TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | health care

Obama to Channel Occupy Wall Street, Not Teddy Roosevelt, He Just Won’t Admit It

By on 06 December 2011

The banner above is from the White House website. I’ve got to ask, where was this political activism this time last year when Republicans were poised to eviscerate the Democratic majority? Because Obama wasn’t on the ballot it was nowhere to be found. So, as much as I applaud the sentiment that is behind what’s happening today, Pres. Obama now deciding to crib from Occupy Wall Street while invoking Teddy Roosevelt sounds like another political pitch that’s all about him to me.

The hashtag on Twitter is #Osawatomie. You can watch the speech as it streams live.

In Osawatomie, Kansas, Pres. Obama will attempt to take his message to Republicans, who no longer represent the party they once were, while reaching the 99%. With language intended to conjure up Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 “square deal” speech, using ““a fair shot and a fair shake,” Pres. Obama is once again making the pitch he made at the Democratic convention in 2004: there is not a blue America or a red America, etc. The non-partisan politician people once loved and voted into 1600 Pennsylvania once again on stage.

The patter is “Obama channels Teddy Roosevelt,” but that’s not quite right. What Pres. Obama is doing is channeling Occupy Wall Street and all the Occupy movements across the country, hoping to blast your message wide while simultaneously attaching himself to it, but without you getting credit for it.

It’s as clever as it is dishonest, a political master stroke by Obama reelect that is so cynical it could only come from one of the two big corporate, Wall Street parties.

As for Teddy Roosevelt, he gave his big speech after he left his party. It’s also nothing new for Barack Obama to mimic Republican presidents, with Teddy Roosevelt reportedly the latest Obama will cite.

Last year when the Democratic majority was a stake there was no effort at all from the White House to get out and make the Democratic economic message, which before Pres. Obama has always boiled down to “a fair shot and a fair shake,” a “square deal.” The result was a historic shift in state legislatures, as well as an opening made for the austerity club to take hold of Congress. When Pres. Obama decided to side with insurance companies on health care, adopt Republican economics, as well as extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, while squandering his initial Democratic majority to do something far more economically geared to the middle class that would push back on the austerity club, the Democratic branding built up over decades disappeared.

After you watch or read about the speech, let me know what you think.

A teaser from yesterday from the Washington Post:

Obama’s address in Osawatomie aims to “put into broader perspective the kind of debates we’ve been having to build an economic future in this country,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

“It’s abundantly clear, and was clear even prior to this most recent economic crisis,” Carney added, “that the middle class in this country has been squeezed for a long time, and most especially in the last decade. . . prior to this president coming into office.”

Roosevelt gave his New Nationalism speech after finishing two terms in office. Frustrated with the stout conservatism of his hand-picked replacement, William Howard Taft, Roosevelt sought to press a more progressive agenda that would regulate corporations and the railroad industry, extend food and drug protections and provide federal assistance to the poor and middle-class, said Allan Lichtman, distinguished professor of American History at American University.

“It was a crystallizing speech that did what Obama wants to do, which is throw down the gauntlet,” Lichtman said. Having identified with Abraham Lincoln during his inauguration and now with Roosevelt, Lichtman added, Obama is “trying to show how far the Republican Party has strayed, trying to draw a contrast between a narrow, cramped, corporate Republican party and the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt that sought liberty and represented ordinary people.”

… Roosevelt “was criticized by members of his party,” said one administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to lay out White House strategy. “That’s why he ultimately left his party and gave the speech. . .We’re at a crossroads here.”

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Apple’s Siri, Obama’s ‘Present,’ Mitt’s Flips

By on 01 December 2011

Petition to Apple: Siri Can’t Find Abortion Clinics in California?

Apple: Stop promoting anti-choice extremists. If a user asks for family planning services, they should be directed to a group that offers full services, like Planned Parenthood–not to a hard-right clinic with an extremist agenda. Siri, iPhone’s new voice assistant, won’t tell you where you can get an abortion or even emergency contraception–instead she’ll promote anti-abortion pregnancy “crisis” centers. But let’s say you need an escort service? Siri can help you with that, no problem.

If you didn’t see John King’s excellent take down of Apples “beta” baloney it was total and complete. Apple is scrambling like mad making excuses for their Siri disaster, a story Raw Story first broke. Whether it’s Apple or Barack Obama, it seems what matters to women becomes disposable when something becomes awkward for the establishment types, political or corporate, while Mitt Romney doesn’t think we should have any personal freedoms at all. However, there are some similarities between Obama and Romney that should make Democrats very uncomfortable.

Katha Pollitt’s post in The Nation this week serves as an uncomfortable reminder of Pres. Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dirty deal with Catholic bishops during the health care debate. It’s also a reminder that when Mr. Obama didn’t have to he helped make Bart Stupak a hero, which helped spur states across this country to strip women of rights won in the courts already, without directly challenging Roe v. Wade or that law’s foundation, Griswold, which came before.

