Obama may cut Social Security benefits during Lame Duck session following election

Not good. After November, Obama will never again face the electorate. He's free to do as he wants.

The Lesser Evil is still evil, folks. If you vote for it, it's your job to save us from it.

Huffington Post:

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Concern is mounting among some Senate Democrats that President Barack Obama will make a deal with Senate Republicans during the lame-duck session that would result in changes to the benefit structure of Social Security.

[A snipped paragraph about how Obama said nice things before the AARP about what he's "open" to doing — without making a single promise.]

But the Vermont Independent worried that all of this could be posturing for the lame-duck session immediately after the election, when lawmakers are expected to rush to find another "grand bargain" on tax and entitlement reform to stave off the so-called fiscal cliff.

"That's exactly what's going to happen," Sanders said of Social Security being on the proverbial table, "Unless someone of us stops it -- and a number of us are working very hard on this -- that's exactly what will happen. Everything being equal, unless we stop it, what will happen is there will be a quote-unquote grand bargain after the election in which the White House, some Democrats will sit down with Republicans, they will move to a chained CPI."

Read more about the "chained CPI" proposal here. All you need to know — it changes the cost of living adjustment so retirees get a lot less money.

When the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) attempted to craft a deal on the debt ceiling last summer, Obama offered the chained CPI as a concession.

So there. As we wrote months and months ago, Obama's original Grand Bargain is still on the table.

And Daddy Koch (sorry, David Koch) — soon-to-be operational head of the Republican Party (sorry, "one of the most influential donors in the Republican Party") — has given his blessing to the fig leaf (sorry, "tax increases") Obama needs to sell his surrender to us as some kind of benefit.

Barring an open Democratic office-holders rebellion, this is starting to look like a done-deal. Even Nancy Pelosi, judging by her words, is on board as well.

Hmm, "open rebellion" by office-holders against DLC and NeoLib party leaders. Maybe that's what we need from our good progressive electeds ....

UPDATE: There's quite a good discussion going on in the comments, with a number of positions debated. I've weighed in several times myself. Do click through if this subject interests you.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Romney warns of defense cuts his vice presidential candidate voted for

So, two weeks late, Mitt Romney finally got around to thanking the troops yesterday. And then he took a swipe at the automatic budget cuts that will go into effect if Congress can't reach a new budget deal.

Facing criticism for failing to mention American troops or the Afghan war effort in his convention speech, Mitt Romney spoke before National Guard members on Tuesday and called for robust support of the nation’s armed forces, saying that “the return of our troops cannot and must not be used as an excuse to hollow out our military through devastating defense budget cuts.”

Mr. Romney highlighted the threat of automatic Pentagon cuts after a failure to reach a budget deal in Congress — a theme he has used recently to hammer the Obama administration.

Only problem? Romney's VP candidate, Paul Ryan voted for that budget deal.

You see, Romney and the Republicans have been trying to blame President Obama for the automatica budget cuts, including defense, that congress voted for a ways back. The Republicans were on board, or the thing wouldn't have passed. But now, the Republicans - as many of us predicted - have no intention of keeping their part of the bargain, and surprise, they want defense exempt from the automatic cuts.

So, in an effort to stop the defense cuts, and to score partisan gain, the Republicans have somehow come up with the notion that President Obama is responsible for the impending cuts. When in fact, it's Paul Ryan who's responsible because he's the guy who voted for the trigger.

But never underestimate Mitt Romney's, and especially Paul Ryan's, ability to lie. If Romney and Ryan are responsible for it, you can be sure that they'll be blaming you for it any day now. Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Whitehouse: Dem Senators may not end Bush Tax Cuts if Obama not "clearly there with us"

There's a nice piece of original reporting over at Digby's site in which David Atkins and his brother Dante interviewed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on filibuster reform, Social Security, the Bush(-Obama) Tax Cuts and Medicare cuts.

Please do read for all four subjects. It's a great short interview with lots of insight.

Here I want to highlight Sen. Whitehouse on those tax cuts, and then add Atkin's remarks. This is quite revealing; note the president's role.

First Whitehouse (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Dante Atkins: If the Senate remains Democratic, do you expect Senate Democrats to hold the line on refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the upper income earners?

Senator Whitehouse: I very much hope that we do, and I expect that we will. I think there is a relationship between how and whether we do that, and how and whether the crisis does that.

