Obama’s birth certificate posted by White House

The White House has just posted Obama’s long form birth certificate which conclusively proves to everyone but Republicans that Obama was born of human parents in Hawaii.  You can see the previous released certificate here:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf

and the long form certificate here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Now, we know this will not satisfy Donald and the other birthers but…..

Some good news for Democrats

The Conference Board says all four of its economic indicators--consumer confidence, employment trends, help wanted online and CEO confidence-are up/positive in April. Also economic indicators in Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Spain, and U.K as well as U.S. are up/positive if only slightlyh in some cases.  Any improvement in the economy is good news for Obama and the Democrats.  See http://www.conference-board.org/

Also, the New York Times speculates that Haley Barbour and others are skipping the 2012 race because they think the economy will be the deciding factor and it shows signs of steady, if gradual, improvement. They figure Obama will be difficult to defeat if the economy keeps improving and unemployment keeps dropping. Furthermore, if Obama wins, they bet that Biden will not run in 2016 which would give them the chance to not have to run against a sitting President or V.P.   Additionally, some Republicans who might have ability run a strong race in 2012 are worried that they would have to swing far right to get by the Tea Party in the primaries and such a strong swing to the right might make it difficult for them to attract Independents in the fall election.  See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/why-republicans-may-skip-2012-presidential-run/

Also, Republicans are facing a major push-back from voters over their proposed budget and effort to privatize Medicare.  Paul Ryan, architect of the Republican plan, faced a skeptical audience and chorus of boos when he tried to explain his plan back in his home state.  At about the same time, Daniel Webster, a freshman Republican from Florida, faced an unruly crowd carrying signs saying, "Hands off my Medicare."  See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/politics/27congress.html?_r=1&src=recg

As I said, this is all good news for Democrats.  If the economy keeps improving and unemployment continues to trend down, even if it is not back to full employment by November, Obama and the Democrats will benefit.   If more mainstream Republicans drop out of the race or are forced to track hard right to meet Tea Party demands and win Republican primaries, then Democrats will face Republicans with extreme positions that Independents are unlikely to support.  Finally, if Republicans continue to offer up radical proposals that scare Americans, particularly older Americans who vote in large numbers, then Democrats will have great wedge issues to use against them.  Additionally, the more extreme the Republican proposals the easier it will be for Democrats and Obama to race campaign funds.

Let's hope these positive trends continue.  Come on Republicans, give us your proposals to privatize Social
Security and eliminate federal funding for education.  You can do it.  Be brave.  Do what is right,not what wins elections.  Wouldn't you rather lose than cave into voter demands?

Medicare and taxes—Republicans are out of touch, way out of touch

The Republicans tell us that large majorities of Americans want to make major changes in Medicare and that they oppose raising taxes on the wealthy, preferring massive spending cuts instead.  So, what is the truth?  Paul Krugman in a recent article argues that the Republicans are the ones out of touch with the American people.  He says, contrary to what Republicans say, large numbers of Americans favor higher taxes for the rich and no cuts to Medicare. 

Politifact.com took a look at recent polls and found that Krugman is right.  Here are the poll numbers, judge for yourself.

One the issue of raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 per year, this is what Americans said in three recent polls:

"In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on Americans with incomes over 250 thousand dollars a year?" Support: 72 percent. Oppose: 27 percent. Unsure: 1 percent. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 14-17, 2011)

"Do you support or oppose doing each of the following to deal with the federal budget deficit? … Increase taxes on income over $250,000." Support: 64 percent. Oppose: 33 percent. Unsure: 3 percent. (McClatchy-Marist Poll. April 10-14, 2011.)

"Now looking ahead to next year's federal budget, do you think it should or should not include higher taxes for families with household incomes of $250,000 and above?" Should: 59 percent. Should not: 37 percent. Unsure: 4 percent. (USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 11, 2011.)