One of the chapters in my new eBook, “Is Freedom Just for Men?,” takes on Democratic capitulation by Obama and Pelosi, which was made possible through the so-called progressive caucus that enabled them both and emboldened a new wave of anti-female laws that began a 21st century war on women. Of course, because my book is about the Hillary Effect, this chapter goes well beyond America’s borders and includes examples from around the world of what women are experiencing that answers the question conclusively, as well as the notion that feminism and the fight for women’s rights is anything but over.

One thing that Pollitt doesn’t mention is that the Catholic vote is incredibly important to Pres. Obama, though to think the bishops’ flock will vote for Barack Obama is ludicrous.

But to drive the point home on just how scurrilous Pres. Obama’s behavior has been toward women’s reproductive freedoms, all you need to do have done is read Colbert King when Obama later sold D.C. poor women down the river, too.

Congress used the budget negotiations to attach riders that prevent locally raised tax dollars from being used for reproductive services for low-income District women. Another provision forced a federally funded school-voucher program on the city.

If that weren’t galling enough, President Obama threw the city under the bus and bought the deal, telling GOP House Speaker John Boehner, “John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about that.” Boo-hoo. Like hell.

Like hell, indeed.

This mimics what Barack Obama did in Illinois by voting “present” over one hundred times, always to keep his political options open.

As an aside and an example of one difference between Mitt flip-flop Romney and Barack present Obama is Obama not taking a stand is a tactic that Romney didn’t use. It’s just too bad Romney is so gutlessly passionless he can’t stand up to defend his own political record as moving to a more conservative stance when he wasn’t the governor of a liberal state. It’s easy for someone with a modicum of political honesty.

It’s important to note that Barack Obama voting “present” on important issues is not exactly a moment in political courage either now is it? Nor is setting up women to lose reproductive health care rights won in the courts in the 1960s. Hey, but since the sixties has always made Obama queasy no one should be surprised.

The one thing women have to hold on to this time, however, is that in 2010 the female vote split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, which hadn’t happened in a long, long time. Obama’s base is also not nearly as excited as the right is for 2012, with outside challengers to the big two parties destined to rise up over the next 6 months. So, Pres. Obama needs women to get reelected, Democratic women who believe freedom is not just for men and that laws on the books to protect a woman’s individual freedoms matter.

So, can Pres. Obama afford to side with Catholic bishops over women on reproductive health care access yet again? We’re about to find out.

After all, it’s wonderful that the Catholic health care industry supported Pres. Obama on the health care fight, but these anti-female freedom voters are very unlikely to vote for his reelection in 2012. That really is the only thing that matters to Barack Obama today and as we’ve found before, Mr. Obama is nothing if not opportunistic with his principles.

It’s always about whether it benefits him, just like any other politician.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Mitt vs. Mitt, Playing in a Loop

By on 28 November 2011

“Look, I was an independent at the time of Reagan Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” – Mitt Romney

The ads below from the DNC targeting Mitt Romney are priceless. They also reveal how screwed up the primary process for Republicans is this year and point to the reason Pres. Obama has the biggest chance of getting reelected.

Having no core has its consequences. That seems to be the conservative theme this year. Because if conservative Republicans had a center, any political compass at all, their candidate would be Jon Huntsman. He’s the only candidate running, the only one, to have endorsed Paul Ryan’s extreme economic plan. Getting out of foreign entanglements is no longer a conservative principle. The neoconservative hangover is still crippling conservative sensibilities, making a mockery of William F. Buckley’s party.

It’s also why Mitt Romney’s still the best bet to win the nomination, even if Jon Huntsman is now the strongest cross-over candidate they’ve got.

Once upon a time, Romney’s economic background was a true threat to Obama. It could still be, depending on what happens with the economy, with a lot of election year energy also depending on whether Occupy protests rev up in the spring again and gain traction next year. Regardless, Mitt’s 1% persona, corporations are people too patter, will hang around his neck now. Before Occupy, Romney looked a lot better than he does today.

The opening of the first Romney ad below is not only hilarious, it’s sheer genius.



The sequel is longer, devastating and playing in a swing state near you.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama

By on 21 November 2011

**Postscript added**

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll. – The Hillary Moment

The Obama supporter in the video shown here is “not disappointed by Pres. Obama.”

I’m not either.

The difference is that I’m not as exhausted as this particular Obama supporter seems to be, because I don’t feel the need to defend him or attempt a pitch on his presidency that comes with no enthusiasm and gives lesser of two evils as the foundation. Watching the video is actually depressing instead of convincing.