If the President draws a strong line, I think he'll have the backing of enough Democratic Senators that he won't be able to have a veto overridden.

That puts him in a very strong negotiating position. And I think that he should take advantage of that, and call and ask for our support.

I think if it becomes questionable whether or not the President will stick to his guns, then there are a considerable number of my colleagues, including those who might be up in 2014, who may have to take a more practical and defensive position so they're not out on this, and then undercut by a White House move later on.

So I think that the support is there, but I would just have as my caveat that it has to be really clear from the White House that they're there with us, and they're not going to walk back and leave a lot of Senators exposed on a position they're not willing to hold themselves.

"Practical and defensive" means cave.

Now Atkins:

This is incredibly important, and one of the most overlooked problems with the Administration's near obsession with "compromise" and being the "adult in the room."

Fair or not, the President will always be labeled by the opposition as its most partisan heavyweight. ... No matter how far to the middle Obama hews, the Republicans will always accuse him of being a Communist.

That in turn means whenever the Administration caves and waffles, members of Congress who stood alongside the President prior to the compromised retreat are automatically marginalized as "even more liberal than Obama." Uninformed voters in midterm elections will naturally assume that they're extremists when the attack ads start rolling in.

It may be that tax cuts for the wealthy are so unpopular at this point that a Senator threatened in 2014 could stand on their own two feet on it regardless of the President's position, but it certainly makes it much harder.

Has Barack Obama left Congress high and hanging in the past? That's certainly the word on the wire.

Me? I think he wants those cuts to pass — all of them. And it will take united congressional opposition to stop it.

Please do click over. It's a good fast read on each of those subjects. Nice job by the Atkins brothers.

ACTION OPPORTUNITY: What can we do? Take a cellphone camera to every Obama event you can get into and ask him early and often:

Mr. Obama — Will you swear now to veto any legislation that contains a full extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?

Be that point-blank.

This is a fight he can win anytime he wants to. Inaction is a win. He can let them expire in December, put in a January bill to give the cuts back to anyone he wants, and dare the Republicans to say No. Any time he wants it, he can have that win. If he wants it.

But I don't trust him to want it. He caved in 2010, remember, and I think he's going to design a deal that's complicated enough to sneak the Bush-Obama tax cut extension past you with sweeteners, something like "see, no cuts to Social Security" or some such.

So think of this as a negotiation, you voters out there. You have him at a vulnerable moment. If Obama wants something from you, he can give you something first.

I know he can lie and reneg. But make him make it a bold lie; a world-class 180° lie. Make him pay you with weasel-free words before you tell him he has your vote.

Ask him point-blank:

Mr. Obama — Will you swear now to veto any legislation that contains a full extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?

Then ask again the next time he shows up.

In the booth you can do what you want. But in this negotiation, you're free to tell him sorry, not good enough ... yet.

Mes centimes for whatever that ends up being worth,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Note to progressives: Read Obama's acceptance speech carefully

Just a fast note as vacation winds to a close. I listened to Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday, expecting to feel very ... Clintonian. I expected him to avoid most of the traps and stroke my inner kitten in the right direction.

Surprise; he laid out the truth of his next term. I thank him for that.

My note to progressives — read that speech carefully. (John has posted it here.)

Like Beethoven's Choral Fantasy, it contains numerous previews and foreshadowings. Listening I found it an eye-opener (OK, ear-opener for literalists).

I won't deconstruct it here, and maybe not until he's re-ascended, using Mr. Romney as a footstool. But do read, while the exhilaration-exhaustion of the DNC is fresh.

I'll be back in full by early Tuesday. Hope everyone had an excellent Labor Week holiday.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
 

Read the rest of this post...

Report of massacre near Damascus

The ugly civil war continues to decimate the Syrian population. GOP candidate Mitt Romney is ready to send in US troops, despite fatigue among voters for more wars (and expenses from wars.) It's somewhat understandable on one level due to the horrible violence inflicted upon the people of Syria by the Assad regime, but what part of eleven years of war is Romney missing?

Candidate Romney fails to understand that the two primary causes of the budget problems today are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. We can't afford either, yet Romney can't comprehend this important reality. The budget-busting is about those two items, not social programs. As sympathetic as Americans are about the situation in Syria, it's not feasible to keep throwing troops and money at problems for years.

