The Senate voted Wednesday to let the Federal Reserve slice the fees that stores must pay banks each time a customer swipes a debit card, handing merchants a victory over banks in a lobbying battle over billions in revenue. Senators supporting the financial institutions’ efforts to head off the proposal fell six voters short of the 60 needed to prevail. The vote was 54-45. – Senate votes to let Fed trim debit card swipe fees
It turns out that Wall Street power does know some limits in the Capitol. That limit is Walmart.
The banks wound up with a slim majority of 54 votes in favor of delaying swipe fee reform, with 45 voting against the measure. But they fell short of the 60 needed to end debate and move to a final vote on delaying swipe fee reform.
The banks didn’t have every weapon firing. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), dubbed by friends and enemies “Wall Street Chuck,” arrived early for the vote, cast his ballot on behalf of Tester’s amendment but made no effort to persuade his colleagues to do the same and left within two minutes of arriving, leaving the floor to Durbin and Tester.
Another loser on this one is Sen. Jon Tester, the sponsor of the bill.
Dodd-Frank legislation was at the heart of the battle, which demands the Federal Reserve cap swipe fees at 12 cents per transaction, which would eliminate the $230/annual hit consumers pay (h/t Joan McCarter).
From Nate Silver, we find Rick Santorum is more acceptable to Republican primary voters than Jon Hunstman, with Michele Bachmann way ahead of Palin and tied with Herman Cain, both of them just behind Tim Pawlenty on “unacceptability.”
In the impressive mover category, Herman Cain stands alone.
[...] And Israel is none-too-enamored of the alternatives in Damascus. One alternative to the Assad regime — a democratic Syria with greater soft power diplomatic heft and perhaps with Islamists as part of a governing coalition — is as unappetizing a prospect for an Israel intent on maintaining its belligerent posture to the Palestinians and to the region (including its occupation of the Golan heights), as the Egyptian version of the same is shaping up to be. Another alternative — that of Syria becoming a largely ungoverned chaotic space and forming an arc of fitna (or sectarian strife) with Iraq and Lebanon is also unattractive.
For the peace rejectionist government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the survival of an embattled, desperate, and thoroughly discredited Assad regime apparently hits that Goldilocks sweet spot — just the right outcome.
If you take the time to read the whole piece carefully what Daniel reveals is the reason for U.S. policy being so hopelessly skewed and interminably incoherent, even as events continue to unwind. From Levy:
At least until Sunday’s events, Israel’s position on revolution in Syria hued closely to the status-quo conservatism that has so characterized the shared Israeli-Saudi response to the Arab Spring. Both Israel and Saudi had been critical of the “premature” abandonment of the Mubarak regime, especially by the U.S. Unlike Mubarak, of course, Assad is not an ally (for either the Israelis or the Saudis), but he is part of an ancien régime for which Israel had effective management strategies in place.
Fox News contributors take whacks at Sec. Clinton for her, let’s call it a softer approach to Assad, but considering Israel’s own stance it’s rather ironic conservatives don’t get what’s going on.
On Sunday, June 5, marking Naksa Day (the Arab “setback” in the 1967 war), protesters — mostly Palestinian refugees and their descendents — marched to the Israel/Syria disengagement line representing the border between Syria and the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. According to reports up to 22 unarmed Syrian-Palestinian protesters were killed when Israeli forces apparently resorted to live fire (Israeli laid mines may also have been detonated and may have caused causalities, the exact unraveling of events remains sketchy). In most respects, this Sunday’s events were a repeat performance of the outcome of May 15′s Nakba Day commemorations (which Palestinians mark as the anniversary of their catastrophe in 1948).
Israel’s initial response to the wave of regional anti-regime protests reaching Syria was, according to reliable reports, to privately root for the “devil we know” approach — encouraging allies, including the U.S., to go easy on the Assad regime.
The backdrop for all of this is the notion of a U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood this fall, which will change nothing without negotiations, something that the “peace rejectionist government of Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Daniel’s description that I am hereby adopting, has no intention of engaging seriously.
But if anyone thinks this is good news for Israel they’re wrong.
According to a survey of 500 New York City registered voters conducted by New York 1 and Marist College, only 30 percent say Weiner should resign. 51 percent of respondents said he should stay in his position and 18 percent said they were not sure. “It’s worth keeping in mind that New York is overwhelmingly Democratic. Partisanship can run high in this town. Moral outrage, maybe less so,” said ABC News pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. – Anthony Weiner: Poll Finds Majority of New York Voters Think He Should Not Resign
Whenever Republicans are calling for a strong Democrat to resign over a sex scandal, that’s the moment people should wake up and smell the heaping pile of hypocrisy.
Another poll shows it much closer than ABC, with many women undecided.
Donald Trump called Rep. Weiner a “psycho” and a “bad guy.” Well, he should know; this from a guy who’s had three wives, bankruptcies and all sorts of other weirdness in his life.
Of course Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor both want Weiner to resign. Sean Hannity is playing it for all it’s worth, though he’s never very worried when toe-sucking Dick Morris opines on his shows. Bill O’Reilly’s isn’t either and he’s been sued for sexual harassment.
However, nothing was more delightful than seeing Mr. Hannity try to label Meagan Broussard a “victim,” which brought an eye roll, as she scoffed at the notion. Hannity also attempted to portray her as a “26 year-old girl,” with the interview falling apart as he tried to feed her talking points that she wouldn’t accept.
Now the Right is fundraising on Weinergate. Are you getting it yet? It’s just too bad Democrats won’t turn it around and do the same on Ensign and Vitter.
Ed Schultz was embarrassed when his own (silly) instant phone poll illustrated that over 70% of his own viewers say Weiner shouldn’t resign. (I don’t watch his show, but caught the end before another.)