I’m also not disappointed to say most of the things Pres. Obama has accomplished most any Democratic president would have also done, which may be part of the reason most die hard Obama fans always end up their arguments talking about the appalling choices on the right.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama let too big to fail banks rake in record cash, in fact, more in Pres. Obama’s first term than in all eight of George W. Bush, because Barack Obama was always the corporate guy in a elite political party who is bought off by both banks and big business. He had no intention of reeling in the banks to any degree, which is proven through the appointments of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

But I wasn’t disappointed in Tim Geithner or Larry Summers, because it’s not like Barack Obama, who received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in his time, was going to buck the boys that represent those jackals.

I knew Pres. Obama would not lead the country on issues he believed strongly in, inspiring Congress to find consensus, because what he does is compromise between ideas presented to him.

I wrote over 4 years ago that Pres. Obama would not fight for entitlements.

I also wrote that no one should take his anti-war Iraq speech as any indication of what he’d do as president, because his votes in the United States Senate on these matters were exactly like Hillary Clinton’s. I wrote that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate he would have likely voted for the Iraq war, just as all the Democratic presidential hopefuls did from the Senate, with his presidency proving that possibility very real.

It’s hard to take anyone touting Mr. Obama as the lesser of two evils, as Obama supporters do most often, while as President he’s shown a penchant toward militarism that rivals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

I wasn’t disappointed when Pres. Obama decided to bomb Libya. See above.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama assassinated an American citizen abroad using executive branch powers, because he’s been following the George W. Bush presidential model all the way.

So, I wasn’t surprised that instead of showing economic muscle, Pres. Obama opted for 2,500 Marines in Australia. See above.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama handed over health care to Sen. Max Baucus and the insurance industry, because I watched him at the very first health care debate, sponsored by CAP/SEIU, in Nevada, long before I back Hillary. He came in and spoke about health care without a plan or a clue on what he would do.

I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama’s compromise and capitulation, because there was never any evidence that he’d fight for Democratic principles.

I’m not disappointed that before the 2010 midterms Pres. Obama didn’t lead with an economic message to rival the Tea Party, because he’s not made one argument for progressive economics, preferring to tout Ronald Reagan a lot more often than Bill Clinton, the man who made Obama’s neoliberal presidency possible.

I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama then caved to Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts in December 2010, because after all, if he’s not going to fight before an election why would he fight afterward when his Democratic majority was in shambles?

I wasn’t even disappointed in the midterm outcomes themselves or that women split their vote with Republicans, with seniors tilting right, because Pres. Obama doesn’t make the Democratic case for why they shouldn’t.

I wasn’t disappointed that across the country state houses turned red, because Pres. Obama set the Republicans up by making things easier for them.

I wasn’t so much disappointed in Pres. Obama’s selling out women to the Bart Stupak crowd as wishing he’d simply voted “present” as he did in Illinois.

I wasn’t even disappointed when Pres. Obama didn’t fight for Elizabeth Warren to head the agency that was her brainchild.

Pres. Obama isn’t a fighter, that is, unless he’s fighting for himself.

I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama for not being a more progressive leader, because I knew he wasn’t a progressive from the start.

It’s also not disappointing that Pres. Obama has made the Democratic Party more like the Republican Party through his continual leaning to the right, because both parties are basically the same these days, though the Republican right’s crazy is more virulent, while the Democratic left is just feckless.

I’m not disappointed Pres. Obama didn’t get a primary challenger, because you’d have to be nuts to go up against a man so thoroughly bought and paid for by Wall Street and big business.

I’m not disappointed that Republicans are “deranged,” because that’s nothing new and so hearing the Obama supporter in the video make the case that Pres. Obama is better than the alternative isn’t disappointing, because as I’ve proven here, what else do they have?

Pres. Obama is better than the current leading alternative on the Republican side, which today is Newt Gingrich.

I’m just not sure what that says about this country or our chances of getting out of the mess we’re in.

I’m not disappointed that Mitt Romney will still likely be the one to challenge Pres. Obama, because they’re the flip side of each big party, matching each other pretty well on aloofness, elitism, lack of power to relate, cluelessness of the 99% and just how badly most everyone would like to have better choices than either of these two men.

It’s just the latest edition of the Hillary Effect.

POSTSCRIPT: The only relevant aspect to the so-called “Democratic pollsters” writing in the WSJ is the short bit I quote at the top. These very real numbers are indeed the inspiration for yet another chapter in the Hillary Effect. So, not even the opining of Fox News Channel shills can negate that the Hillary Effect has been in sway since 2008, going back to when Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s vice president, all of which is detailed in my book. As for those throwing around the false talking point about “Obama hatred,” there is absolutely no evidence of it, except among right wing extremists and wingnut conservatives, with the American people still liking Pres. Obama personally. As for me, I’ve been consistent over a long period of time. I’ve called out Secretary Clinton’s militarism and where we disagree on foreign policy (here, here, here, here, here). The case is made in my book The Hillary Effect, which anyone interested in the history of the last few years should read.

video h/t The Moderate Voice

Read full story · Comments { 64 }

I am Not A Lobbyist Becoming Newt Campaign Refrain

By on 18 November 2011

It’s reminiscent of Nixon’s “I am not a crook” line, coming from an equally offensive man, though Nixon was far more cunning.