Meanwhile, the crisis in Syria is growing. The Guardian:

The Syrian civil war reached new heights of brutality on Sunday with government troops accused of massacring civilians a few miles from Damascus on a weekend which saw one of the worst reported death tolls in 17 months of conflict.

Opposition groups claimed more than 200 bodies had been found in Daraya, a poor Sunni community on the south-west outskirts of the capital, after Syrian troops had stormed the town on Saturday, going door to door in what President Bashar al-Assad's regime described as a counter-terrorism operation. Opposition and human rights activists claimed many of the dead were civilians.

A New York Times employee in Daraya reported seeing "scores of bodies lined up on top of each other in long thin graves moist with mud".

Read the rest of this post...

Ryan: Team Romney hasn't run the numbers on Romney's own budget plan

(Photo via Shutterstock)

Uh, when exactly do they plan on running the numbers? After the election is over? Isn't it customary to run the numbers before you endorse a budget plan, not after it? From PBS' Newshour:

Ryan also deflected questions about the budget proposal he authored, trying instead to shift the focus to the blueprint Romney has put forward. But when asked by Hume when the Romney plan would balance the federal budget, Ryan could not offer a specific date.

"I don't know exactly when it balances. I don't want to get wonky on you, but we haven't run the numbers on that specific plan," Ryan said.

The Romney campaign hasn't running the budget numbers on Mitt Romney's plan for the budget, but Romney is still running around saying that his plan is better? (Putting aside for a moment that the reason they haven't run the numbers if because Romney has never offered a budget plan.)

That's a bit like a family making up a budget, but not running the numbers to see if the budget even works.

How can Ryan and Romney be pushing a budget plan that they haven't even run the numbers on?  And why haven't they? Read the rest of this post...

Fox News: Ryan budget will increase taxes on poor, middle class

With friends like these.  From Fox News:

While claims that Ryan is slashing the budget are questionable, there are studies to back up claims that the Republicans' tax plans benefit the wealthy more than others.

A June study from the Joint Economic Committee -- which is chaired by a Democrat -- claims middle-class married couples could pay at least an extra $1,300 under Ryan's plan, while those earning more than $1 million a year could see a nearly $290,000 cut.

According to an Aug. 1 study released by the Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would also include cuts that "predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers."

It projected taxpayers making more than $1 million would see tax cuts averaging $175,000. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 would see an average tax cut of $1,800. And those making under $30,000 would see an average increase of $130, according to the report.

Read the rest of this post...

Conservative study shows government austerity may be hurting economy

This is not a surprise, but it is interesting that the study is coming out of conservative-land. From HuffPo:

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, has some data out indicating that cutting government spending may be off-setting private sector growth. That's notable, especially when coming from an organization with the motto "Freedom. Opportunity. Enterprise."

Public sector GDP -- a measure of the goods and services produced by the government -- has shrunk for eight consecutive quarters, according to AEI. At the same time, private sector growth has increased for 12 quarters in a row, indicating that America’s slow overall GDP growth may mostly be a result of a drop in government spending.

Even the Wall Street Journal, owned by GOP propagandist Rupert Murdoch, admits that the end of the stimulus is hurting growth (the GOP party line has been that the stimulus actually "caused" unemployment, which is absurd, but the GOP tends to pander to its uneducated base, and they've found that the truth doesn't tend to work for them at the ballot box). Read the rest of this post...

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham urges Romney to embrace "revenues" to stop auto spending cuts

Romney taking a stand, and embracing something that sounds an awful lot like tax increases. Good luck with that:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday urged Mitt Romney to embrace revenues as part of a plan to stave off the automatic spending cuts set to take effect next year.

“If he gave his blessing, it would be easier for Republicans,” Graham said of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

In a discussion with reporters, Graham said his Republican colleagues are torn over whether to agree to consider revenues – such as tax loopholes and fees for government services – as part of a deal to avert the spending cuts, called sequestration.

Read the rest of this post...

CBO: Obamacare saves money, GOP plan costs $109bn

It's surprising that Democrats haven't done a better job of throwing this in the GOP's, and specifically Mitt Romney's, face. Politico:

Overall, the new estimate pegs the costs of the law’s health insurance coverage provisions at $1.2 trillion over 11 years, a figure that is more than offset by new taxes and Medicare cuts. CBO also projected that the House GOP’s effort to repeal the law would add $109 billion to the nation’s debt over 10 years, a number that is far below the $210 billion estimated last year.

Read the rest of this post...

Oh so now govt spending DOES create jobs

Funny how when it's defense contractors who stand to lose, suddenly federal spending DOES create jobs. Read the rest of this post...

$50 million spent by GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare

They're fiscally conservative, you know. They know that they won't win a vote yet they've tried 33 times for show while sending the bill to the US taxpayer. Nice to see they're so serious about government spending, isn't it? More from Huffington Post:

While Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers -- to the tune of nearly $50 million.

The House of Representatives again voted to repeal President Obama's signature health care law on Wednesday, marking the 33rd time Republicans have attempted to take down the legislation. The 32 previous repeal efforts faltered at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate; the latest attempt is unlikely to break that pattern.

According to a report by CBS News, these efforts, widely viewed as symbolic political maneuvers, come with a high price tag.

As I tweeted yesterday, if the GOP is so against government run healthcare, they all ought to give up their own government healthcare as a show of solidarity. Clearly they wouldn't want to be tainted with socialism, would they? Read the rest of this post...

Lockheed Martin to send highly political email to employees

Be very afraid of an Obama re-election! Yes, the industry that has been about as fat and happy as the banking industry due to the modern US war machine state is preparing to send out emails to workers suggesting that an Obama win in November could mean their job is in jeopardy. Even more interesting is that they will be sending out the "vote for Obama and you're fired" emails shortly before the November election.

As always, very classy move by the industry that loves war and bribes hires top Pentagon brass with high paying jobs upon retirement. Bloomberg:

Companies led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), the world’s largest defense contractor, say federal and state laws may require them to send out blanket notifications of potential job cuts before the election unless President Barack Obama and Congress act by October to avert automatic defense reductions of $500 billion over a decade that would start on Jan. 2.

To employment-law attorney Margaret Keane, giving mass dismissal warnings in such uncertain conditions looks more like a lobbying tactic by corporations trying to ward off the cuts than an effort to follow the letter of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

“I just don’t think you need to do that,” said Keane, a partner with Littler Mendelson PC who advises employers on meeting the notification law’s requirements. “Are we really talking about complying with the WARN Act, or are we talking about political pressure being applied?”

Americans are fed up with being asked to accept cuts while fat cats like the military industry lines their pockets and destroys the economy. Remember that the majority of budget issues today are a result of the Bush tax cuts and wars. We need to shift money from the war machine over to business that actually benefits Americans, such as infrastructure. Read the rest of this post...

"Big spender Obama" is a GOP lie

There's a lot to agree with in this Business Insider article. Obama should not have continued Bush's bank bailout (that was caused by Bush) but the GOP can't blame Obama for expenses that Bush began. Read the entire article because we're sure to hear more of this "blame Obama" garbage in the coming months.

The document, “Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables,” was recently published by the Federal Government, and it shows (pages 22-23) that the Government’s actual “Outlays” have remained essentially flat since the 2009 budget, which was submitted under George W. Bush. In fact, Obama’s first budget, 2010, even went down 1.7% (following a year in which there had been 2.7% inflation, so the real increase was -1%); the 2nd, 2011, then increased 4.3% (following a year in which inflation was 1.5%, so the real increase was 2.8%).

That’s what was actually spent. What had been proposed by the President was, of course, a bit different. George W. Bush had proposed 2009 expenditures of $3.1 trillion, but the Federal Government actually spent $3.5 trillion, because of the crash, which Bush caused. Barack Obama proposed 2010 expenditures of $3.6t, but again $3.5t were spent – virtually the same amount as in 2009 – because of the need to re-start “demand.” (Moreover, since the inflation-rate was 2.7% in 2009, federal expenditures actually went down 2.7% from 2009 to 2010, despite the Keynesian need that year to boost spending.) Obama then proposed for 2011 $3.8t, but $3.6t ended up being spent – a 4% hike from the prior year. (But the inflation-rate was 1.5% in 2010, so the real spending-increase proposed in 2011 was only 2.5%.)

Read the rest of this post...

Scary charts from Krugman show we haven't learned the mistakes of the past

Government spending has plummeted as the economy has remained stagnant.  Not exactly a recipe for success. Read the rest of this post...

Youth challenge Alan Simpson to debate: "Your plan cuts benefits for young people most"

UPDATE: Simpson says Yes.
________

To continue the quote in the title: "The younger you are, the bigger the [benefit] cut." Exactly.

This is a very nice video from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org, pushing back on (and calling out) Mr. Catfood himself, Alan Simpson (he of the "310 million tits").

I've said many times that the real Grand Bargain betrayal is between the generations, not between the Dems and Republicans. Those two are united, it seems.

The real offer on the table is from Billionaires of both parties (Our Betters) to older Americans, and it goes like this:

"If you'll agree to screw your children and grandchildren out of their benefits, we'll promise to exempt your own."

The Billionaires' sell to youth goes like this:

"Why not roll over and let it happen. It won't hurt (now); just close your eyes and think of England. After all, don't you read the news? You know Social Security will be gone before you need it. Relax. Let it go. Besides, look, google glasses..."

Well, here's a bunch of those young people — presumably one-time Hope-and-Change Obama voters, note — who aren't rolling over, who aren't thinking of England.

Instead they're calling out Alan Simpson — and presumably, all who support him (like this guy, and this guy, and this kind lady) — on the cruelty of his Catfood Plan.

Watch and listen; this one is a winner:



Here's their offer on the table. Dear Mr. Simpson:

"We challenge you to a debate with our young Social Security experts, in a time and setting of your choosing, in a format you choose as well. We look forward to your response."

Will Alan Simpson take them up on it? They really are calling him out. And Simpson is just mouthy enough (sorry, man enough) to say Yes.

Help them out if you can. The entertainment value alone of this debate would be well worth the effort to make it happen. And who knows, they might just save the safety net after all.

Very nice, folks — it really will be your world, very very soon. Time to take care of it with us, don't you think?

Occupy your future. We're certainly doing our part. Thanks!

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Paul Krugman on why austerity is a recipe for ten more years of a Depression.

Krugman says we're still in a classic Depression.

Paul Krugman on Bill Maher:

We are in a depression. We are actually in a classic depression. A depression is when nobody wants to spend. Everybody wants to pay down their debt at the same time. Everybody is trying to pull back, either because they got too far into debt, or because if they’re a corporation, they can’t sell because consumers are pulling back. The thing about an economy is that it fits together. My spending is your income. Your spending is my income, so if we all pull back at the same time, we’re in a depression. The way to get out of it is for somebody to spend so that people can pay down their debt, so that we don’t have a depression. So that we have a chance to work out of whatever excesses we had in the past, and that somebody has to be the government.

We ended the Great Depression with a great program of government spending for an unfortunate reason. It was known as World War II…but when the war broke out in Europe, and we began our buildup that Great Depression that had been going on for ten years. People thought it would go on forever. Learned people stroked their chins and said there are no quick answers. In two years, employment rose 20%. That’s the equivalent of 26 million jobs today, the depression was over. We had full employment, and it never came back, or it didn’t come back until 2008, because people managed to pay down those debts, and we had a durable recovery.

Read the rest of this post...

Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively caves on Bush–Obama tax cuts

Nancy Pelosi is making quite a name for herself. Unfortunately, the name is "ex-progressive" and "former San Francisco–liberal."

The bottom line up top, then the details.

We know that Pelosi wants her gavel back. We know that Obama wants his Grand Bargain; he's been saying so since 2006. This has all the earmarks of a trade.

If so, the Pelosi–Obama bargain goes like this — "I get my gavel, and you get to kill the safety net (sorry, 'reform' Social Security)." My Inner Occam explanation (see link) still makes sense to me.

To execute, she would first have to cave on Simpson-Bowles (Obama says "the deal is still on the table"). That happened late last month.

Now we see her caving on the $250,000 breakpoint in the looming lame duck battle over the "Bush" tax cuts. She's suddenly offering to move the breakpoint to $1,000,000 — up from Obama's stated $250,000 — without being asked (publicly).

Is that also part of the Pelosi–Obama deal? Is she front-running for Obama's "regretful" later concession? Only the fly on the Oval Office wall knows for sure. She's certainly not playing super-chess, because moving the price of collapse doesn't change the game. Hmm.

Next the details. Here's her announcement (my emphasis throughout):

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today called on Speaker Boehner to bring a permanent extension of the middle income tax cuts to the House floor immediately and use the revenues resulting from the expiring tax breaks for those earning more than a million dollars to pay down the deficit.

And by "pay down the deficit" she means "pay down a lot less of the deficit than Obama claims to want". ThinkProgress:

[H]er proposal differs from others offered by Democrats, including President Obama, that call for an extension of the rates for incomes below $250,000. ... Pelosi wants a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $1 million, the statement said. ...

Her plan, however, would cost the government billions in revenue compared to Obama’s plan, and though she has billed it as a tax cut for the middle class, half of its benefits would go to millionaires, according to analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice[.]

According to the Tax Justice link above, there's a 43% loss in revenue between Obama's last-stated proposal and Pelosi's current one. Sounds like money to me.

But maybe you're not supposed to notice that part, just the part where Pelosi forcefully "calls on Speaker Boehner to ... middle-class tax cuts ... immediately."

Shorter Pelosi:

"Here's a plan that looks really good till you look at it. You on the bus, don't look at it. (And before you ask, I'm speaking just for me.)"

Recommendations for Progressives

1. The Bush tax cuts are killing us, killing the nation. We're beyond politics and super-chess. Bush did a dandy on us, and it has to stop. Here's the damage, one more time:

That fat brown stain is the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts.

2. From this flows the only good progressive position, in my opinion:

• In practice, these tax cuts will either all be extended or all be expired. We seen this dance before.
  
  
• If a progressive has to choose between those two, she must choose the latter — let them all expire. Period.

Nothing else is responsible; nothing else puts nation above party when the two interests collide. "Party First" is the other guys, right?

3. This position takes advantage of the only real leverage in the game. For once, not acting is a win. All Dems would have to do to win is — nothing. The Bush–Obama tax cuts expire by default.

It's telling, isn't it, that Obama and the Dems don't use that built-in super-advantage? Makes you consider what they might really be doing.

4. This position is practical for progressives, no matter what Dems do.

We got played last time (lame duck 2010) and we're probably getting played again. It will take an act of god for the billionaires who run both parties not to get their way.

Let's not compromise ourselves by buying into a "sorta OK" deal, then watch it get switched for a deal we mostly hate. Once we're on board, we're on board for the whole ride. This compromises us.

If Dems want to sell themselves and the safety net, let them do it alone, over our explicit and united objections. Strategically, this is our best shot — make them pay for the cave, make them think twice about us for a change.

Speaking of "united" ...

5. Can progressives stand together in this? I sure hope so; it would be a great sign for the future.

What do I mean by "progressives"? Here's my own idea of "entitlement reform" — You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.

By which I mean, when it comes to choosing between principles and party, progressives choose principles. Not a bad definition, don't you think?

Progressively yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

GOP upset that Obama is doing what Bush did on health care

But remember kids, it's okay if you're a Republican.  From ThinkProgress:

Republicans are criticizing the Department of Health and Human Services for signing a $20 million contract with a public relations firm to educate Americans about the preventive health benefits included in the Affordable Care Act. The campaign — mandated by the law — “must describe the importance of prevention while also explaining preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law,” essentially informing the public about the availability of preventive services without additional co-pays.

The GOP touted the benefits of preventive medicine before Obama signed health reform into law and claimed that it could help lower the nation’s skyrocketing health care costs. But they’re now denouncing this campaign as an “unconstitutional” “propaganda” effort

ThinkProgress goes on to list several examples of Bush educating the public on his new health care laws.

Not to mention, anyone else remember when Bush literally bragged to the American people, in a letter funded by the taxpayers, about the mini tax rebate/stimulus he got passed in 2001?

CNN has received a copy of a letter that the Internal Revenue Service will be sending to taxpayers to inform them they will receive a rebate check this summer as part of the recently enacted tax cut law.CNN was given the letter by a Democratic staff member in the House, who said he received it from career IRS employees upset by what they described as its political and congratulatory tone.The following is the letter, entitled "Notice of Status and Amount of Immediate Tax Relief." It is not dated."We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconcilliation Act of 2001, which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes.

While one can argue, credibly, that people need to know the details of a health care law that affects them directly, and about which, the GOP themselves often remind us, people know little of. But why did Bush need to tell people that he got a tax rebate passed? Surely, people would have noticed it in their own tax returns.

This was nothing but bragging, politicking, at the taxpayer's expense. And the Republicans couldn't have cared less. Read the rest of this post...

Under Obama federal spending rose at slowest pace since Ike

Fascinating analysis by Rex Nutting of MarketWatch.  This is perhaps the most interesting part.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger [on arriving in office], the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well under way. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s’ health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

Read the rest of this post...