Showing posts with label John Boehner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Boehner. Show all posts

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Merry Christmas to middleclass tax payers and the unemployed

Photo courtesy of salon.com.

It’s two days before Christmas and baking and decorating cookies to have on hand when the kids come for dinner on Sunday is more on my mind than the latest skirmish of our dysfunctional congress. I’m also concerned with finding time to prepare to lead my meditation group on Tuesday.

Still, I’m glad that those affected will continue to receive the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the next two months – they can breathe a little easier this holiday weekend.

The NY Times editorial this Dec. 22 gives the win (with qualifications) to the Dems:

For a full year, House Republicans have replaced governing with confrontations that they allow to reach the brink of crisis, only then making extreme demands in exchange for a resolution. On Thursday, that strategy crumbled. Battered by public opinion and undermined by more reasonable Senate Republicans, the House’s leaders backed down and signed off on a deal to continue the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for two months.


Friday, August 5, 2011

Who loses when Obama and the Dems cave to rightwing extortion?

Photo credits: courtesy of the Nation

Leslie Savan, blogging at the Nation, talks about how the MSM ignores the debt ceiling deal’s effect on real people:

Right before a break on The Daily Rundown the other day, host Chuck Todd was talking about the debt deal and mentioned “unemployment lines.” Then he announced, “Coming up: Did Washington take its eye off the ball of what really matters?”  

For one naïve moment, I expected that “what really matters” would entail the debt deal’s effect on actual people, maybe even a sound bite or two from someone who depends on the newly threatened Medicare coverage or unemployment benefits (Congress’s “compromise” failed to extend federal emergency jobless benefits).

Instead, Todd returned to talk with two Washington journalists on what the deal means to the larger economy.A necessary discussion, for sure, but like most TV politi-chat these days, it didn’t touch onhow “the deal savages programs for the lower and middle classes,” as my colleague George Zornick put it in a post that breaks down the likely effects on veterans, students, seniors, the poor, and the unemployed. This Nation slideshow illustrates what most MSM avert their eyes to.  




Saturday, July 30, 2011

The worst bet in all of politics


Gale  Russell Chaddock at the Christian Science Monitor offers a lucid analysis of where Congress is now with debt ceiling negotiations, and it’s not pretty.

Washington
 
After a night of high drama on Capitol Hill, a legislative solution to the debt crisis now shifts to the Senate, where leaders of both parties must now try to guess what will pass in the House – perhaps the worst bet in all of politics.

The situation is the result of strategic mistakes in the buildup to Friday's debt-ceiling votes, which produced an outcome exactly the opposite of what GOP leaders had hoped. Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio had hoped to win support from House Democrats this week by scaling back the House's earlier “cut, cap, and balance” bill. With Democratic support in the House, the bill would have had a credible shot in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Instead, his proposal alienated not only House Democrats but also the president and GOP conservatives. After an aborted attempt to hold a vote Thursday, an amended bill did at last pass the House Friday, 218 to 210, but without a single Democratic vote and without 22 Republican defectors. Later Friday, it failed in the Senate, which voted to table Mr. Boehner's bill, 59 to 41, effectively derailing it.



Saturday, July 23, 2011

A turning point in the Obama presidency?



In the aftermath of John Boehner’s decision to put the nation’s economy at further risk with his refusal to negotiate any further with President Obama, Virginia smacks a 2008 Democratic party leader in the head and exclaims, “You could’ve had a Clinton!”

In the meantime, Howard Kurtz at the Daily Beast is speculating that the hope and change artist from 08 maybe, just maybe, has had enough:

As debt talks hit the skids yet again, the Great Compromiser seemed to finally lose his cool—has he reached his breaking point?

There was a moment—after he appealed for reason, blamed the Republicans, recited the numbers, invoked Ronald Reagan—that President Obama seemed filled with fervor.
He was not going to be party to “driving a bunch of poor kids off the Medicaid rolls,” or penalizing the “working stiffs out there,” the people who “don’t have lobbyists.”

These are standard Democratic talking points, to be sure, but when you strip everything else away, when you try to locate the remnants of the audacity of hope, this is why Obama thinks he ran for president.

As he announced the collapse of the debt negotiations Friday evening after House Speaker John Boehner pulled the plug, Obama appeared to offer an answer to those, many of them in his own party, who wonder: Does he have a breaking point?

To some diehard Democrats, Obama always seems willing to meet the opposition more than halfway in the service of getting a deal done. He put their sacred programs, Medicare and Social Security, on the table without securing a Republican commitment to raise a dollar in taxes. His own partisans weren’t clear whether he had a line in the sand that he would refuse to cross.