Then why did companies in the health care industry pay Mr. Gingrich’s think tank over $37 million? Or what was that word the Post used, collected?

A think tank founded by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich collected at least $37 million over the past eight years from major health-care companies and industry groups, offering special access to the former House speaker and other perks, according to records and interviews. – Gingrich think tank collected millions from health-care industry

Then there’s the other problem:

The health center advocated, among other things, requiring that “anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond,” a type of insurance mandate that has since become anathema to conservatives.

If that doesn’t explode the heads of Republican primary voters just wait a moment for Newt’s history to load, because this guy has got a million of them.

Newt also lobbied for (ahem) discussed end of life care, aka “death panels” in wingnut speak, which he wrote about in the Washington Post in 2009: “Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice…” Matt Taibbi hit him hard on it at the time.

Coming on top of Newt’s $1.6+ million “non-lobbying” fees for Freddie Mac, one wonders when Republicans and conservatives will get a clue.

This latest Newt “non-lobbying,” while actually lobbying, story comes as the shock poll of the day has Gingrich tied, that’s right, tied with Romney in New Hampshire. They don’t call it a shock poll for nothin’.

Two things are true about New Hampshire Republican primary voters. They vote for people they know. And they love an underdog with a comeback story. – NHJournal

I’ll need more than one poll to buy into the “underdog.. comeback story” notion that Newt Gingrich can beat Mitt Romney in New Hampshire.

But if it would put the squeeze on Romney to get busy in Iowa, I’d be tempted to push it.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: ‘They’re the same f—ing bill.’

By on 17 November 2011

Right wing primary voters are not going to like this at all. Sane Republicans showing up to vote for Romney, Huntsman will not flinch. They know health care is a substantive policy issue that must be dealt with at the federal level.

The flaming quote in the headline comes from Jonathan Gruber, one of Pres. Obama’s chief advisers on ACA, who also was Gov. Romney’s chief adviser on health care. He was talking with Capital New York’s Reid Pillifant.

TPM flagged this priceless interview. Here’s the nut:

Because this is an idea, that four or five years ago, Republicans were touting. A guy from the Heritage Foundation spoke at the bill signing in Massachusetts about how good this bill was.”

He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same fucking bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”

To Gruber, the stakes for the court’s decision couldn’t be higher.

“Basically, this is the last hope for a free-market solution for covering the uninsured. If this fails, then you either give up on the uninsured or you go to single-payer. Those are the only two options left. And the Republicans, if they’re willing to stand up and say, ‘We give up on the uninsured,’ then great, let them say that and let the voters come to the polls and decide, but they won’t say that.

I was reticent about embracing single payer, because I didn’t think there was anyone who could sell the idea all the way to getting it into law. I knew the individual mandate was awful without a public option, which was easy to see. However, it’s clear one of the biggest mistakes of Obama’s first term was… never mind. The list is far too long.

Ironically, it may not matter, because Republicans right now aren’t offering an alternative the wider electorate will be able to stomach, with a third option, if it comes, likely to come from the right, certainly not the left.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

BARNES & NOBLE Chooses THE HILLARY EFFECT in ‘NOOK First’ Featured Authors Campaign

By on 14 November 2011

It’s incredibly exciting to announce that The Hillary Effect has been selected as one of two non-fiction e-books in the Barnes and Noble “NOOK First” featured authors campaign, just launched.

Being selected as part of this “NOOK First” Barnes and Noble project was an incredible honor and opportunity. Now you know why we waited until this week to publish.

This is a tremendously exciting moment for the entire team that made this happen, beginning with Thomas Ellison and Hutch Morton of Premier Digital Publishing.

What a stunning send off they’ve given my e-book.

So, Barnes and Noble is the only place you can buy The Hillary Effect until December 15th.

Pop the champagne! …just don’t spill it on your NOOK.

NOTE: Aps for your pc, MAC and iPad are available for free at Barnes and Noble.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Supreme Court Sets Unprecedented 5 1/2-Hour Hearing for Health Care

By on 14 November 2011

Only the oral arguments on campaign finance rivals what will take place on the Affordability Care Act, but according to the Times, that was only 4 hours.

From the New York Times:

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day.

The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled. The Court chose those issues from appeals by the federal government, by 26 states, and by a business trade group. It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group, the Thomas More Law Center, and three of its members, and by Liberty University and two of its employees.

Final ruling from SCOTUS will be in June 2012, at the height of the presidential election season.

