege of driving.
Alternatively, the mandatory health insurance proposal would essentially require that, in exchange for the privilege of … citizenship? Residency in the U.S.? Life? … one must procure health insurance for herself and her family. Can pedestrians “opt out” of mandatory health-insurance coverage, and more importantly, where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the right to mandate health insurance coverage in the first place?
RVZ WTH are you talking about. Your post is NOT even related to the thread. Please try to follow along.
Get blamed or continue being an enabler to the money addicts of government. I don't think that should be too tough of a decision.
Let's see now, Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House last year and REFUSED to pass a budget because of an upcoming election, holding the nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
After the election, Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and REFUSED to pass a budget, knowing that when was taken over by Republicans they would be able to use political attacks against the Republicans for the budget passed by them in the House, holding the nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
After Republicans take over the House and PASS a budget, the Senate votes it down and then REFUSES to come up with a budget of their own, but instead just sits around on conference calls planning on how to blame the "Tea Party extremists" for the White House and Senate's inaction on the budget, holding the nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
Democrats REFUSE to lower spending 60 billion dollars in a budget year that has 1.65 Trillion in deficit spending, directly caused by Democrat passed legislation, holding the nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
The government may shut down because the White House and Senate refuse to even think about negotiating any kind of budget that calls for a "whole" 1.5% to 2% in spending cuts, holding the nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
Let's blame the Republicans for actually wanting to cut government spending, lower taxes, create jobs, and lower the deficit, and let's continue to hold the future of this nation HOSTAGE for nothing more than politics.
obama is like a small child that's never been in a toy store and we gave him the key to the biggest store in the world. A bumbling, inexperienced man with zero business experience is CEO of the largest business ever built. You folks that voted for him please think long and hard about what you've done before voting again.
Nicely said Joanne. I'm a pretty liberal person, but I've voted for Republicans and Independents through the years, as well as Democrats, and will always question my political leaders, whether I voted for them or not. Senator Heinz sounded like someone who tried to work with others to solve great issues. I will always want to vote for people like that, irregardless of party affiliation.
From everything I've read and tried to assimilate into my brain, there is no way we are going to get a grip on our financial woes without BOTH cutting in spending and raising of revenue (since our tax rates are lower than at any time in the past 60 years, I find it weird that people say they are overtaxed -- the only thing I can gather from that is that their states or municipalities are charging them high tax rates). I'm willing to sacrifice for my country, but I think everyone and every entity needs to sacrifice as well (yes, wealthy and corporations, I'm talking to you). And why not churches getting into the mix too -- did you know that there would be no budget shortfall in California if every church there paid property taxes -- something to ponder. We all need to do our fair share.
The fact that Paul Ryan has come out with no new revenue and with going for the easy marks of destroying Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and poor, well that is kind of sad isn't it? It doesn't say much about who we are as a country or as human beings.
Let's hope that we have fair and open discussion about all the big issues. I agree with a lot of posters here -- when I looked yesterday, so many posts were collapsed. I'm always open to hearing from every side of a discussion because that is the only way we are going to find our way out of the mess. It is easy to call names and say hateful things and to be openly divisive and dismissive, but if we don't come together soon, all will be lost for for those coming after us.
Linda there would also be no shortfall in california if you got rid of the illegal aliens. That would also cut billions spent out the federal budget as well. Don't blame churches.
"I, for one, applaud Congressman Ryan's efforts, he knows he's going to be crucified, and yet he's still making the attempt. Maybe we should all support the attempt to communicate, you may not like the proposal, but at least it's available for discussion."
I AGREE.
He's all about "COURAGE and CHANGE"
Let's go Paul Ryan !
Lets not, because coupons is not what I am going to look forward in the future.
America lived to finally see coupon's / vouchers (as a payment for their health ). Now I know why GOP refused Health Care and single payer/public option, (because they had coupon's in their minds) yea, way to go/ soo not.
My problem with the Republican budget is that it doesn't touch the tax issue and it would seem taxes or a lack there of is part of the problem.Any time a corp. company or a person gets back more than they put in our tax revenue is in trouble,also they want to incease Defence spending. Are they looking for more WAR?