On the issue of making major changes in Medicare, this is what Americans said in recent polls:

"In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Medicare, which is the government health insurance program for the elderly?" Oppose: 78 percent. Support: 21 percent. Unsure: 1 percent. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 14-17, 2011.)

"I'm going to read you two statements about the future of the Medicare program. After I read both statements, please tell me which one comes closer to your own view. Medicare should remain as it is today, with a defined set of benefits for people over 65. OR, Medicare should be changed so that people over 65 would receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy." Should remain as is: 65 percent. Should be changed: 34 percent. Unsure: 2 percent. (Also from the ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 14-17, 2011.)

"Do you think the government should completely overhaul Medicare to control the cost of the program, make major changes to Medicare but not completely overhaul it, make minor changes to Medicare, or should the government not try to control the costs of Medicare?" Not try to control costs: 27 percent. Minor changes: 34 percent. Major changes: 18 percent. Completely overhaul: 13 percent. Unsure: 8 percent. (USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 11, 2011.)

"In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, would you be willing or not willing to reduce spending on Medicare, the government health insurance program for seniors?" Not willing: 76 percent. Willing: 22 percent. Don't know/No answer: 2 percent. (CBS News Poll. March 18-21, 2011.)

"Do you think it will be necessary to cut spending on Medicare, the federal government health care program for seniors, in order to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit?" No: 54 percent. No opinion: 27 percent. Yes: 18 percent. Not sure: 1 percent. (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. Feb. 24-26, 2011.)

"For each (government program), please tell me if you think significantly cutting the funding is totally acceptable, mostly acceptable, mostly unacceptable, totally unacceptable: Medicare." Totally unacceptable: 46 percent. Mostly unacceptable: 30 percent. Mostly acceptable: 16 percent. Totally acceptable: 7 percent. Unsure: 1 percent. (Also from NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. Feb. 24-26, 2011.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/25/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-said-large-majorities-favor-higher-ta/

Enough said.  Tell your Republican friends; they are the ones out of touch—way out of touch.  And, they are going to find out just how out of touch they are in November 2012.  Bring it on.

Ask Republicans this question about the Ryan/Republican plan for abolishing traditional Medicare.

When a Republican starts mouthing off about how the Ryan proposal to abolish Medicare simply replaces traditional Medicare with a health insurance program like government employees receive, ask him/her this. 

Will the premium support payments in Ryan’s plan be set by law as a consistent level of Government contributions, for example the premium support would cover 72% to 75% percent of the average premium year after year, regardless of how much the premium increases?

Read him/her this section from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Manual.

The Government's share of premiums paid is set by law. Amendments to the FEHB law under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August 5, 1997) authorized a new formula for calculating the Government contribution effective with the contract year that begins in January 1999. This formula is known as the "Fair Share" formula because it will maintain a consistent level of Government contributions, as a percentage of total program costs, regardless of which health plan enrollees elect.

For most employees and annuitants, the Government contribution equals the lesser of: (1) 72 percent of amounts OPM determines are the program-wide weighted average of premiums in effect each year, for Self Only and for Self and Family enrollments, respectively, or (2) 75 percent of the total premium for the particular plan an enrollee selects.

Source: Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Handbook at http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/reference/handbook/fehb03.asp

Ask the Republican:  Will the Republican /Ryan plan for Medicare work like that?  Will you guarantee by law that 72% to 75% of the health insurance premiums will be covered and covered forever regardless of how much the insurance companies want to charge?

The answer, of course, is “No.”  The Ryan plan will not come close to covering 72% or 75% of the premium costs.  In fact, under Ryan’s plan as health insurance premiums increase, the percent the premium support payment will cover will DECREASE.  Ryan claims that the premium support will be adjusted based upon the changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  However, health insurance premiums always increase at a rate faster than CPI.  Consequently under the Ryan/Republican plan, year after year seniors will be paying more and more for their health insurance or will have to purchase less and less coverage to keep their out-of-pocket premiums affordable.  Show your Republican friend this chart which compares the CPI for all items vs the CPI for Medical care since1989.