Federal powers vs. state power is getting it’s day in court, at least where health care is concerned, which will lay down law that a lot of people who follow, study and analyze American politics care a lot about.

Politically speaking, this decision has the potential to fuel a lot of emotion going into the November 2012 elections. If the mandate stands, the reaction could be potent, but also what happens to the law if it doesn’t.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Update on the The Hillary Effect

By on 08 November 2011

Today’s not going to be the day we publish, but I promise we’ll have a big send off for the publication next week! It will be worth the wait.

Some book PR to give you a little more on what it’s all about.


Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.


Read full story · Comments are closed

CBPP: Republican Deficit Plan Offers ‘Minuscule Revenue’

By on 02 November 2011


chart via TPM

The full headline from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is this: Republican Plan Contains Minuscule Revenue Increase Alongside Deep Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. It’s the story on what the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the “supercommittee”) is planning and proposing.

But get this, Republicans also consider increases in Medicare premiums and other fees as “revenues.” Honestly, these people are just morally corrupt and economically challenged. This hasn’t been the case for over three decades, according to the CBPP report.

[...] The latest proposal by Republicans on the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “supercommittee”) contains virtually no new revenue and deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. In those respects, it represents little change from earlier Republican budget proposals. It stands in contrast to last week’s proposal from Senator Baucus and some other Democratic members of the joint committee, which offered significant concessions and marked a major departure from traditional Democratic positions.[1]

The new Republican plan provides for slightly more than $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years, relative to a current-policy baseline that assumes extension of all the 2001-2003 tax cuts. (See Table 1.) Of that amount, only about 1 percent of the deficit reduction ($40 billion) stems from revenue increases. And, compared to the “plausible baseline” that the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission and the Senate’s Gang of Six used, which assumes expiration of the upper-income tax cuts, the latest Republican plan actually provides for tax cuts of more than $800 billion over ten years. (See Table 2.)

The plan’s sponsors have characterized the plan’s proposed increases in Medicare premiums and various fees as “revenues,” but this characterization is inconsistent with standard budget accounting. The federal budget treats these items as reductions in outlays, not increases in revenues, and has for almost three decades. [...]

Because of its lack of revenue increases, the Republican plan both achieves less deficit reduction and makes much deeper cuts in programs that benefit low- and moderate-income families and individuals than does the Democratic offer:

The Republican plan would produce $1 trillion less deficit reduction than the Democratic offer, relative to any baseline. If these plans are measured from a current-policy baseline, the Republican proposal reduces deficits by $3.1 trillion over ten years while the Democratic offer reduces deficits by $4.1 trillion, including (for both proposals) the discretionary spending cuts in the Budget Control Act, as shown in Table
1. (The figures for the Democratic offer do not include economic stimulus proposals, the details of which are not available, so the net deficit reduction under that plan is likely several hundred billion dollars smaller, although still well above the deficit reduction in the Republican plan.)

Relative to the “plausible baseline” used by the Bowles-Simpson commission and the Gang of Six, those two bipartisan plans proposed about $1½ in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases, not counting debt-service savings. (See Table 2.) The Democratic offer moved well to the right of those bipartisan plans, offering about $5 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases.[4] On a comparable basis, the Republican proposal is entirely spending cuts; it calls for revenue reductions relative to the “plausible baseline.”

In contrast, relative to the current-policy baseline, which assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, the Republican plan raises $40 billion in new revenue (by using a modestly lower measure of inflation, the chained Consumer Price Index, to make annual inflation adjustments in the tax code as well as in Social Security and other benefit programs).

The Republican plan makes deeper cuts in Medicare than the Democratic offer — $500 billion versus $400 billion. Of particular note, four-fifths of the Republicans’ proposed Medicare cuts — $400 billion — would directly affect beneficiaries through higher premiums, higher cost sharing, and more restrictive eligibility criteria. In the Democratic proposal, $200 billion of the Medicare cuts would apply to beneficiaries, with the rest falling on pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers. Since half of Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $21,100 in 2010, it would be virtually impossible to achieve this level of beneficiary cuts without imposing substantial increases in out-of-pocket costs on near-poor elderly and disabled people — those between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty line (about $11,000 to $22,000 for an individual). Yet the typical Medicare beneficiary in this income range already pays 23 percent of income for out-of-pocket costs, a percentage that would increase significantly under both plans — especially under the Republican plan.[5]

The Republican plan also would make far deeper cuts in Medicaid — $185 billion versus $75 billion over ten years under the Democratic plan. Cuts of this depth would shift substantial costs to state governments, which would lead to state actions that limit care for the low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities whom Medicaid serves.

