TM NOTE: Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist, weeknights 6 pm EST.
Yesterday I talked about the GOP trying to repeal the entire healthcare bill and undo whatever progress is there for millions of Americans. That study I cited debunking Boehner appears to have Boehner changing a bit of tone here for he now is calling the health law “job crushing” not “job killing.” More on the change in tone. Facts are a very stubborn thing:
…as evidence of a slight rhetorical shift,” according to CNN, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, “abandoned labeling the current health care law as ‘job killing,’ and instead called it ‘job crushing’ and ‘job destroying’ in a new message posted on his webpage.”“Repealing the job crushing health care law is critical to boosting small business job creation and growing the economy,” Boehner wrote in the post. ..
Economists are also weighing in again today making Boehner look like the fool he is on this so no wonder he is shifting tone.
Come on Boehner, where are all those jobs you said conservatives know how to create?
The Republican translation (on job killing) doesn’t track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. “People voluntarily working less isn’t the same as employers cutting jobs,” he explained.
For example, CBO said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
The law “reduces the amount of labor supplied, but it’s not reducing the ability of people to find jobs, which is what the job-killing slogan is intended to convey,” said economist Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
In very important breaking news for progressives a enemy of the New Deal with influence on the Hill, Senator Conrad is retiring and wont run in 2012. And a bigger bonus? It’s being reported Lieberman is to announce he will retire on Wednesday. Lieberman is a traitor to his party and progressives. Perhaps he has determined he cannot win in 2012 given that polls show him so despised after his betrayals, especially since his antics on the healthcare bill. Hopefully a real Democrat will take his place. We do not need the likes of these two any longer on the Hill. Give me a Republican vowing to cut SS than a “Democrat” pressing to do so. Beware Senators Baucus and others.
Sen. Conrad’s eyes have always been on harming the New Deal and Great Society. He approves the Obama Work till You Die Deficit Commission recommendations. Today he announced retirement from the Senate , thus he isn’t running in 2012. Democrats will have to field a strong candidate in such an open seat. But this favored to go GOP. Better to have such a senator replaced with a real Republican opposed to Social Security programs than this one I say.
Austerity is disastrous for anyone in politics who wants to get re elected and perhaps Conrad senses this as well. If he implements a Grand Deal dismantling parts of the New Deal he is toast. Any Democrat right now considering joining austerity fan clubs better buck up, the consequences they face will be being voted out in 2012.
BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad said Tuesday he will not run for re-election in 2012, saying he will concentrate instead on reducing the national debt and dependence on foreign oil.
“It is more important I spend my time and energy trying to solve these problems than to be distracted by a campaign for re-election,” the Democratic incumbent said in a statement sent to supporters. He currently chairs the Senate Budget Committee.
Conrad, 62, was elected to the Senate in 1986, when he was serving as state tax commissioner. His announcement followed last year’s decision by North Dakota’s other Democratic senator, Byron Dorgan, not to seek re-election. Dorgan was replaced by Republican John Hoeven, who had served as North Dakota’s governor for the past decade.
Conrad, Dorgan and former U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy made up North Dakota’s all-Democratic congressional delegation for 18 years. Pomeroy was defeated last November by Republican Rick Berg in a bid for his 10th term.
Conrad already had a prospective Republican challenger, state Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk, who said last week he was forming an exploratory committee to test support for a Senate race.
Conrad said he would serve out his term….
In Conrad’s first campaign, he promised not to seek re-election unless the nation’s budget and trade deficits had been brought under control.
More on Conrad and Lieberman in the days ahead as they are central to any Grand Bargain to be crafted on the New Deal.
Perfectly timed, Senator Sanders, champion of the working class, comes out again swinging at Obama on Social Security. His points are worth noting. He is taking on austerity madness today:
Sanders Urges Obama to Save Social Security:
In a letter to the president, Sanders referred to what he called “worrisome reports” that Obama is considering cuts in Social Security. “I hope that information is wrong and that you will stand by your campaign promises to strengthen Social Security,” the senator said. “I urge you once again to make it clear to the American people that under your watch we will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize this critical program.”
A White House fiscal commission appointed by Obama recently called for changes in Social Security. A change in how Social Security is funded as part of the tax deal Obama reached in December with congressional Republicans was another warning sign, Sanders said. Another red flag was raised when Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee evaded a direct question about Social Security cuts. “Let’s not rule everything out,” Goolsbee said during a Jan. 7 interview on CNN. On Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner repeatedly has said he supports raising the Social Security retirement age to 70.
In fact, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus projected to increase to more than $4 trillion by 2023, the senator noted in his letter. The 75-year-old system will be able to continue to pay every nickel owed to ever eligible recipient for at least another 26 years. “All of us want to work in a bipartisan manner when we can, but needlessly cutting Social Security benefits when that has nothing to do with our deficit situation is not good public policy,” Sanders said.
In Sanders’ letter he says forsaking SS for bipartisanship is simply wholly unnecessary. He also cites instances where in 2008 Obama promised he would NOT touch SS. Even on Meet the Press he said so. Remember austerity is for losers. Do austerity like this and your odds of winning re election drop big time.
With Boehner on defense now on his “job killing” healthcare law campaign, Conrad retiring in 2012 with a chance to put in a populist Democrat, Lieberman maybe out as well, and Sanders publicly pressing the White House on the foolishness of any bargain on the New Deal, I would call this a good day for progressives.
One can only HOPE for some progressive CHANGE. Unlike the swill we were sold.