Thursday, July 21, 2011

Where in the Bible are we instructed to take from the poor and give to the rich?

Image courtesy of leftcoastrebels.com

During the severe weather watch in the Twin Cities the other day, I gathered with my neighbors in the lobby of my “55 or better” seniors apartment building. While the storm outside spent its fury, our conversation turned to the debate raging in Washington over how to fix the budget deficit that has boiled down to a choice between shredding the safety net for those most in need, or asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

The gathering in the lobby evoked my preacher side, and I noted that conservatives insist on describing America as a “Christian nation.” At that, my audience burst out in laughter. When the noise subsided, I wondered aloud if our self-righteous conservatives had even read the teachings of Jesus. Warming to my topic, I asked: “Where in the Bible are we instructed to take from the poor and give to the rich?”

As we all know, Social Security and Medicare have long been prime targets for conservative wrath and President Obama, the star appeaser in the Democratic Party, has of late put those Democratic “sacred cows” on the bargaining table.

Thus, today’s deciders – the Obama Administration and the Republican Right – continue to spread their lies about the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. And as we all know, a media that includes publicly funded PBS, has eagerly spread the toxic spillage spewing from the enemies of any and all safety nets for the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and the working poor.

Rarely, has a media representative bothered to speak the truth about the solvency or lack thereof of Social Security, but out in the blogosphere one does occasionally come across a post such as the recent one by Nancy Altman and Mark Scarberry at Huffpo titled “Disentangling Social Security from the debt ceiling.”

In light of the fast and loose misrepresentation of the facts on Social Security and Medicare throughout the budget deficit debate, the truth is startling:

Social Security appears to be a key bargaining chip in the struggle over the debt limit. President Obama may have played smart politics when he threatened that, if the debt limit is not raised, Social Security checks might not go out on time. But he was needlessly scaring the program's fifty-five million beneficiaries, the vast majority of whom are highly dependent on each month's Social Security check. So was Speaker John Boehner who, in a recent interview, also spoke of the possible interruption of benefits.

The truth is that checks can go out, in their full amount, without adding a penny to the federal government's total debt. They can be paid without subtracting more than a tiny fraction of a percent -- if anything -- from the funds currently being used for other government purposes -- a reduction so small that it could be considered a rounding error.
   
Three key facts make this true. First, Social Security has its own dedicated income stream for payment of benefits and associated administrative costs. Second, in addition to its current income, Social Security has an accumulated reserve of $2.7 trillion in its trust funds. That reserve is invested, as Congress has always required, in what has been the safest investment on Earth -- treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. And third, the $2.7 trillion in treasury bonds held in the trust funds is included in the $14.3 trillion total debt that has reached the statutory limit. 

If the debt limit is not raised, Social Security's Board of Trustees could and should exercise its right to redeem (cash in) as many of Social Security's bonds as needed to pay benefits. Every dollar of principal (though not accrued interest) that the federal government would be required to pay to redeem the bonds would reduce the total debt subject to the $14.3 trillion limit. That would make room under the debt ceiling and allow the government to borrow an additional dollar from the public to replace every dollar of principal paid by the government.



Thursday, July 7, 2011

Obama sidesteps Hill Dems to put Medicare and Social Security on the table in deficit debate


This week Katalusis has suffered from a fickle Internet connection that has prevented me from posting since my Fourth of July message suggesting that in light of the stalled deficit debate at the federal level and the shutdown of our state government here in Minn., it’s time for our leaders to grow up.

That’s evidently too much to ask. And today we learned that yes, Obama has caved again and now both Medicare and Social Security are on the table, while our glassy-eyed pundits continue to rave about “entitlements.”

A few media reps like Dan Friedman continue to get the word out. Writing for the National Journal, Friedman reports that Hill Democrats aren’t happy about Obama’s latest sellout of his base:

Before Thursday's White House meeting on the budget, congressional Democrats said they planned to remind President Obama not to leave his party and base behind. The Democrats' testiness followed reports that the White House was proposing to alter Social Security and Medicare as part of a potential debt-ceiling deal with Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the meeting “expressed concern that we hadn’t been as much in the loop as we would have liked to have been," said a senior Democratic aide who asked not to be identified so he could speak candidly about the friction between the president and Democratic congressional leaders.


That feeling is shared by many Democrats, irked not just by the potential cuts, but by the White House’s failure to float it to Democratic lawmakers before they learned of the proposal through media.



Sunday, June 26, 2011

As the Obama world turns: Boehner is courted while Pelosi fights for a seat at the table


How quickly the mutual adoration has faded.    


Interesting how Republican Speaker of the House John  Boehner gets to play golf with President Obama and enjoy a secret meeting with the One; whereas, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who fawned over Obama throughout the 08 primary and her tenure as the first woman speaker of the House,  must now make a scene in order to get a seat at the table in debt limit discussions.

Roll Call has the scoop, along with its sorry antecedents:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will demand a seat in the table for the final talks on the national debt limit, putting a strong liberal voice in the room.

Pelosi and House Democrats were left out of the negotiations between President Obama and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last year that extended nearly all of the Bush tax rates though 2012.

Pelosi didn’t participate in the final high-level talks over fiscal 2011 spending levels either.

But now she’s demanding her say at a time when many of her House Democratic colleagues are disappointed in Obama’s level of consultation with their caucus.

“If they don’t have the votes, House Democrats have to be at the table,” said a House Democratic leadership aide.

Pelosi stayed out of the talks on crafting a continuing resolution funding the rest of 2011 that included $38.5 billion in spending cuts because House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) expressed confidence they would pass it without Democratic help.

But, in the end of that debate, the Republican votes fell short, and GOP leaders needed help from House Democrats. Democrats went along with a deal they had almost no part in negotiating because they wanted to avert a government shutdown.

The experience left a bitter taste in their mouths, and Pelosi won’t let it happen again.


Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Congressional newcomers on spending spree while urging budget cuts

House speaker Boehner preaches spending cuts while reps blow tax dollars on office budgets.

It figures. Both incoming Republican and Democratic representatives spend like crazy while fueling the deficit debate over which entitlement programs have to be cut. In case you haven’t noticed, “entitlement” lumps self-funded Social Security and Medicare with government welfare programs. Take that, seniors!

Politico’s Sherman and Bresnahan put the spotlight on the spending sprees of these freshman reps:

They rode into Washington on an anti-spending wave, but some House Republican freshmen are already enjoying one of the perks of incumbency, spending their office budgets on everything from $1,000-a-month car leases to pricey online advertising contracts.

At least 15 GOP freshmen have shelled out tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on mass communication — or franking — designed to boost their exposure back home, even as they call for budget cuts and pared-back government spending, according to quarterly disbursement reports released by the House.

The biggest newly elected spender in this realm is Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who authorized spending $78,518 in taxpayer money on “mass mailings and communications” — just under $900 for every day he was in office during the first three months of his congressional career. Kinzinger sent a pamphlet to his constituents explaining “some of the ways we can help” in interactions with the government. Kinzinger also advertised the “state-of-the-art multimedia section” on his website.
His office told POLITICO in a statement that it has no more plans for franked mail after it sent a mailing to 217,000 houses across the district.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

It’s morning at the NY Times: the budget crisis “is all obfuscating nonsense”

Morning in NYC, photo public domain


A surprising editorial in the NY Times appears this morning titled “The Hollow Cry of Broke,” which suggests that John Boehner, Scott Walker, and company are exaggerating the nation’s so-called financial crisis in order “to break unions and kill programs they never liked in the first place.”

Keep in mind that in recent weeks, NY Times op-ed writers have railed time and again at those “entitlements” as the source of the nation’s scary budget deficit and more specifically, said pundits have blamed Social Security, a self-funding program, and Medicare for our current economic woes.

I’ve yet to see David Brooks or any of his colleagues at the Times mention that the government has violated federal law in raiding the Social Security Trust fund to pay for its two wars of choice and avoid taxing the wealthy or closing tax loopholes for major corporations. And they’ve certainly not mentioned that the nation’s seniors paid into the Social Security Trust Fund throughout their working lives with high payroll taxes.

So what’s with this Times editorial that begins:

“We’re broke! We’re broke!” Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday. “We’re broke in this state,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said a few days ago. “New Jersey’s broke,” Gov. Chris Christie has said repeatedly. The United States faces a “looming bankruptcy,” Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. Though it may disappoint many conservatives, there will be no federal or state bankruptcies. 

The federal deficit is too large for comfort, and most states are struggling to balance their books. Some of that is because of excessive spending, and much is because the recession has driven down tax revenues. But a substantial part was caused by deliberate decisions by state and federal lawmakers to drain government of resources by handing out huge tax cuts, mostly to the rich. As governments begin to stagger from the self-induced hemorrhaging, Republican politicians like Mr. Boehner and Mr. Walker cry poverty and use it as an excuse to break unions and kill programs they never liked in flush years.

Those programs "they never liked in flush years" included Social Security and Medicare. Anyway, it’s good to see the Times editorial board is waking up. I’m resisting the temptation to say, “Good morning, fellas.”

Read the rest of this on target editorial here.