The Republican plan also would make sharper cuts in mandatory spending programs other than Medicare and Medicaid — $685 billion versus $385 billion under the Democratic plan and $364 billion under Bowles-Simpson. This level of cuts is close to that in the Ryan budget. Although the proposal does not specify how much will be cut from specific programs, at least half of these cuts are likely to be made in programs serving low-income Americans, such as food stamps.[6]

The weird thing about what the Republicans are offering is that for some reason it’s making Democrats want to yield on issues they shouldn’t, because the consequences of not coming up with something scares them. While Republicans offering cuts that hurt the middle class simply squeezes Democrats to make compromises against the interests of average Americans, too.

Catch 22, anyone?

Not quite, because whenever you see the name Sen. Max Baucus you have to think of two words: health care. Oh, and Jim Messina, the guy responsible for Obama/Biden 2012, who helped Baucus get into position to do what he did on health care. Baucus is the guy who helped take out Tom Daschle, according to much scuttlebutt, but also Confidence Men by Ron Suskind. It was Baucus who was most responsible for helping to deliver a health care bill that was nothing less than a Democratic choke.

Max Baucus is now simply doing for deficit reduction what he did for health care, with Pres. Barack Obama allowing him to do it again.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

What Democrats Stand for Today

By on 28 October 2011

One reason I now write from the view of a recovering partisan.

Obama administration approves California Medi-Cal cuts

Gov. Jerry Brown scored a budget win Thursday as the Obama administration approved a major share of Medi-Cal cuts that health care providers and patient advocates said would cut off medical access to the state’s most vulnerable residents.

Here’s the response from Anthony Wright at Health Access California:

“Even before these cuts, California has one of the worst Medicaid provider reimbursement rates in the nation. These additional cuts will clearly impact access to care for millions of Californians.” said Anthony Wright, executive director, Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition. “While we are concerned about the impacts of the cuts that were allowed to go forward, it’s important that other provider cuts were rejected as going too far in restricting access. The new monitoring system now required by the federal government is essential in publicly documenting the real access to care that Medi-Cal patients have.”

The cuts approved, proposed under both the Schwarzenegger and Brown Administrations, include a 10% provider cut on many outpatient services, including physicians, clinics, optometrists, therapists, laboratories, dental, durable medical equipment, and pharmacy, and a 10% provider cut on freestanding nursing and subacute facilities, and distinct part/nursing facility-B services.

The cuts rejected include a 10% cut to physician and clinic services for children, home health services or distinct part subacute facilities. Other cuts to other long-term care facilities are still under review.

As this point, the only people I think should be subject to health care cuts are our elected congressional representatives and senators, as well as the executive branch and all other federal employees.

Maybe then the entitled and comfortably insured would get what lack of coverage and cuts mean to the unconnected, powerless and the poor.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Goes Down

By on 19 October 2011

It was a brawl.

After Herman Cain was pilloried on his 9-9-9 plan, he wilted. You could almost see the energy drain from him. Really rough night for Cain.

Rick Perry came alive finally, taking out after Mitt Romney, but there is something just a little tired about Perry at this point. He’ll have to do a lot more than he did last night to make up for the fiasco of the earlier debates. Saying he’ll have an economic plan later this week was lame. Perry resurrected the “illegal immigration” attack on Romney. Meanwhile, Romney’s answer on Mormonism was pitch perfect, by any standard.

Rick Santorum was combative with Romney, as well, going at him on health care:

“You just don’t have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. … You have no track record on that that we can trust.”

Michele Bachmann did a very decent job up front, then she blew basic geography on Libya being in Africa.

Paul was Paul. Newt Gingrich just looks like yesterday, though he always gets in a good zinger.

Forgot earlier that Jon Huntsman boycotted Nevada in favor of his one-state strategy.

The funniest moments for me were listening to the analysis afterward, especially David Gergen’s two cents. He says it was all just too unseemly, all the bluster and back and forth hurting Republicans. However, one thing these debates are doing is making Mitt Romney stronger, because I don’t see how Herman Cain will sustain his current trajectory.

I think how far right the Republicans are on issues like taxes benefits Pres. Obama immensely. The anti-Latino, “illegal immigrant” onslaught, which is just stupid electorally, hurt them badly last night. They just don’t get that they can’t win the presidency without the Latino vote.

The Republican establishment had to cringe during some of the exchanges. Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment went pfft.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Mitt Romney’s Problem with Women

By on 17 October 2011

My personal experience interacting with Mormons has been an education. As I’ve written before, my husband was a Mormon, but left the church, also having his name taken off the roles, something that’s considered quite controversial and isn’t easy.

I noticed in the Dartmouth debate recently, Mr. Romney flaring up a bit when questioned, then pressed, by Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman. It was clear to me Mitt didn’t like Ms. Goldman being hard and direct, doing her job as a journalist.

This New York Times article recounts a couple of instances that say a lot about Mr. Romney and his patriarchal moorings. This doesn’t surprise me in the least, but it’s chilling, nevertheless.