If the late Sen. Ted Kennedy can redeem himself to such glory there is no reason whatsoever why Rep. Anthony Weiner can’t continue driving his adversaries crazy in Congress.
There lies the reason Republicans are demanding he go.
Few are as good on camera making the Democratic case than Rep. Anthony Weiner.
“I think he’s one of the most effective, decent congressman out there,” said Brooklyn native Richard Elliott. Weiner’s behavior was “stupid,” Elliott said, but not something to resign over. He also said, “I find it ridiculous that that would be the news” when so much else is going on in the world. – Democratic leaders ostracize Weiner
It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:
Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.
Whomever decided to drop these (and other) rhetorical turds into the Guardian‘s capable hands has done a disservice to Margaret Thatcher.
Mrs. Thatcher has always been one of the great dames of world politics. She was the first female prime minister of Europe and the only one to be elected thrice, also having the distinction as the longest serving British prime minister since 1827.
Ideology aside, I can’t conjure up the moment when she’d approve of any “ally” being so classless on her behalf. Her health, but also her focus on the upcoming unveiling of a Ronald Reagan statue on July 4th, are serious reasons to continue to keep a lower profile, especially since anything having to do with Mrs. Palin tilts in the circus arena column.
I could be wrong about this, but I find the quotes directed at Sarah Palin malicious and something that would never be exchanged anywhere near the woman who once was the Prime Minister of England, known also as an “Iron Lady.”
June 7th, 2011 marks the 45th anniversary of the landmark 1965 Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized family planning and the right to individual privacy in family planning decisions. But nearly 50 years later, women in the United States can hardly find cause for celebration, because we are engaged in a full-on battle to maintain access to contraception. – Jodi Jacobson
Estelle Griswold, left, of New Haven, Connecticut, reading a newspaper account of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in her case.
There is no case that means more to modern women than Griswold v. Connecticut, at least that’s my take.
Jodi Jacobson has a terrific piece on Griswold‘s anniversary, drilling home the challenge women still have today in getting access to contraception. It’s something Margaret Sanger gave her life to so many years ago.
No one group is more responsible for the lack of reproductive health care, counseling and absence of full contraceptive availability than the Republican Party and their surrogates. The women of the Right who are against this basic public necessity are a disgrace.
That Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama helped Democrats like Rep. Stupak marginalize women’s freedoms in the health care bill was breaking faith with women who helped elect these officials. When Obama doubled down to take funding away from the women of Washington, D.C. he proved unworthy of the support we gave him in 2012.
To teach Democrats a lesson, putting a Republican in the White House would simply hurt more women. However, the economics of the times, which hits women very hard, has taken our eyes off reproductive health care to the economy. The sad truth is we’re not getting equal attention from either big party who’ll be hawking their policies for 2012 and promising the moon.
Don’t believe Obama or the Republican nominee.
Today, Republicans and some Democrats are attempting to circumvent what women (and every other American) won through this Supreme Court decision, by waging a war against female freedoms that is attempting to make us a prisoner of the states we live in.
Some day Americans will have to ask is freedom just for men? Because when you take away a woman’s right to privacy, which begins with the power to control her own body, you are making us unequal to males.
There are laws that come with Roe v. Wade that make women take responsibility in a way that puts the notion of “abortion on demand” down. That’s not what any intelligently mature female is asking. We all know we have restrictions, which I fully support.
Abortion is a legal, safe and an important reproductive health option that includes abortificients and other methods of stopping pregnancy. It is a woman’s legal right to make this decision without the interference of any bureaucrat, religious fanatic, or male legislator.
If you don’t want an abortion don’t have one.
If you get in a situation where you feel there is no other choice, don’t feel ashamed and don’t allow anyone to tell you it’s wrong, because you are the only one who knows.
It’s difficult, for some it’s tragic. For other women it’s a matter of personal survival.
Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a great man and the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, he presided over helped make women equal, with Justice William O. Douglas writing the majority opinion. Justice Warren followed Thomas Jefferson’s idea of the U.S. Constitution to the letter.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” – Thomas Jefferson (engraved on one wall of the Jefferson Memorial.)
Today the Republican Party and some Democrats are trying to undo Roe v. Wade, but what they really want to obliterate from U.S. history is Griswold.
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Question:
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion: Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
Ed Rollins didn’t waste any time in getting down to business for Bachmann:
“Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” Rollins told Brian Kilmeade on his radio show, Kilmeade and Friends. “She got the Vice Presidential thing handed to her, she didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance, she gave up her governorship.” – Bachmann strategist blasts Palin: ‘Not serious’
Rollins is always blunt, but I wonder where he’s been the last year. Palin was the one most responsible for helping the Tea Party take back the House, unless you count Pres. Obama’s abysmal Democratic messaging.
Since the midterms, however, Palin has had a very bumpy ride, beginning with her embarrassing video statement after the Loughner shooting tragedy.
While Bachmann was working in Congress, Palin was enjoying herself with personal pursuits, including building her celebrity, her brand and building her fan base, while collecting a salary as talking head on Fox News channel. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it stands in stark contrast to Michele Bachmann’s role in the House, regardless that her politics are as horrendous as Sarah’s, though the one thing she and Palin have in common is they both go out of their way to mangle American history.
While Michele Bachmann is preparing a presidential run, Sarah Palin is joyriding in her big beautiful bus on an all expenses paid by SarahPAC family vacation. So far very few people are paying attention to this, with her fans uninterested where their money is going, but it’s odd people are fine with financing a celebrity politicians private excursions.
I’ll let Lawrence take it from here. He calls Palin’s family vacation “barely legal,” while the “lamestream media” lets it slide.
Rep. Bachmann couldn’t get away with this; she’d be investigated for it.
A U.S. government official said Saleh, who left Yemen on Sunday to seek medical care in Saudi Arabia, “sustained significant burn injuries and shrapnel wounds.”
“His condition is serious, and it’s likely that it will take him a while to recover fully,” the official said. Saleh has burns covering about 40 percent of his body and suffered extensive shrapnel injuries from wood splintered by the rocket attack on his palace, the official said.
“I don’t represent the hide-under-the-desk wing of the Democratic Party.” – Rep. Anthony Weiner
Rep. Weiner was not shy or quiet about taking on Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi, whom he believed hadn’t made the case on health care strongly enough. He also told Republicans to “put up or shut up” on the necessity of health care for the country.
Democrats would be better off if more of them acted like Weiners.
As the first anniversary of the health-care law approached this week, many Democratic lawmakers went to ground, leaving unanswered Republican accusations that the legislation is socialist, unconstitutional, bankrupting the country, destroying the medical system and generally bringing about the apocalypse. But not Anthony Weiner.
… Nancy Pelosi, he said, has been “inartful.” President Obama, he said, hasn’t provided “air cover” for Democrats in Congress. The White House “hasn’t done a very good job” confronting critics. The administration needs to make its case “more forcefully.” And his colleagues are limp, Weiner said: “We have to stop cowering.”
This is an independent progressive who isn’t afraid to stand up to the leaders in the Democratic Party, especially when they’re leading. That means he has very few friends right now.
On top of that, one New York lawmaker noted that the state is about to go through a redistricting of House seats in which it will lose two districts. There would be little incentive to protect a disgraced Weiner in a district that was not drawn to protect minority voting rights. “I don’t see how anyone goes out of their way to save his district,” the legislator said.
I’ve read comments and tweets and also heard from quite a few people who stood up for Rep. Weiner who are hurt, bitter and angry that they walked the line for him. Anyone, including Rachel Maddow who offered a very soft interview space for him, has every right to be furious.
Ed Schultz delivered a chicken liver performance last night when he asked Rep. Weiner to resign.
That may be what happens, especially with Andrew Breitbart alleging he has an X-rated photo, as TMZ breaks wide with a story that reportedly shows Weiner aiding the porn actress to lie. There’s no doubt this is getting ugly, which is what happens when someone can’t control their compulsions and won’t admit they need help.
On Charlie Rose last night, Roger Simon went through a weird fantasy tale serving up the possibility that Rep. Weiner could have engaged with women underage, even if there’s no proof whatsoever that this happened.
But considering social media does allow for teens to fake their age, this talking point, if it catches hold, could simply add to the hysteria building.
All the while Democrats hold his fate, some of which he has tweaked over policies and party strategy, which made Rep. Weiner a fighter against the Obama machine.
Rep. Weiner put himself in political peril, with his adversaries inside the Democratic Party not willing to lift a finger as the drip, drip, drip continues.
As long as David Letterman is out there it’s not going to get any easier for Anthony Weiner. Maybe he should consider pulling a Hugh Grant, only give Jon Stewart the shot, like Grant gave Leno. “What were you thinking?”, along with Weiner’s savvy, might just be the ticket.
…though with TMZ and Breitbart on Weiner’s heels it’s hard to say it’s not already too late. Hugh Grant simply propositioned a hooker in Hollywood. Rep. Weiner’s predilections aren’t that conventional, with revelations continuing to spin out.
But redemption is built into the American political fabric as long as the guilty person prostrates himself. There is life after politics, especially for he and his wife. Jon Stewart could help him get there, maybe even stop the crescendo that’s building.
For my money, the work Rep. Weiner’s done to make the progressive case on policy when the Democratic Party lamely couldn’t speak out under Pres. Obama, matters a lot.
I live in the Beltway, but I’m not a creature of it and never will be, having lived from Missouri to New York to Nevada to Beverly Hills in Los Angeles and many points in between. But I know one thing: if the Obama loyalists and Beltway Dems want Weiner’s (ahem… and ugh) pound of flesh that’s exactly what they’ll likely get.
In a general-election trial heat in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll he runs evenly with Barack Obama among all Americans, and numerically outpoints him, 49-46 percent, among registered voters — not a statistically significant lead, given sampling error, but a clear reflection of Obama’s vulnerability to a well-positioned challenger. – Poll: Romney, Palin See Boost; Obama Vulnerable
I’ve been offline due to an Cox Communications outage, so let’s get crackin’…
Mitt Romney is poised to take advantage of bad economic news with Pres. Obama fighting to renew his brand at a time when “hope and change” both ring hollow. There’s little hope out there economically and whatever “change” candidate Obama offered didn’t match what was needed, as voters see it today.
Romney is at 22%, with Palin at 17%, but we all know that if you turn Romney on the general populace his chances are a lot better than hers.
Romney, though, is the only Republican to run that well; Obama leads all other potential opponents tested in this poll — Palin, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. Palin fares worst, trailing Obama by 17 points among all adults, 15 points among registered voters.
Indeed, despite advancing in GOP primary preference, Palin faces daunting challenges. Sixty-four percent of Americans say they definitely will not vote for her for president, a new high. Sixty-three percent describe her as unqualified for the job, below its peak but still a substantial majority. Even in her own party, among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 41 percent rule out voting for her and 39 percent see her as unqualified.
Sarah Palin remains unelectable, though her fans are still hoping she can turn it around.
That won’t happen with things like her Fox News channel performance this past Sunday on her Paul Revere gaffe. Palin’s humility index is non-existent.
Meanwhile, her fans on Twitter keep tweeting me to apologize because I found her Revere story word salad silly. I hope they’re not holding their breath.
As one Dem insider told me several months ago, Barack Obama’s never run against a “competent” Republican. With Romney side-stepping Ryan’s Medicare scheme debacle, while standing up to say climate change is real, he’s showing maturity going into 2012 that was non-existent in ’08.
It’s a long way out, but for Republicans who usually reward front-runners and the last runner-up, Romney’s in a very good place right now.
Among Independents in the new poll, 57% disapprove of Obama’s job performance.
“Will you help to support Arnold’s love child?”, someone yelled from the crowd of press.
“Were you fully erect…?” came next.
A fitting finale for Rep. Weiner’s confessional press conference.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi is asking for an ethics investigation amidst Rep. Weiner saying he won’t resign.
Quite a few people in media have also gotten caught up in this one too. Partisanship isn’t helpful when sex is involved. Getting too far out in front of anyone involved in a possible sex scandal is always a bad way to go, especially when you start blaming people unequivocally for pushing it without proof.
Andrew Breitbart is now the most powerful man in new media, with progressives aiding his rise.
It used to be that reporting on something meant you had to have a basic knowledge of the subject, in this case sex and political scandal. But when the subject also includes new media platforms, the old timers simply think Twitter and Facebook are passing fancies and they don’t need to understand them; captive traditional journalist types believing old rules still apply.
But there r 3 reasons why this won’t go away: 1) I hate 2 say it as I think it’s great she wasn’t there but we have 2 hear from his wife
I asked her via a tweet why Weiner’s wife had to say a word, but unsurprisingly she didn’t reply.
The days of a political wife having to offer cover for her louse of a spouse are over, especially when he didn’t physically cheat, though there is a case to be made for emotional infidelity on this one.
Chris Matthews had yet another embarrassing hour of over the hill TV, though anyone who has watched him over the years won’t be surprised. Matthews started by talking about Hollywood and “70 year-old people dressed like.. 8 year olds,” then segued into people talking in “idiot Twitter language.” Later he said this:
“What is [sexting] about? Why don’t people call each other and have a nice romantic conversation if they like each other? I’m sorry, is it complicated? You used to call up and ask for dates, is it weird now?” – Mediate
Weiner didn’t want a date, in fact, he wanted the exact opposite.
Matthews, Jay Newton-Small and many others reporting on this story are clueless, but that doesn’t stop them from rambling on and on.
As I wrote when Weinergate broke, this is about voyeurism, joined with the opportunity to reach out and not directly touch someone while getting your kicks flirting in a way that keeps the act of adultery at arm’s length, but still allows the obsessed to indulge his or her fantasies.
At this point, an important distinction even after Rep. Weiner’s televised confessional today, his compulsion to indulge himself has absolutely nothing to do with his wife or having a physical affair outside of his marriage, both of which he’s denied. In situations like Mr. Weiner’s there is more often than not absolutely no correlation to how he feels about his wife and marriage and the voyeurism he’s acting out. He can be madly in love with his wife, be technically faithful, though, again, some spouses would disagree with this definition, while enjoying himself in what he considered harmless fantasy, that is until he got caught.
What can begin as harmless voyeuristic adventurism can have at its root sexual compulsion, which can be dangerous in your life if not admitted, investigated and resolved.
The mistake people make when venturing into risky private interaction with people unknown to them on a public social platform is that, like with most technology, being unmasked is one click away. But then again, without that thrill the rush wouldn’t be enough to satisfy the voyeur.
Weiner’s behavior isn’t new, but the media platforms that make the world able to uncover your secret fantasies is.
Politicians still think they can hide private things behind closed doors. Arnold Schwarzenegger did a good job of it for a long time, but he never engaged online in the antics Weiner did. Sometimes it’s better to do it the old fashioned way, though John Edwards found out when you’re stupid that doesn’t work either.
After admitting that he sent the “lewd” photo via private direct message via Twitter that ended up public, Rep. Weiner admitted he did what he’s been accused of doing, which is to engage and interact before and after his marriage with women, whom he said he mostly met via Facebook. “Deep weakness” is how he characterized his actions, that he said goes back “3 years.”
“I was embarrassed. I was humiliated. …”
Emotional, overwrought and disgraced, Rep. Anthony said he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions.
Weiner accepts full responsibility, saying he did not engage in physical activity.
I didn’t think Rep. Chris Lee’s CraigsList photo rose to the height of resignation, so I don’t believe Weiner’s ridiculously embarrassing actions do either.
Rep. Weiner will have to fight his way back to respectability and whether his constituents forgive him or not we’ll have to see.
“… I apologize to Andrew Breitbart. I apologize to the many other members of the media who I misled. I apologize first and foremost to my wife…” – Anthony Weiner
As she prepares to enter the race in Iowa later this month, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has signed on high-profile political strategist Ed Rollins to run her presidential campaign, according to two sources close to Bachmann.
Rollins, who was Mike Huckabee’s national campaign director in the 2008 campaign, is an experienced political operative with a well-earned reputation for his tough tactics and willingness to play hardball. He’s probably best known for running the 1984 Reagan-Bush reelection campaign, which Reagan won in a landslide.
But there was one challenge—a challenge that could alienate the kind of Republicans who vote in early primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina—that Romney didn’t address: his Mormon faith. – Mormons Rock!
Considering that Republican primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina don’t think women should have equal freedoms as men, I’m not convinced that being Mormon is any more of a “challenge” than women demanding equality, but getting stiffed by Republicans.
When you look across the nation, there is nothing more threatening to women’s freedoms than the Republican Party’s war on women being waged one state at a time.
“Dancing Mitt” doesn’t strike me as anything but a help for the Republican stiff who can’t seem to get any respect, let alone inspire excitement, from the people he hopes will hand him the nomination. It’s not like these people are interested in a South Park musical, with the creators labeling their hit “an atheist’s love letter to religion.”
The Affordable Care Act will expand eligibility for Medicaid, beginning January 1, 2014, to cover all Americans with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty guidelines ($29,326.50 for a family of four in 2010). This expansion is one of the three primary mechanisms for covering additional uninsured Americans, along with reliance on the current employer-sponsored insurance system, and creation of Insurance Exchanges. States will have the primary responsibility to implement the Medicaid expansion, complying with new federal requirements, many of which will be clarified in forth-coming regulations. Below is list of Medicaid issues legislators may want to consider before the expansion of Medicaid in 2014. – National Conference of State Legislatures
Republicans feel it’s 2012 or bust, because the drop dead date for austerity is 2014.
Politico runs an important story today wondering why Democrats aren’t talking about Medicaid, in addition to Medicare, driving home the point of Republican austerity, which puts the most vulnerable in jeopardy.
Medicaid “doesn’t quite have the same political dynamic” as Medicare, (New Jersey’s Rep. Robert) Andrews said.
Yeah, the poor go quietly, but AARP members will not.
According to reports, Barack Obama won 73% of the vote of people making under $15,000. Republicans don’t have a vested interested in these voters, because they vote less frequently than Medicare recipients and are unlikely to vote GOP for a reason. Maybe that’s why Paul Ryan’s budget, which has been reported before, plans to cut roughly $1.4 trillion from the poor’s safety net.
Also in Ryan’s sights is the Affordability Care Act, which Republicans want to eliminate completely, but if they can’t do that, cutting Medicaid by $770 million would be another way to get the job done, simply by turning Medicaid into state block grants. From early April in the American Prospect:
There are several ways states can pass on the Medicaid savings: reduce eligibility to trim the Medicaid rolls, cut recipients’ benefits, and reduce provider payments. Presumably all three would occur, and the balance between them would vary by state.
But not all Medicaid beneficiaries require the same amount of spending, and those who cost the most would most likely see their benefits limited or cut. Older people and people with disabilities make up the majority of Medicaid expenditures but are only about a quarter of Medicaid recipients. They are much more likely than the general population to depend on expensive long-term care and ancillary services like mental health, home-health aides, and occupational or physical therapy. Right now, if a state chooses to cover those needs, the federal government kicks in a significant portion of the cost, but that would change under Ryan’s block-grant plan. States would have a financial incentive to cut the most vulnerable because they are the most expensive. “Medicaid is already a pretty lean program, so block grants create a big incentive for states to cut back on things that vulnerable people really need,” says Harold Pollack, a professor of social policy at the University of Chicago.
Proving that policies are fought in the mainstream and where the most likely voters can be reached, there’s not been any attention whatsoever to what the Republican budget would do to Medicaid. From Politico:
Yet, for all the Democrats’ posturing and campaigning against Republican plans for Medicare, the GOP budget actually makes more immediate and deeper cuts to Medicaid. But Democrats haven’t been blasting the GOP Medicaid plan with nearly the same fervor, even though Republicans would cut about $750 billion from the program during the next decade and end the guaranteed federal match for states.
[...] Medicaid covers more than 50 million people, including low-income children and seniors in long-term care, but it doesn’t pack the same political punch as Medicare. Some observers say that’s due to the lingering perception that Medicaid is just a program for poor people that holds a much less broad-based appeal.
It’s also about kids. ACA pumped up the “Medicaid for kids” program, which Ryan and the Republicans are targeting.
Maybe the reason they’re getting away with it without a peep from Democrats is because Pres. Obama tried his own version earlier this year with cutting home heating assistance for the poor.
It’s not the two America’s syndrome, it’s that we have separate and unequal economic realities, with Democrats not doing anything to make the case for helping the poor.
Ironic that the only guy who ever made that case is now fighting to stay out of jail in an FEC case that’s never been brought before in U.S. history; while Wall Street bankers who broke our financial system and trumpet Republican tax policies as the answer walk around free from guilt or reprisal.
There is no conversation coming from Democrats or Pres. Obama about what the GOP wants to do with Medicaid if given the chance, even as Republicans push austerity through Medicare, because in the age of Obama it seems the party of Robert F. Kennedy doesn’t do that anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that Pres. Obama and his administration don’t care about the poor, which ACA proved in writing and spirit, even if there’s been no defense of the specifics since Rep. Ryan’s budget landed. It’s just that Obama has no intention of putting the power of the presidential bully pulpit behind a strong offense over something that would not bring out voters that don’t normally vote for him anyway.
When Palin first uttered her Paul Revere gaffe, I wrote a short post about it, then went over to conservative site because the writer was offering an excuse for Palin and asked if critics would apologize to her, because she was actually correct. The post over at Legal Insurrection foreshadowed the insanity that’s ensued since, which includes Palin fans trying to rewrite Revere’s ride in order to provide cover for Palin over at Wikipedia; Little Green Footballs links to an eye-opening page over there.
I very rarely do this, but in the comments over at LegalInsurrection I wrote the following: This post is representative of what’s wrong with our politics on both sides of the aisle. The lengths some people will go to in order to offer cover to politicians, whether it’s Palin or Obama, who actually deserve the ridicule they’re receiving at the moment.
A “constitutional conservative” promoting “Sarah Palin 2012″ responded to my comment on Twitter like this: Analyst @taylormarsh upset with @LegInsurrection & others for setting record straight re: #Palin Revere “gaffe” http://bit.ly/jTdPlz #tcot
Setting the record straight is actually code for Sarah and her fans making stuff up.
It’s alarming to me that as the second decade of the 21st century begins people are more interested in propping up a celebrity politician than standing up for the truth. That it’s Sarah Palin isn’t surprising, but it’s astonishing so many people think she’s worthy of such defense on a matter that should instead having her smacking herself up side the head.
Conservative women are rightly enthralled about a woman with their political viewpoint being nominated for the presidency. I’ve been covering Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann seriously, but is Sarah Palin’s inability to be honest going to be their standard?
That’s a serious question after Palin’s supporters went to the lengths they did on Wikipedia.
In 2008, Democratic women weren’t enamored by Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman, but instead expected her to have the policy goods and the requisite experience, which is at it should be. They held Clinton to account for Iraq, but also didn’t side with her out of gender.
Michele Bachmann looks like Margaret Thatcher compared to Palin these days, who seems to be in a world of her own that includes her own facts too.
It’s hard to believe that conservative women only care about ideology, with everything else ignored as long as they can check the boxes on issues where they agree. History being outside those bounds evidently.
With Sarah Palin, it looks like we’re actually seeing the vagina vote validated and vaulted to credibility.
Ever since Palin appeared I’ve written about her instincts, her “it” factor, as well as the power she wields, even if most others shrug it off. This latest episode takes the notion of political loyalty and puts it in another category altogether.
No matter what ridiculous thing comes out of Sarah Palin’s mouth she will be defended, even against the indefensible.
On this day in history, June 5, 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. Also on this date in 1967 the Six Day War erupted between Israel and the surrounding Arab states.
~Defense Secretary Gates is in Afghanistan saying his “goodbyes” and reassuring the Afghans that we will be there for the long haul. Obama has set himself up to have to battle not only the GOP on a myriad of issues but now his own party on Afghanistan. The troop surge didn’t work and the underlying problem- a corrupt, illegitimate government that is playing both sides- won’t be “fixed” by counterinsurgency.
~Speaking of Secretary Gates, why does the media help perpetuate the myth that Gates has been a leader in terms of cutting defense spending? Because really what he’s done is just moved money around. If people like David Gregory had stones they’d confront Gates with this but instead they fawn all over him in a rather embarrassing manner.
~Question: if the U.S. is willing to entertain the idea of having talks with the Taliban, a group that is killing Americans as we speak, why is negotiating with Hamas under certain conditions such a taboo? I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m honestly just asking the question.
~Are you tired of hearing about the Weiner scandal? Well, here’s the thing- we know the media loves anything having to do with sex, or anything that even hints of sex, because it’s so much easier to cover than, say, the latest Supreme Court decision. But it’s also a morality tale of sorts. Whoever was advising Rep. Weiner to go on the teevee box and give winding, circular, vague non-answers to basic yes or no questions should be fired or voted off the island.
~Yesterday was the 22nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Any mention of the anniversary is forbidden in China and they have done everything in their power to erase the tragedy from China’s history.
~You have to hand it to Fox News, they really take on the big issues!:
~Never under estimate the ability of far right conservatives to dumb down almost any issue. They are allergic to nuance and prefer instead to see everything as Black or White, Good vs. Evil. That’s all well and good and it certainly makes for much easier political messaging but at the end of the day, that’s not how the world works.
~I realize that Sarah Palin supporters get really, really angry whenever someone criticizes her but I simply don’t understand why someone would defend someone with such a limited grasp on national and foreign policy. Every politician makes mistakes or stretches the truth and no politician can be an expert on every subject, but Palin’s statements are simply incomprehensible and it is just not acceptable for any candidate or political figure to blame their lack of basic knowledge entirely on the media.
~Ambassador Chris Hill has an interesting commentary about the Mideast peace process, or lack thereof. There seems to be a widening gap between long-time diplomats and foreign policy experts and politicians in both the U.S. and Israel. Regardless of where one stands on this issue one thing is certain, the current politicization of the peace process won’t help resolve the conflict or keep either the Israelis or Palestinians one iota more secure.
~The administration and the media have reacted dismissively to Sy Hersh’s New Yorker article about Iran’s supposed nuclear capability. It would seem that the media really haven’t learned anything since the Judith Miller, Scooter Libby days of reporting in the run-up to the Iraq War. Glenn Greenwald rips Politico for their journalistic hypocrisy and their acting as stenographers to those in power. The way in which the media has responded to the Hersh article is more proof that the media don’t report the news so much as decide what is and isn’t worthy of national debate. Irrespective of what one believes about Iran or Hersh’s reporting on this issue, it’s interesting how the administration and those in the media seem unwilling to even allow a debate to take place.
~Richard Cohen gets paid to write this stuff? Actual money?
~Rather than screaming non-stop about the debt, which has been a problem in the making for well over a decade, we should be screaming for campaign finance reform so that voting isn’t just window-dressing for democracy.
~This is interesting- some religious Christians are questioning the morality of the GOP budget proposals. Apparently some people think selfishness and screw the poor isn’t a great Christian rallying cry. Good for them. A politician’s faith is/should be a personal matter unless they make it a center piece of their political platform and in that case, questioning some of the more blatant hypocrisy is justified.
~It’s official, hardly anyone in Congress agrees with Obama’s Libya strategy. Of course, the irony of the GOP maneuver is rather rich given most of them never met a war they didn’t like. The wording of the congressional resolution should have been applied to the authorization for the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
We have lots of progressive news to catch up on so let us get to it!
Progressives are never going to let the Right off the hook for their move to end Medicare. Republican Congressman Charlie Bass, in swing state New Hampshire, is caught up in a firestorm over his vote to kill Medicare. This effective new ad from PCCC/DFA is sure to boost his opponent progressive Ann Kuster, who barely lost to him in 2010. And the GOP is begging for it to be taken off the air! The ad:
Senator Sanders has a new bill to radically cut costs of prescription drugs in America. Whenever our very serious deficit hawks decide to actually enact programs to do so they might want to check out Sanders’ very smart plan to end high drug costs in this country:
Drugs are cheap. There are few drugs that would sell for more than $5-$10 a prescription in a free market. However, many drugs in the United States sell for hundreds of dollars per prescription and sometimes several thousand dollars per prescription. There is a simple reason for this fact: government-granted patent monopolies.
The government gives patent monopolies to provide an incentive for drug companies to carry through research. This is an incredibly backward and inefficient way to pay for research. It leaves us paying huge amounts of money for cheap drugs. It also often leads to bad medicine.
We can do better and Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a way. He has introduced a bill to create a prize fund that would buy up patents, so that drugs could then be sold at their free market price. Sanders’ bill would appropriate 0.55 percent of GDP (about $80 billion a year, with the economy’s current size) for buying up patents, which would then be placed in the public domain so that any manufacturer could use them at no cost.
This money would come from a tax on public and private insurers. The savings from lower-cost drugs would immediately repay more than 100 percent of the tax….
What a concept! End the drug company monopolies on patents and let the government allow drugs to be sold at their cheap free market prices. The dilemmas of high drug costs would disappear for the consumer and for healthcare providers.
FDR’s grandson, Curtis Roosevelt, has a great piece at Huffington Post on the banks, Congress and our trust:
Widows like Granny, my great-grandmother Sara Delano Roosevelt, had implicit trust in the people who handled her financial affairs, in much the same way that she assumed integrity and professional standards in her doctor or lawyer.
Looking back again, I’m not at all sure that my grandfather, Franklin Roosevelt, swallowed his mother’s idealistic notions. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy during eight years in Woodrow Wilson’s administration, he had handled all the Navy’s contracts and labor relations. He then observed during the Harding and Coolidge presidencies how business interests were given the highest priority, and then, even during the Great Depression, how President Hoover considered our capitalistic system sacrosanct, untouchable.
The Pecora Commission was set up right before FDR was sworn in but he defended it and believed in its work:
Alan Brinkley, in a recent edition of Vanity Fair, describes the Pecora Commission’s investigation, concluding that it “had a lasting impact on the public’s image of the financial world, and it helped make possible new laws and regulations aimed at preventing a depression-size calamity from befalling the country again.”
He adds: “Congress has been remarkably decorous about investigating what went wrong.” He writes that, in contrast to the Pecora Commission, today, “showboating and modestly informed members of Congress berate witnesses without eliciting any useful disclosures — only self serving apologies.” (Replies from the CEO of Goldman-Sachs come to mind.)
But to ask, “Where is our Ferdinand Pecora?” sidesteps the real questions: Where is the White House? Where is presidential leadership in our crises?
President Obama should note that President Roosevelt’s slamming the bankers and financiers — beginning with his inaugural address and right up through his campaign for a second term — did not destroy the country’s banking system.
Yes we share Curtis Roosevelt’s alarm at the lack of concern from Obama and Congress about our out of control financial system. He then hits Obama:
We haven’t been able to count on the banking community since my childhood, and we can’t count on this Congress to give us the equivalent of the Pecora Commission. However, we should be able to count on our president.
There are many differences between those days and today, but presidential leadership should remain the same. Confidence in FDR won for the Democrats the 1934 mid-term election, and then provided Roosevelt with an overwhelming victory in 1936, electing him to a second term. Enough said.
FDR’s grandson is no fan of he current Democratic president. Is this a problem?
Meanwhile in Versailles, these days known as Washington DC, our president and Congress are mired in negotiations over raising the debt limit. Why negotiate over this when the GOP ransom is Medicare and Medicaid? especially after the Dems won a GOP House district last week? What nonsense. But we have some signs lead Dems plan to push against cuts not only to Medicare but Medicaid:
A Democratic briefing for several dozen Medicaid advocates on Republican plans to cut the program by close to $750 billion resulted in what one participant called a “clarion call” to action.
The advocates filing out of the darkened Senate building were under strict orders to keep tight-lipped, but a few participants indicated that no firm decisions were made during the meeting. Rather, they said, the public can expect to increasingly hear that the magnitude of cuts contemplated by Republicans would not be achievable without hard budget caps; that approach would hurt beneficiaries and would shift costs to the states, participants said, since the growth in Medicaid spending is expected to remain below that of the private sector, according to the latest CBO projections.
Turning Medicaid into block grants like Ryan wants will cost states up to 30pct more, like Texas. If anything Medicaid should fully subsidized by the federal government with no burden on state budgets.
Robert Reich is one of those progressive economists too few listen to on the Hill. He wonders if the hit Wall St. took this week is a turning point . The destruction of Main St. might now be hurting Wall St. and forcing changes that might be positive:
.. The economy needs 125,000 new jobs a month just to tread water, given that at least 125,000 people join the potential labor force every month. Simply put, if new hires are in the range of five digits, American consumers will not have enough purchasing power to buy what the private sector can produce.
The leaders of the Street and big business may now have to wake up to a reality they’ve tried to avoid — that the central economic problem of our time isn’t the long-term budget deficit but the immediate deficit in aggregate demand.
They may not yet see the necessity of a renewed social contract linking pay to per capita productivity, but they will understand something must be done to fuel jobs and wages.
Never underestimate the power of Wall Street and big business to set the terms of the economic debate in our nation’s capital. After all, Wall Street and big business pay the tab of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even if the middle class can’t get the attention our representatives in Washington, those who fund their campaigns can.
Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is seeking to harness the energy of voters enraged at their Republican governors, but isn’t sure about getting those voters to support Obama this time:
President Barack Obama faces waning enthusiasm from union members as he prepares for his 2012 re- election bid, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.
“It will be more challenging this time than it was last time to motivate our members,” Trumka, 61, said in an interview today at Bloomberg’s offices in Washington.
With the DC focus on debt not jobs, free trade pacts which ship out our jobs and cuts to programs the people need Trumka is trying the only real thing he can do: organize locally, punish candidates who do not fight for workers. Trumka wants a progressive America and doesn’t care if the Right calls it socialism:
Trumka said he’d like to see the U.S. become more like a European nation that provides pensions and health care for all its citizens. He said he is accustomed to criticism and doesn’t mind if conservatives call that socialism.
“Being called a socialist is a step up for me,” he said.
Good news: Russ Feingold is seriously considering running for Senate in 2012 and will decide this summer. Should he run he will walk back into the Senate as voters have huge remorse for dumping him.