Source: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=27450

The Republican plan to destroy traditional Medicare is bad for the country and bad for seniors.  The only group that will benefit will be health insurance companies.

Tell Republicans—KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE OR YOU’RE GOING TO BE FIRED.

Deficits—Suppose we did NOTHING

Everybody in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, but particular Tea Party Republicans, say the deficit sky is falling.  If we do nothing…If we don’t make drastic cuts in domestic spending…If we don’t kill health reform…If we don’t abolish Medicare as we have know it and on and on and on…then the world will come to an end. 

So, what is the truth?  Let’s assume we did the Republican unthinkable and stuck with current law when it comes to the budget.  How bad would it be?  Take a look at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates as reported by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) in a recent article.

Here are the budget deficit percents for the next six years for the CBO baseline (Do Nothing, keep everything as it is now) and Reagan’s numbers for his first six years.

Do Nothing	6.9	4.2	3	3	3.3	2.9
Reagan	6	4.8	5.1	5	3.2	2.9

So, if you like Reagan.  If you think the Reagan years were great years deficit-wise, then what would you want to do? 

You would LEAVE EVERY THING ALONE—DO NOTHING.

Check out the CJR article here:  http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/wsj_editorial_board_and_taxes.php

Great Idea: Tie top marginal rate to unemployment

Now here is an idea for the times.  Republicans argue that you can’t let the Bush tax cuts lapse and have an increase in the top marginal tax rate because to do so would be a job killer.  Well, how about a little put up or shut up?  A writer on the Democratic Underground suggest a great idea, one Republicans should love.  Just this:

Why not tie the top marginal tax rate to the unemployment rate?

The writer suggests a formula like this:

The top marginal tax rate in any year would be calculated as follows:

Top Rate = (UR * 4) + 10 where “UR”=Unemployment Rate

Here is what the Top Marginal Rate (the one the rich folks pay) would be at different Unemployment Rates (where poor folks are out of work).

Unemployment Rate = 10.5%  Top Rate= (10.5 * 4) + 10 = 52%

Unemployment Rate = 8%  Top Rate = (8*4) + 10 = 42%

Unemployment Rate = 5%  Top Rate = (5 * 4) + 10 = 30%

Unemployment Rate = 2%  Top Rate = (2*4) + 10 = 18%

See how it works.  Think about it.  Republicans say when rich people get more money they invest in creating more jobs because rich people are all small business owners who take any extra money they have and put it into hiring more people for their businesses whether they need more people to work in their businesses or not.

Now this “Unemployment Rate tied to the Top Tax Rate” is just what we need to give rich people even more of an incentive to do what they really want to do—hire more poor people or not-so-poor-but-not-so-rich-either people.  The Rich get to control their own top tax rate by putting people to work.  If they don’t, then the government gets to take more money from them to help pay for things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing for the homeless, etc. 

This is a great idea.  But, let’s make one sight modification to give rich folks even more of an incentive.  Let’s say they get the Unemployment Rate down to 0%--everybody is working.  Well, we’ll just throw out that Top Tax Rate formula for something really simple, 0%.  That’s right, if the rich folks hire enough of the poor folks so they aren’t any poor folks or not-so-poor folks or rich folks, for that matter, who want to work who can’t find a job, then we’ll say “Good job rich job creators, your top rate is nothing—doesn’t exist.”

Write your Congressman today.  This is an idea has legs.

See the original idea here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x86282

The Republican cut-the-tax-rate lie

If you cut the top tax rate, say the Republicans, you get economic growth, you’ll get middle class income growth, hourly wages will go up, and, most importantly, jobs will be created and the unemployment rate will plummet.  In other words, cut the top rate so that the rich are taxed less and all good things will happen.