Some Mormons, like Mr. Clark, found Mr. Romney thoughtful and compassionate; one mother recalled his kindness to her dying son. Others, including a group of Mormon feminists demanding a greater role for women, found him condescending, doctrinaire or just plain bossy. He clashed with a married mother of four who sought to terminate a pregnancy; the incident made news years later, when Mr. Romney ran for United States Senate as a supporter of abortion rights — a position he has since abandoned.

“Mitt is the type who liked to be called Bishop Romney or President Romney,” said Judy Dushku, a professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston and a Mormon feminist leader. “He is very conscious of his place in the hierarchy, but not yours.”

[...] Mormons oppose abortion, except in extreme cases like rape, incest or where the life of the woman is in danger — and require that church elders be consulted. In 1990, Exponent II, a Mormon feminist magazine that Ms. Dushku, the Suffolk University professor, helped found, published an article by a married mother of four who recounted her own experience after doctors advised her to terminate her pregnancy when she was being treated for a potentially dangerous blood clot.

Her bishop got wind of the situation, she wrote, and showed up unannounced at the hospital, warning her sternly not to go forward. The article did not identify Mr. Romney as the bishop, but Ms. Dushku later did.

Now the woman has come forward, identifying herself in Mr. Scott’s book as Carrel Hilton Sheldon. (Through Ms. Dushku, she declined to be interviewed.) “Mitt has many, many winning qualities,” she is quoted as saying, “but at the time he was blind to me as a human being.”

For the misogynistic religious right, people like Mr. Romney who believe freedom is just for men, what matters in the situation described above is not the woman. Being “blind” to the personal human suffering and what the woman is going through doesn’t register with Romney. The woman isn’t a human being, she’s secondary and her pregnancy takes priority over her own life.

That Romney, as bishop or in any other role, has no right “warning” a woman about what she should or shouldn’t do at this most personal of times never even occurs to Mr. Romney.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

DCCC Supporting Anti Women Democrats: Reps. Mark S. Critz, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson

By on 15 October 2011

**UPDATED**

The freedom is just for men crowd in the House continue their war against women, which is being waged by conservatives who inhabit both political parties. It surrounds the absurd notion that in the Affordability Care Act using public funds for abortions is not already prohibited. Never mind that it was Pres. Obama who signed an executive order to pacify Bart Stupak when it passed in the first place, making it cool to wage war against women. From the Huffington Post:

After an emotional floor debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday passed the so-called Protect Life Act, which prohibits women from buying health insurance plans that cover abortion under the Affordable Care Act and makes it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions.

Now women can’t even buy a health insurance plan that would cover an abortion, an extreme extra step at one of the most emotionally wrought times in a woman’s life.

To some Democrats, men like Critz, McIntyre and Matheson, the mother isn’t considered a life. That’s how far the Democratic Party has fallen in the Obama era. [update] Here are a list of all the so-called Democrats voting for this anti women’s rights bill: Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC)

Pres. Obama has threatened a veto. However, let’s remember it was Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker in U.S. history, who emboldened these cretins in the first place.

Some of you may remember Mark Critz, who ran for John Murtha’s old seat. Former Pres. Bill Clinton helped get him elected. Critz, McIntyre and Matheson all voted against saving a woman’s life in an emergency. But yet the DCCC is using money raised from abortion rights proponents to help keep these men against women’s freedoms in office.

From Credo, with a petition at that link, here’s their campaign to hold anti women Democrats accountable:

The House of Representatives voted to let women die by passing a bill that would make it legal for hospitals to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman as an emergency procedure.

In response to that vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to donate to help protect the health of women.

But three out of fifteen of the DCCC’s top candidates who would receive that money voted to let women die.  Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who vote to let women die.

It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women’s lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women.
Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women’s health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention.

The DCCC’s two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women’s health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates — and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women’s health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists.

Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who want to let women die.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Tribute to Ta-Tas: The ‘I Love Boobies’ Campaign

By on 14 October 2011

The letter reads: “Charaign Sesock, a spokeswoman for The American Cancer Society states: ‘The “I Love Boobies!” campaign is targeting teen years and college ages so that they can empower themselves to be advocates for their own bodies. If you can start raising awareness early on, it will only benefit them as they grow older.’” – Cheerleaders’ cheeky breast cancer shirts spark controversy in Ariz.

Photo credit: CBS/PHO

What man wouldn’t agree? What woman?

Evidently, a male principal in Arizona is upset about the message. It’s high school. Teens say far worse and more inflammatory things without the messaging. Someone needs to get a clue. From CBS News:

The latest flashpoint: Gilbert High School in Ariz. has banned its cheerleaders from wearing a breast cancer awareness t-shirt because of what it considers an objectionable slogan, CBS 5 KPHO in Phoenix reported.

The 56-member cheerleading squad printed pink t-shirts that read “Feel for lumps, save your bumps,” that they planned to wear during a breast cancer fundraiser. But the school threatened the team with severe consequences if the girls wore the shirts.