But with the nonsense, utter fu*king NONSENSE that Obama is even CONSIDERING dicking around with SS……
these are some potent developments. even frist says stop this repeal crap. i bet others will follow. boehner is making abig mistake. medicare doughnut hole wont be closed, expansion of mental health to millions wil never happen, medicaid dr reimbursements wont be boosted, higher standerds for hcr wont be set, etc.. if this were ever repealed. we need to fight to make it better with a medicare option and or killing the mandate. im want single payer but with this govt i dont see it happening yet. but im not for repealing this. and more americans arent either.
If the GOP had a brain, they would go after the unpopular parts of the bill and there are plenty of them. They are as stupid as the day is long.
yep. what a waste of time!
I’d be supporting them if they did. Unfortunately, I think in the end they’ll mostly kill the stuff like Medicaid expansion and anything else that doesn’t have a paying constituency. Even if they repeal the individual mandate, they’ll put some other sweetheart deal in for the insurance companies. Face it, they’re as big prostitutes to the finance industry as the Democrats are.
I’m trying to understand that people here don’t want SS touched at all. As someone who has worked as an actuary, I have concern when the Trustee’s reports indicate SS will be underwater between 2037 and 2041. The only thing the Tea Party has right in their statements is that we should stop passing the back. There is a basic actuarial principle that at any point in time a pension plan should be fully funded according to the plan rules. Since SS is a pay-as-you-go plan that includes a significant disability component, the estimates are subject to great swings, but don’t let the problem ride. It will have to be fixed at some point, why put it off? The battle will be between raising retirement age and increasing the earnings subject to the tax. I’d like to see the subjected earnings raised significantly, hopefully they can make that case.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
to clarify ss is not now nor will it ever be in danger. a simple slight payroll tax raise for those over 200k would keep it solvent forever. ss curently is in 200 billion surplus. in fact if we temporarily lowered the retirement age to 62 we would open millions of jobs and would be a bargain stimulus for the government says economist galbraith at UT. so cutting ss at all is totally uneeded. ss will never be in jeopardy and when it might be a slight payroll tax adjust fiexes it. frankly we need to improve ss payments to folks etc.. all can be easily done.
I bet they don’t see it that way. What’s more, until major progressive organizations like unions make it clear that they can’t afford to support politicians who support austerity, I can’t blame them. That’s the problem here. We can do the same thing in 2012 that we did in 2010, which is tell them individually to take a hike, but it sure looks like all the major players are going to go down with the ship rather than do the same. National politicians don’t talk to us, they talk to the big guys.
They may very well be headed for a fall in 2012, but I predict they will still be wearing shocked expressions when it happens.
T4H, that is just incorrect. Almost any site that relies on actuaries will have the same answer that SS will be in deficit in 30 years or so. That is a fact. It is easy to fix mathematically, because unlike medical costs the dollars are comparively simple to estimate. It’s geting the various parties to agree to solutions that will be the killer.
I think the attitude that there are no-pain magical solutions is one reason why people are getting fed up. We aren’t going to a retirement age of 62, that is certain. Aside from the fact that you would lose every voter currently on SS, the proposal is based on an economic theory, and we all know how accurate they turn out to be.
I favor increasing the base eligible amount and limited means-testing. Many young people don’t believe SS will be there for them, you put forth a radical peoposal and you can change that to almost all young people.
Dean Baker, Galbraith, krugman, and others who are economists of great respect have said SS will simply require a small payroll tax increase when the time comes to continue covering americans. Obama himself said throughout the 08 campaign and even months ago that we need to raise that payroll tax a bit to keep things solvent- 30 years from now. SO will Obama keep his word here? People are starving. People need work. What people do not need is the safety net being destroyed by their own government. I did not say lower Ss retirement age permanently. I said that galbraith recomnded a temporary reductionin retirement age for those age 62 bc that group is msot apt to not be able to find work or are struggling with whatjobs they have. He got the idea from Europe and Asia which are temporarily lowering retirment ages to get some of these folks off the market and free up work. Those so far who I have seen pushing uneeded changes to SS are seen as folks who do not care much for those struggling. Oh like Sen Alan Simpson who has enjoyed federal benefits for decades, declared people on SS were living off tits, wants to raise the retirement age to 69 etc.. Austerity means we a s people will lose. Anyone in politics who pushes it and suceeds will likely lose their job. I mean how can Democrats run on cutting SS and Medicare in 2012 and expect to win? Expect the base to turn out? Seniors will vote again in droves for the GOP in 2012 if any changes to SS are implemented that are negative. Even if the changes do not impact them directly they wont vote de bc just the term “alter social security” will be enough to lose their vote. People now more than ever need the New Deal and Great Society. The govt serves as a social compact. If the govt slashes away at such programs people must have to survive then the compact is violated. Americans have to stand up and be heard. Polls show they do not want cuts made on social programs. This is a issue where the courage to raise taxes is lacking so maing uneeded cuts are in. but beware- voters wont forget.
Most of the people I work with and most of my friends are tired of the attitude that we’ll fix it later. I’m never going to vote for the Republicans, they are worse fiscally and they are insane on policy in general, but when I see the dominos fall in Europe I am not willing to continually putting off getting things right. Part of getting unemployment down is this country at least making an effort to get the financial house in order.
Theory about gov’t compact is fine, but if unemployment stays above 9% we will end up with President Hucakabee, or worse yet Pres Palin.
I agree with you on taxes, I think that it is clear that taxes are coming dangerously close to being regressive on a total basis in tyhis country, but what I see is that the moment there is talk of tax code reform both the right and the left start screaming.
Even on what I see as no-brainers (e.g. lower corporate tax rate but eliminate loopholes – that would substantially increase the overall corporate rate), both sides oppose.
I want a strong social safety net, but IMO too many people can’t accept that they won’t be getting that pony they think they’ve been promised.
Bothe the Democrats and Republicans are lucky there is no viable third party, because it is clear that the Democrats don’t kow how to govern effectively and the Republicans don’t want to even try.