On Right wing nut watch we have yet another winner from Governor Scott. Governor Rick Scott continues to get into law the most outrageous affronts imaginable. He is the Dems’ best friend for ’12 and a terrible enemy of the poor and minorities. I cannot imagine the courts upholding this one:
Saying it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
“It’s the right thing for taxpayers,” Scott said after signing the measure. “It’s the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don’t want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs.”
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state’s congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it “downright unconstitutional.”
“Governor Scott’s new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation’s ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings. “If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?”
Uh yeah. What were voters thinking to put in a guy who paid billions to the government over defrauding Medicare fraud? What a monster.
Joyce Arnold is a liberal Independent activist whose weekly column “Queer Talk” appears on Saturday.
Obama proclaims Pride Month, and puts up a web page just for Queerdom. So we know: One, it’s LGBT Pride time. Two, it’s 2012 campaign time. A week earlier, the Human Rights Campaign helped kick-off the Obama re-election efforts with an early, unsurprising, and unequivocal endorsement. These three actions follow the assertion by “key figures” and “prominent donors” a couple of weeks ago that, as a Politico article headlined it, “Gay donors fuel President Obama’s 2012 campaign.” Coordination with the O Campaign is assumed (at least by me). That’s how Insider and Access games are played.
All – the “gay donors” claims; the HRC endorsement; the official WH Pride proclamation; the “you get your very own WH web page” for Queerdom – had mixed receptions. Some think all of this is great, or at least shows good efforts. Some think it doesn’t meet the “fierce advocacy” test. Or as GetEQUAL put it in a letter to Obama: “We’ve got Pride, now it’s time to GetEQUAL.”
How about we start with this: On the matter of LGBT equality, yes, the Dems in general and Obama specifically, are “better than” the Reps. That, however, is a “how low can you go” bar by which to measure. Comparing what the Dems in general, and Obama specifically, promise regarding LGBT equality, and what they actually do, is a more meaningful measure. You don’t discount what’s been accomplished, but neither do you pretend they couldn’t have done more. Or give them a free ride endorsement into the “winning the future” horizon.
While people “wrestle” and “evolve,” while cautious and incremental steps are what pass for “fierce advocacy,” while “political expediency” is allowed unquestioned control of “what gets done” … inequality continues to define the lives of millions. When you follow the path as designed by the Insider and Access level of advocacy in our two party front for the Oligarchy, you do what the RNC or the DNC want done. And although exceptions occur, in the Insider and Access world, even the “we are holding you publicly accountable” moments are carefully crafted for Outsider consumption, and the Insiders are all in on the crafting.
Bill Clinton first issued a presidential proclamation regarding “Pride Month,” and after eight W. years without such, President Obama re-introduced the practice in his first year in the WH. This year’s “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month” proclamation can be read at the new website, “Winning the Future: President Obama and the LGBT Community.” A list of pro-LGBT related accomplishments as defined by the O administration is included. And obviously, what has been accomplished is good. But there’s less here than was reasonably expected, given candidate Obama’s “fierce advocacy” claims. The wording of this year’s Pride proclamation is one measure of his pride in his Insider’s view accomplishments. From the outside, things appear to remain in the evolving, wrestling stage. In some ways, the evolutionary direction seems to be more fuzzy than it was pre-WH.
On the website: “This site is a tool for you to learn about how President Obama and his team are working to win the future for LGBT Americans.” In general, the “Winning the Future” spin doesn’t work for me. I get planning ahead. But this focus on the “future” seems a bit too convenient. Like “evolving,” it can always be pushed out just a bit further.
You may recall that Obama first told me he was ‘evolving’ on the marriage issue back on October 27, 2010. Well, he’s still not there.
Yesterday, the President did ‘proclaim June 2011 as … Pride Month.’ But, funny thing (or not), the Proclamation doesn’t mention anything about marriage or even civil unions. MetroWeekly’s Chris Geidner reported on this finding:
‘There is no mention of relationship recognition, despite the fact that on Feb. 23, Attorney General Eric Holder, announced that the president had determined that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice subsequently ended its defense of that portion of the law in ongoing court challenges.
Geidner goes on to note that in Obama’s 2010 proclamation, he included that “we must … repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.” In 2009 he said he “support…(s) civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples.”
Later, Geidner points out that “‘The Obama Administration’s Commitment to Winning the Future for the LGBT Community’ fact sheet’ has a more expansive list of ‘accomplishments’ than the proclamation, including “three bullet points about future progress. The ‘progress’ points all relate, at least in part, to relationship recognition — a topic absent from Tuesday’s proclamation.”
Of course, all of this is tied to 2012. Though just who it is the O campaign is seeking to reassure with its sometimes more fuzzy than fierce positioning is unclear. As polls show growing and even majority support for LGBT equality in general; and as there’s every reason to guess that whoever emerges as the Republican candidate will not claim anything like ardent advocacy for LGBT rights … who is it Obama is concerned about?
A photo on the “Winning the Future” LGBT website was taken on June 17, 2009, when Obama signed an executive order increasing benefits for Federal employees with same-gender partners. When I saved it for possible use, I noticed how it was tagged on the website: “lgbt hero image.” That, apparently, is how the O campaign is measuring their pride in accomplishments for Queerdom, at “hero” heights.
I tend to measure accomplishments, and pride in accomplishments, by way of employment non-discrimination protection; housing protection; marriage equality; the end of DADT discharges while the repeal process plays out; prosecution of hate crimes; LGBT kids free to go to proms, protected from bullying … things like that. And more often than not, those I most admire and appreciate are the people – usually at the non-Insider level – who spend years and decades working to make such things happen. These people are the real heroes, the real standard for the measure of pride in being and living as who they are.
Capitalism Out of the Closet **UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama **Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Good morning and welcome to Sunday!