But, is it true.  Suppose someone actually looked at the impact of changes in the top tax rate on economic growth, income growth, growth in hourly wages, and changes in unemployment.  What do you think they would find?  Would the Republicans be proven right? 

Well, someone did look at the historical record.  Here is what they found.

The correlation between top tax rate cuts and real GDP growth is 0.3.  What that means is that there is NO correlation.  If GDP grew when top rates were cut the correlation would be -1.0 or something close to that.  Verdict:  Cutting the top tax rate doesn’t have any impact on economic growth.  Nothing at all. 

What about median income growth?  Does cutting the top tax rate help?  Nope, the correlation is even weaker at 0.06%.

What about growth in hourly wages?  Again, nothing at all.  Correlation this time is 0.34.

Finally, what about all those jobs rich people create when they don’t have to pay high taxes?  Does cutting the top tax rate result in a reduction in unemployment?  Again, no.  The correlation is just 0.22.

So, there you have it.  Cutting the top marginal rate doesn’t do anything at all to stimulate economic growth, increase income or hourly wages OR create jobs. 

So, what does cutting the top marginal rate do?  It makes rich people richer.  That correlation is a perfect 1.0.

Read the analysis here:  http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

The truth about the Republican deficit reduction plan

Two graphs from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tell you just about all you need to know about the Ryan/Republican deficit reduction plan.

First, the Repub plan gives the rich some major tax cuts but doesn’t in fact do anywhere near what they claim in terms of deficit reduction  Second, the Republican plan DOUBLES the amount seniors will have to pay out-of-pocket for health insurance.  Take a look.  View the truth.

My new book is now available from Amazon

My newest book, Getting Things Done in Washington is now available from Amazon in hardback ($33.95) and paperback ($23.95).  Go to: http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Things-Done-Washington-Progressives/dp/1450294723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302813841&sr=8-1

Also, you can read the Introduction and first chapter for FREE on my website www.jboyett.com.

New research reveals what drives the Tea Party

In the current issue of the American Political Science Association’s Perspectives on Politics (Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2011), three researchers from Harvard (Vanessa Williamson, Theda Skocpol and John Coggin) take a closer look at the Tea Party and its membership.  Some of their findings shed new light on this movement which has gained so much control over the Republican Party.  One key finding is that true Tea Party supporters, who represent only about 5% of the population, are driven by anger at young people, whom they consider to be slackers, and a xenophobic reaction to unauthorized immigrants coupled with an undercurrent of racism.

Willamson, et. al., begin their article with a review of some of the things we already know about people who identify with the Tea Party.  For example:

•  Various polls show that only 20% to 25% of Americans consider themselves “supporters” of the Tea Party movement.  However only 20% of the self-identified “supporters” have ever actually attended a Tea Party event or donated money.  In short, only about 5% of Americans are active Tea Party supporters. 
• About 30% of Americans say they have a favorable view of the Tea Party.  About 44% have an unfavorable view and the percentage of Americans with an unfavorable view appears to be increasing. 
• Tea Party supporters tend to be male (55% to 60%), white (80% to 90%), and over 45 (70% to 75%).  They also tend to have higher than average incomes but that may be just a function of age. 
• Most Tea Party supporters are Republicans or Independents who lean Republican (75%)
• 43% have worked in a previous political campaign.

The Tea Party has been financed largely by a few very Conservative and very rich businessmen, particular the Koch brothers, sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, who are primarily interested in eliminating government regulation of business in favor of true free-market capitalism.

Fox News, which has explicitly been involved in mobilizing support for the Tea Party, is the primary source of news for Tea Party members but its influence goes far beyond journalism.  The Harvard researchers say that Fox News has been a “national social movement organization” when it comes to the Tea Party.  They explain: “For a scattered set of people who might feel isolated or marginalized…a resourceful national organization can help to provide ‘an infrastructure for collective action’ by promoting ‘the diffusion of collective identities’ and fostering at least a minimal degree of solidarity and integration.”  In short, the Tea Party probably would not have emerged or if it did would not have achieved what it has achieved without the explicit help of Fox News as a organizing force.

Of course, most of this we all knew.  However, the Harvard researchers probed deeper.  They surveyed members of the Greater Boston Tea Party who are demographically and otherwise comparable to Tea Party members nationwide.  Here we get some additional insight concerning what motivates Tea Party supporters.

As expected most of the Boston Tea Party members watch Fox News.  In fact, say the Harvard researchers, “at Tea Party meetings Fox News stories are a common currency; activists share stories reported on the network and quote the opinions of Fox News commentators.  Fox News personality Glenn Beck is an especially frequent source of political opinion and historical perspective.”  In short, Fox News has a lot to do with shaping and justifying the opinions of Tea Party supporters.

It is common knowledge that a main tenant of the Tea Party philosophy is opposition to government spending.  Ironically, most Tea Party supporters are either the recipients of government spending through Social Security and/or Medicare or have members of their families that receive such government support.  The Harvard researchers note that Tea Party supporters are not opposed to government entitlement programs from which they personally benefit such as Social Security and Medicare.  They are opposed to Americans who are “not deserving” receiving government assistance.

Tea Partiers distinguish between “workers” and “people who don’t work.”  Workers, like themselves, deserve all they can get.  People who don’t work don’t deserve government support or assistance.  It’s that simple.  In short, Tea Party supporters are angry at what they perceive as a redistribution, or threat of future redistribution, from themselves, the deserving, to others who are undeserving. 

The Harvard researchers note that the distinction Tea Partiers make between deserving workers and non-deserving non-workers has little to do with whether or not someone holds a job.  In fact, a third of Tea Party supporters are unemployed or retirees. 

Tea Partiers are angry at what they perceive to be non-working, non-productive, free-loaders.  Who are these people?  Two groups emerge in the stories Tea Partiers tell about the undeserving/ non-workers: (1) young people, and (2) unauthorized immigrants. 

Anger toward the young is in part generational.  The older Tea Party supporters view the youth of American as slackers.  The Harvard researchers quote one Tea Party supporter as saying, “My grandson, he’s fourteen and he asked me: ‘Why should I work, why can’t I just get free money.”  Tea Party supporters see themselves as industrious, hard-workers who made their way through life on the strength of their own hands and determination to succeed.  They are disgusted with the young people who they believe just want everything to be given to them.  As I said, Tea Party supporter anger toward the young is largely an expression of generational conflict.  Chances are the parents and grandparents of the Tea Party supporters felt the same way about their children and grandchildren.

The anger toward illegal immigrants is different.  Surprisingly, the Tea Party supporters aren’t opposed to unauthorized immigrants because they seem them as a job threat.  The Harvard researcher say, “Most Tea Party activists couch their opposition to unauthorized immigration in terms of immigrants receiving undue government support, a concern that bleeds into a broader concern about representation.”  Tea Party supporters fear that illegal immigrants will somehow gain citizenship and then will either take over the government or be a pivotal voting block which would “allow the Obama administration to continue to ignore the interests of current American citizens.”  This xenophobic reaction to immigrants has a racist component.  While Tea Party supporters deny that they are racists, at least one study has found that “support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment, even after accounting for ideology and partisanship.”  For example, Tea Party supporters are more likely than other Americans to agree with the statement, “If blacks would try harder they could be just as well off as whites.”

Bottom line:  Tea Party supporters are largely angry, old, closet-racist, white men who view their children and grand children as slackers and who fear the impact the growing immigrant, largely Hispanic, population will have on American society. Tea Party supporters are nostalgic for a romanticized Ronald Reagan-Walt Disney type-vision of the America of their youth which they fear is being destroyed by undeserving young slackers and illegal immigrants.  Tea Party supporters aren't so much anti-government or anti-entitlement programs as they are anti-change.

Republican propose a “reverse Robin Hood” approach to deficit reduction

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has conducted a further analysis of the Paul Ryan/Republican plan for reducing the deficit.  The CBPP says its overall findings can be summed up as follows: 

[Republicans propose] a dramatic reverse-Robin-Hood approach that gets the lion’s share of its budget cuts from programs for low-income Americans..even as it bestows extremely large tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.  Taken together, [the Republican] proposals would produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history, while increasing poverty and inequality more than any measure in recent times and possibly in the nation’s history.

Among other things, the Republican plan as put forward by Ryan would:

•  Make the Bush tax cuts permanent at a cost of $700 billion over ten years.  People with incomes over $1 million per year would receive a tax cut amounting to an average of $125,000 per year or more than a million dollars over the next decade.

 To fund these tax gifts to the rich, the Republicans propose to:

• Cut Medicaid by $1.4 trillion dollars over the next decade,
• Drastically cut back on spending for food stamps, low-income housing, Pell grants and other programs that help people with limited incomes, and
• Repeal the health reform law’s subsidies to help low-and moderate-income people purchase health insurance.  The CBPP calculates that tens of millions more Americans would be pushed into the ranks of the uninsured or underinsured should these Republican proposals be adopted.

The Republican plan extends tax breaks for special interest groups such as big oil companies and Wall Street traders that allow these people and companies to pay low or no taxes.

All of the savings the Republicans generate from their tax reform proposals they use to fund extending the Bush tax cuts and to cut the top marginal rate for the rich to an historic low of 25%.  Not one cent of savings would be used to reduce the deficit.

Republicans apparently are comfortable with forcing the weakest and most vulnerable Americans who had nothing to do with starting the unfunded Afghan and Iraq wars or with creating the recession to shoulder the lion’s share of pain when it comes to deficit reduction while rewarding many of the very people who created the deficit. 

The Republican plan is unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong.  If adopted, it will do enormous harm to our nation.  Their plan must be stopped, NOW.

Read the CBPP analysis here: http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-5-11bud-stmt.pdf

Republicans propose to increase the deficit and punish the elderly

By now you have heard of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal that is supposed to bring the deficit under control and make all things right again in America.  Well, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has taken a look at the Ryan’s Republican proposal and guess what.  Ryan doesn’t reduce the deficit between now and 2022, he INCREASES it.  If we do nothing, the CBO estimates that debt held by the public will grow to 67% of GDP by 2022.  If we adopt the Republican plan, it will grow to 70% of GDP.  In other words, if we do what the Republicans want us to do, WE WILL BE WORSE OFF THAN DOING NOTHING.

Now, to be fair, Ryan’s proposal does start bringing down the deficit after 2022.  It goes to 64% of GDP by 2030, 48% by 2040 and and just 10% by 2050.

So, that sounds pretty good, right?  Well not if you plan to get old.  You see the Ryan Republicans get the deficit under control on the backs of the elderly.  They just shift more and more of the burden of paying for healthcare to people over 65.  So, if Ryan gets his way and you get old someday, you will pay a lot more out of your own pocket to stay alive than you would under Medicare as we know it. Of course, you will have a choice.  You can go without medical care. You can die. 

OR, we could keep Obamacare that will actually brings down the deficit. We could eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich the Repubs insist on making permanent.  We could keep the corporate income tax rate where it is and close loopholes that let companies like GE get away with paying much tax at all.  We could do a lot of things to get the deficit down without punishing the people who had nothing to do with running up the deficit in the first place. 

Read the writing on the wall.  It is clear what the Republicans are trying to do.  They have always hated Medicare and Social Security.  They are using the deficit as an excuse to eliminate these and other progressive programs that have benefited millions of Americans and continue to do so today9.  If you plan to ever get old, wake up, go to the polls next year, support Democrats.  You had better do all you can to get people like Ryan out of office and out of power.  If you don’t, you’re going to pay a big price someday.  You are going to wake up one day having to make a choice between eating or filing the prescription for the drugs that are keeping you and your loved ones alive.  

See the CBO analysis of the Republican/Ryan proposal here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/cbo-gop-budget-would-increase-debt-then-stick-it-to-medicare-patients.php

Republican plan to INCREASE the deficit and harm Americans

Only Republicans would take this approach to deficit reduction.  As usually, what they call one thing is actually just the opposite.  In this case, their proposals for deficit reduction are actually proposals that have nothing to do with the deficit and, in many cases, would not only amount to deficit INCREASES but would HARM Americans.  That’s the finding of a new study by the Center for American Progress.  They looked at the Republican budget proposal and found at least ten policy proposals that have absolutely nothing to do with reducing the deficit and often do just the opposite.  Here they are:

The Republicans want to defund health care reform.   That would INCREASE the deficit by $5.7 billion over the next ten years.  If the entire reform legislation were repealed, the deficit would go UP $210 billion.  It would also leave millions of Americans uninsured.

Republicans want to cut funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), in other words, free commodity speculators to once again get in trouble and bring about a new costly recession.  Commodity speculators are already driving up gas prices and by at least one estimate, removing or limiting the ability of the CFTC to regulate energy market price manipulation will be “the fastest way to $6 per gallon [gas].”

Republicans want to block funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants and refineries and mercury and other pollutants from cement plants.  The American Lung Association the Republican proposal would “result in millions of Americans—including children, seniors, and people with chronic disease such as asthma—being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy” and cause “asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and shorten lives.”  That translates in to enormous personal hardships and loss, not to mention skyrocketing medical cost to treat illnesses we could prevent or significantly reduce with just a little sensible regulation. 

The Republicans want to prohibit the Department of Education from using federal funds to implement its proposed "gainful employment" rule, which seeks to ensure students who attend career education programs receive an education that prepares them for gainful employment. The department’s proposed regulation would require career preparation programs at community colleges and for-profit institutions to show that at least 35 percent of students repay their student loans and that graduates have debt-to-income ratios of less than 12 percent.  The Republican proposal has nothing to do with deficit reduction but has everything to do with continuing to allow private colleges and university to cheat their students and rob from the federal government that gets stuck with covering the costs of unpaid student loans.

The Republicans want to block the creation of a “consumer products complaints database” mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This legislation was enacted into law after a spate of recalls of China-made products, from lead-tainted toys and toothpaste to contaminated dog food and pharmaceuticals.  Again, the Republican proposal isn’t about deficit reduction.  It’s about protecting big companies and importers and ironically the Chinese, who want to make huge profits from fostering unsafe toys, drugs and other products on unsuspecting American consumers.

Republicans want to ban federal funding of Planned Parenthood AND eliminate the Title X domestic family planning program which provides family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care to more than 5 million Americans annually, most of whom are low-income women. The United States spends only $75 million on Planned Parenthood and $327 million annually on Title X programs.  It is estimated that the government actually saved $3.4 billion in 2008 by providing vital family planning services to individuals who would otherwise not have access to them.  Again, the Republican proposal has nothing to do with deficit reduction but a lot to do with promoting anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and other anti-woman efforts that Republicans and social conservatives support in the guise of deficit reduction.

As the Center for American Progress says, “Conservatives repeatedly claim that massive cuts to services for children, for the poor, and especially for the middle class are all about the budget deficit. They contend that deficits make these cuts necessary despite the fact that they will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and slower economic growth, and they are likely to endanger the safety and security of all Americans.”

So true.  We need to tell the Republicans NO.  Enough is enough.  If they want to seriously discuss long-term deficit reduction, we are all for it.  But, we will not stand by and allow to use the deficit as a way to advance their anti-American policy agenda.

Click here to see the CAP full report:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/budget_riders.html