“We’re not saying anything a doctor wouldn’t say,” 17-year-old Natalie Skowronek, a Gilbert High junior, told the Arizona Republic.

The school’s principal, Dr. J. Charles Santa Cruz, made clear he wasn’t against breast cancer awareness, just the slogan. He said students are encouraged to wear pink shirts, caps, socks, and ribbons.

“In no way is the school administration against Breast Cancer Awareness Month or initiatives students might take in support of it,” Santa Cruz told the Republic. “We just want to make sure we’re in the bounds of appropriate boundaries of a school setting.”

Way to go, ladies. You win, big time.

We’re talking about your t-shirt ta-ta tribute. Well done, Natalie Skowronek and the 56-member cheerleading squad who dared to pen a message that got picked up.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Waiting Out the Tea Party

By on 12 October 2011

A terrific piece from Matt Bai proves the intransigence of our two party system.

If that’s the case, then it now seems like only a matter of time before the Republican empire, overwhelmed by insurrection for much of the last two years, strikes back at last. “I think it’s waning now,” Scott Reed, a veteran strategist and lobbyist, told me when we talked about the Tea Party’s influence last month. Efforts to gin up primaries next year against two sitting senators — Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Indiana’s Dick Lugar — have been slow to gain momentum, Reed said, and it’s notable that more than half of the 50-plus members of the Tea Party caucus in the House ultimately fell in line and voted with Speaker John Boehner on his debt-ceiling compromise. Party leaders have managed to bleed some of the anti-establishment intensity out of the movement, Reed said, by slyly embracing Tea Party sympathizers in Congress, rather than treating them as “those people.”

Did he mean to say that the party was slowly co-opting the Tea Partiers?

“Trying to,” Reed said. “And that’s the secret to politics: trying to control a segment of people without those people recognizing that you’re trying to control them.”

This whole fight on the right is what’s given us the deplorable state of ineffectiveness in Congress today. Principles are critically important. Seeing leaders and political party heads fight hard for what they want is the stuff of battles worthy of supporting. But when stalemate comes, the American people require that elected officials swallow their partisan pride and do the work they were sent to do.

Majorities happen for a reason: people vote one party in over another.

What happened when Obama came in is that he had a majority in Congress, but acted like he didn’t. Not only did he not take the power he was given and drive to the wall for change, he compromised and created something worse than he had to, starting with health care reform.

The Tea Party pack who won in 2010 had no intention of going down that road. However, their extremism has caused paralysis and made our situation worse. It would have been an economic calamity if the Tea Party had successfully caused a U.S. default and their pushing for just that result is what’s got their power dwindling today.

From Bai:

There was a lesson in all this for the Tea Partiers, Weber said — one he had been trying to impart to them whenever he got the chance. “I think I know what they want to accomplish, and I agree with most of it,” he said. “But if they want to accomplish it, they need to ‘rise to the level of politics.’ I mean, you can’t just stand there and take a stand and say, ‘I’m not going to compromise on my position.’ Because you won’t achieve anything.”

Achievements matter in government. Pres. Obama’s got that down. It’s just his achievements in his first term don’t represent the majority with which he began, with his capitulation during times of Democratic strength proving to the Republicans he can be rolled, leading to even worse outcomes once the Tea Party came in.

But since the Tea Party doesn’t understand, respect or appreciate the point of governing, it’s allowed the Republican establishment to wait them out. Now the Tea Party pack has nowhere to go, as their power wanes in Washington, unless they pitch a fit and start their own stand alone entity, outside the two party duopoly. If Mitt Romney’s the nominee, this next spring they may do just that.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

DNC Nails Mitt Romney

By on 11 October 2011

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Are You Ready for Rick Perry 2.0?

By on 10 October 2011

Tying Obamacare to Mitt Romney may work in the primaries. However, Perry’s still got his immigration problem with right wing primary voters, though it might could Obama trouble in the west in the general election, Perry can undo the damage he’s done to his candidacy.

But clearly, with another debate coming up, Perry’s been retooling fast.

The first part of the plan? Get more sleep:

And as he prepares for two more debates in the next nine days, along with his first major policy address, his advisers have devised another way to help: requiring Mr. Perry to get more sleep.

Obviously, Romney won’t let Perry get back into the race without a fight.

Romney camp labels Perry a ‘desperate candidate’

“Rick Perry is a desperate candidate who will say and do anything to prop up his sinking campaign,” Gail Gitcho, Romney’s communications director, said in a statement. “In trying to deflect attention from his liberal in-state tuition policy for illegal immigrants, he has restored to repeated dishonesty, distortions and fabrications about Mitt Romney.”

If this hilarity wasn’t enough, Joe the Plumber has reportedly file papers to run for Congress.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }