Archive for the ‘Policy, Politics, and Politicians’ Category

Better Off? Hell Yes!

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Future

By LEO GERARD

Damn right America is better off than it was four years ago.

Four years ago was September 2008. George W. Bush was president and Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers was collapsing. It was a time of fear. It was a time of panic about the future. Recalling that anxiety is unsettling. But it’s important for comparison sake.

Lehman filed for bankruptcy this week four years ago – Sept. 15, 2008. Global financial markets spun into a panic. Credit markets froze worldwide. The stock market plunged. GM and Chrysler fell into crisis. Foreclosures were spiking and housing prices plummeting. Main Street shops and factories couldn’t get ordinary loans essential to sustain routine business. Nearly half a million workers lost their jobs that month. It was the ninth consecutive month of massive job losses. The Bush administration had converted a vibrant economy and budget surplus it had inherited from former President Bill Clinton into the Great Recession and massive deficits. America was still mired in two wars, including one Bush started on false pretenses.

Now, in September 2012, global financial markets have stabilized. Credit is available to Main Street. GM and Chrysler are building cars and creating jobs. Unemployment is declining as the private sector has added jobs to the economy every month for the past 30. The value of housing is rising once again, creating wealth for the middle class. Now there’s a financial reform law to prevent another Wall Street bailout. There’s Obamacare to help families retain and secure health insurance. The war in Iraq is over and Osama bin Laden is dead. Is America better off than it was four years ago? Hell, yes it is!

September 2012 can’t be described as boom times. But it’s sure not the dread-filled days of September 2008. As former President Clinton so eloquently said last week in his convention speech, describing the Republican attitude toward President Obama:

“We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.”

Republicans want Americans to put them back in charge. Their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has promised to “restore” America, to return the country to the days before President Obama.

The Romney plan to “restore” America involves repealing, revoking and rejecting every advance President Obama has achieved, including health insurance reform and Wall Street regulation. As Andy Borowitz suggested, if Romney could, he’d revive Osama bin Laden and kill Detroit. Anything to take America back(wards).

Luckily, Romney wouldn’t be able to undo President Obama’s auto bailout – although he opposed it from day one, urging “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” He wrote:

“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”

Well, GM and Chrysler got bailouts, and both are doing fine, thank you, Mr. Romney. In fact, in January GM reclaimed for a few months the title of world’s largest car manufacturer. Both companies are repaying the government loans and 1.45 million people are working as a direct result of the bailout, according to the nonpartisan Center for Automotive Research.

Would America be better off without GM and Chrysler? No, it would not. That according to 1.45 million employed people.

Also luckily, Romney couldn’t undo President Obama’s stimulus. He’d like to, though. His campaign is repeating the false GOP meme that the money was wasted.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs. Romney would have preferred no stimulus. He’d have abandoned those workers – your father-in-law, your kid, your neighbor – rendering them unable to pay their mortgages, unable to support their families, unable to imagine a future.

Would America be better off without the stimulus? No, it would not. That according to 3.3 million employed people.

A President Romney could, however, reverse the financial and health insurance reform measures. And he’s pledged to do that “on day one.” Without financial reform, Wall Street could resume, unfettered, the same risky betting that plunged the country into the Great Recession.

Without the health reform law, insurance companies would immediately cancel coverage for millions of young adults now on their parents’ plans and cut off untold millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions and those who have exceeded the now-banned lifetime caps. In addition, senior citizens would have to pay more for prescription drugs and preventative care.

Would America be better off without the financial and health insurance reforms? No, it would not. That according to Americans who would be sicker and poorer and at greater economic risk without the laws.

Romney also promises to restore America to the Bush days of special deals for the rich and up the ante by giving the 1 percent additional tax reductions. Bush didn’t pay for his tax cuts, resulting in massive deficits, and Romney hasn’t specified how he would either.

Would the country be better off if the rich paid even less in taxes? No, it would not. That according to the 99 percent and President Obama. He pledges to end the Bush tax cuts for those making over a quarter million and begin paying down the nation’s debts.

President Obama plans to take the country forward, to create a better tomorrow.

As former President Clinton walked onto the convention floor last week, the Fleetwood Mac song “Don’t Stop” played in the background. This is the refrain:

“Don’t stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here,
It’ll be, better than before,
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone.”

Yesterday’s gone. Thank goodness because America is much better off than it was four years ago. Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.

Elizabeth Warren’s Democratic Convention Speech

Sourced from WAPO./com

Transcript: Elizabeth Warren’s Democratic Convention Speech

September 5, 2012

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, as prepared for delivery.

Thank you! I’m Elizabeth Warren, and this is my first Democratic Convention. Never thought I’d run for senate. And I sure never dreamed that I’d get to be the warm-up act for President Bill Clinton—an amazing man, who had the good sense to marry one of the coolest women on the planet. I want to give a special shout out to the Massachusetts delegation. I’m counting on you to help me win and to help President Obama win.

I’m here tonight to talk about hard-working people: people who get up early, stay up late, cook dinner and help out with homework; people who can be counted on to help their kids, their parents, their neighbors, and the lady down the street whose car broke down; people who work their hearts out but are up against a hard truth—the game is rigged against them.

It wasn’t always this way. Like a lot of you, I grew up in a family on the ragged edge of the middle class. My daddy sold carpeting and ended up as a maintenance man. After he had a heart attack, my mom worked the phones at Sears so we could hang on to our house. My three brothers all served in the military. One was career. The second worked a good union job in construction. The third started a small business.

Me, I was waiting tables at 13 and married at 19. I graduated from public schools and taught elementary school. I have a wonderful husband, two great children, and three beautiful grandchildren. And I’m grateful, down to my toes, for every opportunity that America gave me. This is a great country. I grew up in an America that invested in its kids and built a strong middle class; that allowed millions of children to rise from poverty and establish secure lives. An America that created Social Security and Medicare so that seniors could live with dignity; an America in which each generation built something solid so that the next generation could build something better.

But for many years now, our middle class has been chipped, squeezed, and hammered. Talk to the construction worker I met from Malden, Massachusetts, who went nine months without finding work. Talk to the head of a manufacturing company in Franklin trying to protect jobs but worried about rising costs. Talk to the student in Worcester who worked hard to finish his college degree, and now he’s drowning in debt. Their fight is my fight, and it’s Barack Obama’s fight too.

People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part: they’re right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them.

Anyone here have a problem with that? Well I do. I talk to small business owners all across Massachusetts. Not one of them—not one—made big bucks from the risky Wall Street bets that brought down our economy. I talk to nurses and programmers, salespeople and firefighters—people who bust their tails every day. Not one of them—not one—stashes their money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3

September 5, 2012

These folks don’t resent that someone else makes more money. We’re Americans. We celebrate success. We just don’t want the game to be rigged. We’ve fought to level the playing field before. About a century ago, when corrosive greed threatened our economy and our way of life, the American people came together under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and other progressives, to bring our nation back from the brink.

We started to take children out of factories and put them in schools. We began to give meaning to the words “consumer protection” by making our food and medicine safe. And we gave the little guys a better chance to compete by preventing the big guys from rigging the markets. We turned adversity into progress because that’s what we do.

Americans are fighters. We are tough, resourceful and creative. If we have the chance to fight on a level playing field—where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot—then no one can stop us. President Obama gets it because he’s spent his life fighting for the middle class. And now he’s fighting to level that playing field—because we know that the economy doesn’t grow from the top down, but from the middle class out and the bottom up. That’s how we create jobs and reduce the debt.

And Mitt Romney? He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to 2,000 dollars. Mitt Romney wants to give billions in breaks to big corporations—but he and Paul Ryan would pulverize financial reform, voucher-ize Medicare, and vaporize Obamacare.

The Republican vision is clear: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.” Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.

No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people. And that’s why we need Barack Obama.

After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages. I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn’t like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day. American families didn’t have an army of lobbyists on our side, but what we had was a president—President Obama leading the way. And when the lobbyists were closing in for the kill, Barack Obama squared his shoulders, planted his feet, and stood firm. And that’s how we won.

By the way, just a few weeks ago, that little agency caught one of the biggest credit card companies cheating its customers and made it give people back every penny it took, plus millions of dollars in fines. That’s what happens when you have a president on the side of the middle class.

Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3

September 5, 2012

President Obama believes in a level playing field. He believes in a country where nobody gets a free ride or a golden parachute. A country where anyone who has a great idea and rolls up their sleeves has a chance to build a business, and anyone who works hard can build some security and raise a family. President Obama believes in a country where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do, and—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2012—a country where women get equal pay for equal work.

He believes in a country where everyone is held accountable. Where no one can steal your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street. President Obama believes in a country where we invest in education, in roads and bridges, in science, and in the future, so we can create new opportunities, so the next kid can make it big, and the kid after that, and the kid after that. That’s what president Obama believes. And that’s how we build the economy of the future. An economy with more jobs and less debt. We root it in fairness. We grow it with opportunity. And we build it together.

I grew up in the Methodist Church and taught Sunday school. One of my favorite passages of scripture is: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act. Not to sit, not to wait, but to act—all of us together.

Senator Kennedy understood that call. Four years ago, he addressed our convention for the last time. He said, “We have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world.” Generation after generation, Americans have answered that call. And now we are called again. We are called to restore opportunity for every American. We are called to give America’s working families a fighting chance. We are called to build something solid so the next generation can build something better.

So let me ask you—let me ask you, America: are you ready to answer this call? Are you ready to fight for good jobs and a strong middle class? Are you ready to work for a level playing field? Are you ready to prove to another generation of Americans that we can build a better country and a newer world?

Joe Biden is ready. Barack Obama is ready. I’m ready. You’re ready. America’s ready. Thank you! And God bless America!

Clinton’s Speech to the Democratic National Convention

Sourced from the New York Times

Transcript of Bill Clinton’s Speech to the Democratic National Convention
Published: September 5, 2012

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Sustained cheers, applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, we are here to nominate a president. (Cheers, applause.) And I’ve got one in mind. (Cheers, applause.)

I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. I want to nominate a man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before his election, saw it sj the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs that he saved or created, there’d still be millions more waiting, worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive.

I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside — (cheers, applause) — but who burns for America on the inside. (Cheers, applause.)

I want — I want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American Dream economy, driven by innovation and creativity, but education and — yes — by cooperation. (Cheers.)

And by the way, after last night, I want a man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama. (Cheers, applause.)

You know — (cheers, applause). I — (cheers, applause).

I want — I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.) And I proudly nominate him to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.

Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk — (laughter) — all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.

This Republican narrative — this alternative universe — (laughter, applause) — says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we’re all completely self-made. One of the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss — (cheers, applause) — used to say that ever politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself. (Laughter, applause.) But, as Strauss then admitted, it ain’t so. (Laughter.)

We Democrats — we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it — (cheers, applause) — with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly share prosperity. You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” (Cheers, applause.) It is.

So who’s right? (Cheers.) Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.

So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 (million). (Cheers, applause.)

Now, there’s — (cheers, applause) — there’s a reason for this. It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. (Cheers, applause.) Why? Because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. (Cheers, applause.) When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all. (Cheers, applause.) We know that investments in education and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase growth. They increase good jobs, and they create new wealth for all the rest of us. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, there’s something I’ve noticed lately. You probably have too. And it’s this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats. I — (cheers, applause) — that would be impossible for me because President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High School. (Cheers, applause.) President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system.

When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan and his White House on the first round of welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals.

(Cheers, applause.) I’m actually very grateful to — if you saw from the film what I do today, I have to be grateful, and you should be, too — that President George W. Bush supported PEPFAR. It saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries. (Cheers, applause.)

And I have been honored to work with both Presidents Bush on natural disasters in the aftermath of the South Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the horrible earthquake in Haiti. Through my foundation, both in America and around the world, I’m working all the time with Democrats, Republicans and independents. Sometimes I couldn’t tell you for the life who I’m working with because we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities and not fighting all the time. (Cheers, applause.)

And so here’s what I want to say to you, and here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. (Cheers, applause.) What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities.

Ask the mayors who are here. (Cheers, applause.) Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it. (Cheers, applause.) They didn’t check their brains at the door. They didn’t stop disagreeing, but their purpose was to get something done.

Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict?

Because nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. (Cheers, applause.)

And every one of us — every one of us and every one of them, we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time and hoping we’re right more than twice a day. (Laughter.)

Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness. (Boos.) Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. (Applause.)

They beat a Republican congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out. (Laughter, applause.)

One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. (Cheers, applause.) Look at his record. Look at his record. (Cheers, applause.) Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. (Laughter, applause.) And he trusted that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. (Cheers, applause.)

And Joe Biden — Joe Biden did a great job with both. (Sustained cheers, applause.)

He — (sustained cheers, applause) — President Obama — President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet even though they supported Hillary in the primary. (Applause.) Heck, he even appointed Hillary. (Cheers, applause.)

Wait a minute. I am — (sustained cheers, applause) — I am very proud of her. I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America. (Cheers, applause.) I am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger, to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I’m grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed and the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a blood — have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest. (Cheers, applause.)

Now — (sustained cheers, applause) — besides the national security team, I am very grateful to the men and women who’ve served our country in uniform through these perilous times. (Cheers, applause.) And I am especially grateful to Michelle Obama and to Joe Biden for supporting those military families while their loved ones were overseas — (cheers, applause) — and for supporting our veterans when they came home, when they came home bearing the wounds of war or needing help to find education or jobs or housing.

President Obama’s whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, to his judgment and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. We need more if it in Washington, D.C. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, we all know that he also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction and new jobs. And that didn’t work out so well. (Laughter.) But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said in a remarkable moment of candor two full years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work; it was to put the president out of work. (Mixed cheers and boos, applause.) (Chuckles.) Well, wait a minute. Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we’re going to keep President Obama on the job. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, are you ready for that? (Cheers, applause.) Are you willing to work for it. Oh, wait a minute.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In Tampa —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In Tampa — in Tampa — did y’all watch their convention?

I did. (Laughter.) In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in. (Laughter, applause.)

Now — (cheers, applause) — but they did it well. They looked good; the sounded good. They convinced me that — (laughter) — they all love their families and their children and were grateful they’d been born in America and all that — (laughter, applause) — really, I’m not being — they did. (Laughter, applause.)

And this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they’re going to keep every commitment they’ve made. We just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are — (cheers, applause) — because in order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn’t say very much about the ideas they’ve offered over the last two years.

They couldn’t because they want to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place. They want to cut taxes for high- income Americans, even more than President Bush did. They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts. They want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they’ll spend it on. And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children.

As another president once said, there they go again.

(Laughter, cheers, applause.)

Now, I like — I like — I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy. He put a floor under the crash. He began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a modern, more well- balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses and lots of new wealth for innovators. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, are we where we want to be today? No.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Is the president satisfied? Of course not.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: But are we better off than we were when he took office? (Cheers, applause.)

And listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody — (inaudible) — when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall. It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

Are we doing better than that today?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes! (Applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The answer is yes.

Now, look. Here’s the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I’ve been there. A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. And in a lot of places, housing prices are even beginning to pick up.

But too many people do not feel it yet.

I had the same thing happen in 1994 and early ‘95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing. But most people didn’t feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996 the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States. But — (cheers, applause) — wait, wait. The difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me, now. No president — no president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. (Cheers, applause.)

Now — but — (cheers, applause) — he has — he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. And if you will renew the president’s contract, you will feel it. You will feel it. (Cheers, applause.)

Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, why do I believe it?

I’m fixing to tell you why. I believe it because President Obama’s approach embodies the values, the ideas and the direction America has to take to build the 21st-century version of the American Dream: a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community.

So let’s get back to the story. In 2010, as the president’s recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around. The recovery act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes — let me say this again — cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. (Cheers, applause.) And, in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4 1/2 million private sector jobs. (Cheers, applause.)

We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president’s job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs.

So here’s another job score. President Obama: plus 4 1/2 million. Congressional Republicans: zero. (Cheers, applause.)

During this period — (cheers, applause) — during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. (Cheers, applause.) And I’ll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. (Cheers, applause.) It saved — it saved more than a million jobs, and not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country.

That’s why even the automakers who weren’t part of the deal supported it. They needed to save those parts suppliers too. Like I said, we’re all in this together. (Applause.)

So what’s happened? There are now 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. (Cheers, applause.)

So — now, we all know that Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. (Boos.) So here’s another job score. (Laughter.) Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country? (Cheers.) Here — (cheers, applause) — here’s another job score: Obama, 250,000; Romney, zero.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (With speaker.) Zero. (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, the agreement the administration made with the management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage, that was a good deal too. It will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill. No matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. It will make us more energy independent. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions. And according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it’ll bring us another half a million good new jobs into the American economy. (Cheers, applause.)

The president’s energy strategy, which he calls “all of the above,” is helping too. The boom in oil and gas production, combined with greater energy efficiency, has driven oil imports to a near-20- year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. And renewable energy production has doubled.

(Cheers, applause.)

Of course, we need a lot more new jobs. But there are already more than 3 million jobs open and unfilled in America, mostly because the people who apply for them don’t yet have the required skills to do them. So even as we get Americans more jobs, we have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are actually going to be created. The old economy is not coming back. We’ve got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs. (Cheers, applause.)

The president — the president and his education secretary have supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for jobs that are actually open in their communities — and even more important after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the dropout rate so much that the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees.

So the president’s student loan is more important than ever. Here’s what it does — (cheers, applause) — here’s what it does. You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It lowers the cost of federal student loans. And even more important, it give students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years. (Cheers, applause.)

Now what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It means no one will ever have to drop out of college again for fear they can’t repay their debt.

And it means — (cheers, applause) — it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won’t have to turn those jobs down because they don’t pay enough to repay they debt. Their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. This will change the future for young America. (Cheers, applause.)

I don’t know about you — (cheers, applause) — but on all these issues, I know we’re better off because President Obama made the decisions he did.

Now, that brings me to health care. (Cheers, applause.) And the Republicans call it, derisively, “Obamacare.” They say it’s a government takeover, a disaster, and that if we’ll just elect them, they’ll repeal it. Well, are they right?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let’s take a look at what’s actually happened so far.

First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from insurance companies because the new law requires 80 (percent) to 85 percent of your premium to go to your health care, not profits or promotion. (Cheers, applause.) And the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of insurance companies have applied to lower their rates to comply with the requirement.

Second, more than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them.

(Cheers, applause.)

Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care, all the way from breast cancer screenings to tests for heart problems and scores of other things. And younger people are getting them, too.

Fourth, soon the insurance companies — not the government, the insurance companies — will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, finally, listen to this. For the last two years — after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years. (Cheers, applause.)

So let me ask you something. Are we better off because President Obama fought for health care reform? (Cheers, applause.) You bet we are.

Now, there were two other attacks on the president in Tampa I think deserve an answer. First, both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That’s the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it’s not true. (Applause.)

Look, here’s what really happened. You be the judge. Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all. None. What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that were not making people healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.

And instead of raiding Medicare, he used the savings to close the doughnut hole in the Medicare drug program — (cheers, applause) — and — you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important — and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund so it is solvent till 2024. (Cheers, applause.)

So — (chuckles) — so President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare; they strengthened Medicare. Now, when Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as, quote, the biggest, coldest power play, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry — (laughter) — because that $716 billion is exactly, to the dollar, the same amount of Medicare savings that he has in his own budget. (Cheers, applause.) You got to get one thing — it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

So — (inaudible) — (sustained cheers, applause) — now, you’re having a good time, but this is getting serious, and I want you to listen.

(Laughter.) It’s important, because a lot of people believe this stuff.

Now, at least on this issue, on this one issue, Governor Romney has been consistent. (Laughter.) He attacked President Obama too, but he actually wants to repeal those savings and give the money back to the insurance company. (Laughter, boos.)

He wants to go back to the old system, which means we’ll reopen the doughnut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we’ll reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight full years. (Boos.)

So if he’s elected, and if he does what he promised to do, Medicare will now grow (sic/go) broke in 2016. (Boos.) Think about that. That means, after all, we won’t have to wait until their voucher program kicks in 2023 — (laughter) — to see the end of Medicare as we know it. (Applause.) They’re going to do it to us sooner than we thought. (Applause.)

Now, folks, this is serious, because it gets worse. (Laughter.) And you won’t be laughing when I finish telling you this. They also want to block-grant Medicaid, and cut it by a third over the coming 10 years.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Of course, that’s going to really hurt a lot of poor kids. But that’s not all. Lot of folks don’t know it, but nearly two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors — (applause) — who are eligible for Medicaid.

(Cheers, applause.) It’s going to end Medicare as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help people with disabilities, including — (cheers, applause) — a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down’s syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. (Applause.) And honestly, let’s think about it, if that happens, I don’t know what those families are going to do.

So I know what I’m going to do. I’m going to do everything I can to see that it doesn’t happen. We can’t let it happen. (Cheers, applause.) We can’t. (Cheers, applause.) Now — wait a minute. (Cheers, applause.) Let’s look —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let’s look at the other big charge the Republicans made. It’s a real doozy. (Laughter.) They actually have charged and run ads saying that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. (Jeers.) Wait, you need to know, here’s what happened. (Laughter.) Nobody ever tells you what really happened — here’s what happened.

When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it’s hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge.

And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less. (Cheers, applause.)

So this is personal to me. We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that in the eight years I was president, we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, a hundred times as many. (Cheers, applause.) It’s a big deal. But I am telling you the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true. (Applause.)

But they keep on running the ads claiming it. You want to know why? Their campaign pollster said, we are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers. (Jeers, applause.) Now, finally I can say, that is true. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) I — (chuckles) — I couldn’t have said it better myself. (Laughter.)

And I hope you and every American within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads, and it turns into an ad to re-elect Barack Obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, let’s talk about the debt. Today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. People are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them.

But it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. We’ve got to deal with this big long- term debt problem or it will deal with us. It will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we’d rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. It — we’ve got to deal with it.

Now, what has the president done? He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with 2 1/2 trillion (dollars) coming from — for every $2 1/2 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues — 2 1/2-to-1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan commission.

Now, I think this plan is way better than Governor Romney’s plan. First, the Romney plan failed the first test of fiscal responsibility. The numbers just don’t add up. (Laughter, applause.)

I mean, consider this. What would you do if you had this problem? Somebody says, oh, we’ve got a big debt problem. We’ve got to reduce the debt. So what’s the first thing you say we’re going to do? Well, to reduce the debt, we’re going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts heavily weighted to upper-income people. So we’ll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it.

Now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? They say, oh, we’ll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

So then you ask, well, which loopholes, and how much?

You know what they say? See me about that after the election. (Laughter.)

I’m not making it up. That’s their position. See me about that after the election.

Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic. (Sustained cheers, applause.)

If — arithmetic! If — (applause) — if they stay with their $5 trillion tax cut plan — in a debt reduction plan? — the arithmetic tells us, no matter what they say, one of three things is about to happen. One, assuming they try to do what they say they’ll do, get rid of — pay — cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions, one, they’ll have to eliminate so many deductions, like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that middle-class families will see their tax bills go up an average of $2,000 while anybody who makes $3 million or more will see their tax bill go down $250,000. (Boos.)

Or, two, they’ll have to cut so much spending that they’ll obliterate the budget for the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel. They’ll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the programs that help to empower middle-class families and help poor kids. Oh, they’ll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research.

That’s what they’ll do. They’ll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who’ve been getting it all along.

Or three, in spite of all the rhetoric, they’ll just do what they’ve been doing for more than 30 years. They’ll go in and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they’ll just explode the debt and weaken the economy. And they’ll destroy the federal government’s ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments.

Don’t you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office — (applause) — and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. (Laughter, applause.) It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas, and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. (Laughter, applause.) It’s arithmetic.

We simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double down on trickle down. (Cheers, applause.) Really. Think about this: President Obama — President Obama’s plan cuts the debt, honors our values, brightens the future of our children, our families and our nation. It’s a heck of a lot better.

It passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test. (Cheers, applause.)

My fellow Americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, we’ll be deciding what kind of country we want to live in. If you want a winner-take- all, you’re-on-your-own society, you should support the Republican ticket. But if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility, a we’re-all-in-this-together society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. (Cheers, applause.) If you — if you want —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years!

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If you want America — if you want every American to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures — (jeers) — just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters — (jeers) — you should support Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.)

And if you think — if you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college, you must vote for Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.) If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American dream is really alive and well again and where the United States maintains its leadership as a force for peace and justice and prosperity in this highly competitive world, you have to vote for Barack Obama.

(Cheers, applause.)

Look, I love our country so much. And I know we’re coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we’ve always come back. (Cheers.) People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. (Laughter.) And so far, every single person that’s bet against America has lost money because we always come back. (Cheers, applause.) We come through ever fire a little stronger and a little better.

And we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor — the cause of forming a more perfect union. (Cheers, applause.) My fellow Americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.) God bless you and God bless America. (Cheers, applause.)

END

Desolation Row: Five Pictures Of The Future In A Paul Ryan/Mitt Romney America

 

Sourced from our future.org

By Richard (RJ) Eskow

March 30, 2012 – 3:43pm ET


Economic radical Paul Ryan has endorsed Mitt Romney, Romney’s embraced the Ryan budget, and the House Republicans have voted to enact the Romney/Ryan vision of the future into law. Yet an eerie silence has settled over the vision itself: How would it affect our daily lives? What kind of country would we become?

The Romney/Ryan America of tomorrow is more like the science-fiction worlds of H.G. Wells’ Time Machine or Fritz Lang’s Metropolis than it is like the United States as we know it. The privileged few would be even more wealthy than they are today, while the rest of us struggle to survive in a dystopic world of disease, deprivation, and fear.

That’s not lefty rhetoric, either. All you have to do is read the budget.

What did Romney say about Ryan’s budget? “He is setting the right tone for finally getting spending and entitlements under control. Anyone who has read my book knows that we are on the same page.” For his part, Paul Ryan expressed confidence that Romney will enact something very close to the budget he proposed and House Republicans passed this week.

And yet the real vision they’re offering for the country is somehow off-limits in polite company. They’re being treated like reasonable politicians, rather than as radicals whose social agenda is severely out of step with that their predecessors in both parties. That has to stop. We need to quit discussing the political horse-race and start talking in real-life terms about the country they intend to create.

Here are five glimpses of the American future under Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans:

1. Diseased America

Forget what it means to be a just society for a moment (they certainly have) and think about what it will mean for the public health of our nation if the Romney/Ryan budget is ever enacted.

By 2022 their plan would cut Federal Medicaid funding by roughly one-third. The Urban Institute has estimated that states would drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021. Provider reimbursements would drop by roughly one-third, too, meaning that even people who still have Medicaid coverage will find it increasingly difficult to find doctors and hospitals willing to treat them. The Romney/Ryan plan’s radical changes to Medicare would also dramatically cut older Americans’ access to health care.

We live with the constant threat of deadly pandemics like avian flu and SARS. The fact that those two diseases didn’t kill millions shouldn’t be taken as proof that it can’t happen, any more than failed terrorist attacks prove we aren’t at risk: We are. And we’re increasingly facing the risk of MRSAs and other deadly drug-resistant infections, which have a tendency to develop and spread in medically underserved populations such as inner cities and prisons.

So forget the inhumanity of this plan, one-percenters, and look at it selfishly: The Romney/Ryan plan to dismantle health will endanger your lives.

2. Time Machine America

Middle class? Not in their world. There will be the rich — and everybody else.

The Romney/Ryan plan guts the financial security of middle-class Americans by leaving them to face on old age of deprivation, impossibly costly health care, and reduced benefits. What’s more, their radical cuts will create a cascading wave of unemployment that will make today’s intractable job situation even worse.

At the same time the Romney/Ryan plan promises more huge tax cuts for the wealthy and uber-wealthy (more about that shortly), which it tries to offset by closing unspecified loopholes.

Which loopholes could they mean? There aren’t many to choose from. They probably intend to cut or eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction, which would decimate already-struggling middle class homeowners, and the tax deduction for employer-provided healthcare, which would leave middle-class Americans with even less health coverage than they have today.

Their tax policy, along with the dismantling of our retirement security, will guide us toward that H.G. Wells world, where a small pampered elite frolicking in luxurious gardens while the rest of the country struggles in dark underground tunnels of job insecurity and financial difficulty.

3. Starving America

And a lot of those “underground Americans” will starve. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities documents, 62 percent of the Ryan/Romney cuts come from programs that serve low-income communities.

Millions of people would http://www.offthechartsblog.org/ryan-budget-takes-big-bite-out-of-food-s… “>lose access to food stamps

or see their benefits cut substantially, even though studies have shown that this program doesn’t contribute to the deficit in any substantial way. (In other words, they’re just doing it because they don’t like people in need.)

The Ryan/Romney plan to promote what Ryan calls “Welfare Reform Part 2″ ignores the lessons of Part 1. By reducing funds and turning many of these programs back to the states, their plan would subject low-income Americans to humiliating tests, steep benefit cuts, and other cutbacks.

The end result would be a steep increase in food insecurity and hunger, in a nation that’s already at or near the top of the charts for these problems when compared to other industrialized nations. In fact, at last report more than 9 percent of US homes experienced “food insecurity” and 5.4 percent of homes were severely food insecure. Expect those figures to rise sharply in Ryan and Romney’s America.

4. Death-Star America

Romney and Ryan don’t want to cut all government spending. They’re proposing steep increases to defense expenditures, in ways that clearly violate the last “grand bargain” between Congressional Republicans and the President.

When combined with their steep cuts elsewhere, which reduces all non-mandated government spending to something close to zero, the Romney/Ryan vision of government is one that provides less than the bare minimum to its citizens while spending many times (see CBPP andMatt Yglesias for more) what other nations spend on extravagant and needless military programs.

2012-03-30-RYANROMNEYDEFENSESPENDING.jpg

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would turn our nation into an armed fortress, ringed on the outside with expensive but often nonfunctional science-fiction weaponry and rotting from within from poverty and fear.

5. Obscene-Wealth America

That’s the world the rest of us would live in. But for wealthy people like Mitt Romney life would be very sweet indeed. Millionaires would get to keep their extravagant Bush tax cuts, under which a top tax rate that was 91 percent under Eisenhower and 70 percent under Reagan is only 35 percent – and Ryan and Romney would top that off by giving them another $265,000 per year in cuts!

As the CBPP reports, ” After-tax incomes would rise by 12.5 percent among millionaires, but just 1.9 percent for middle-income households” – and after the many other cuts and “loophole closings” in Romney/Ryan, after-tax income would actually plummet for those middle-income families.

Conclusion: RomneyWorld USA

All that – and it doesn’t even reduce the deficit! In fact, Ira Stoll correctly notes in Reason that “it would increase federal outlays to $4,888 billion in 2022 from $3,624 billion in 2012, an increase of about 35% over ten years.”

And yet Ryan’s being celebrated in the media as a “bold” advocate for deficit reduction, and he’s Mitt Romney’s right-hand man on the economy. Americans need to understand what kind of country we will become if they succeed. Mitt Romney is likely to become the standard-bearer for his party, and he has embraced this vision of the future.

Voters need to understand what that means. When they talk about budgets they’re not talking about numbers on a page. They’re talking about us.

 

Ryan budget passes on partisan vote

Sourced from Politico.com

By DAVID ROGERS | 3/29/12 6:44 PM EDT

Split along party lines, the House approves 228-191.

Split along party lines, the House approved a new Republican-backed budget Thursday that promises to cut by half the 10-year deficits forecast by President Barack Obama but also walks away from the landmark debt accords hammered out last summer.

Just 10 Republicans defected, and the 228-191 vote gives the embattled GOP leadership what it most wanted: a show of party unity behind a bold election-year vision that includes new private options for Medicare and a simplified Tax Code.

But the price paid by Congress will be big: wrecking havoc with hard-fought bargains under the Budget Control Act and inviting another shutdown fight with Senate Democrats and Obama unless the House again reverses course.

When lawmakers return in mid-April from their spring recess, House and Senate Appropriations Committees must write their annual spending bills using two sets of instructions now— instead of one as envisioned under the Budget Control Act. And the Republican resolution orders six other House committees to quickly come up by April 27 an additional $261 billion in 10-year savings to substitute for automatic reductions in defense in January—under the same Budget Act.

The Armed Services Committee is exempted entirely—breaking faith with the spirit of the August accords. And instead, food stamps, healthcare programs, and federal worker retirement benefits are prime targets, together with a heavy bet on upwards of $50 billion in long-term savings attributed to proposed medical liability reforms.

The target effective date for this legislation will be July 1—an almost impossible schedule given the anticipated opposition in the Senate. And caught most in the middle is the House Agriculture Committee, which is trying to write a bipartisan five-year farm bill and will instead be diverted into what promises to be a divisive fight over food stamp cuts.

For example, the budget specifically asks the panel to come up with $8.2 billion in savings for 2012-2013 and recommends that it meet this goal by quickly repealing a temporary expansion of benefits initiated in the Recovery Act in 2009. Those added benefits are already slated to be phased out entirely by November 2013, but the budget appears to assume close to $7 billion in savings by moving that date up to July 1.

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told POLITICO that the average family of four would lose about $600 in anticipated benefits and the adjustment would be more abrupt without the planned phase down. Thus in the last three months of this fiscal year, the cut could be as much as $57 a month –a hard sell for most Democrats.

“We’ve made the tough choices to preserve freedom in America and to deal with our fiscal nightmare,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued in the closing debate. And House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the proposed cuts are truly “gradual” given the size of government expenditures and needed to pre-empt what will be a larger debt crisis, he said, if no action is taken.

“Let’s get ahead of this problem,” Ryan said. “Let’s do it right and do it now.”

Nonetheless, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) bluntly took the GOP to task for not respecting more the agreements reached last summer in the debt crisis. “We took the nation to the brink of default before we agreed… Keep the agreement,” Hoyer said angrily. And Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the Budget panel, said that Ryan’s spending cuts—combined tax breaks preserved for capital gains and high-income households—amounted to a huge transfer of wealth.

Indeed Ryan’s rhetoric seemed to slip into this narrative when he said he didn’t want the social “safety net” to become a “hammock that lulls able bodied people into lives of dependency.” And the cuts demanded from non-defense appropriations are at least $27 billion more than Obama would have assumed after the summer talks.

By the end of 2014, the plan anticipates that non-defense discretionary spending would fall to $406 billion, a $100 billion or nearly 20 percent reduction. When adjusted for inflation, that would leave most agencies with less money than all the years of George W. Bush presidency. And the cut is larger proportionally than any reduction Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich achieved at the height of their powers in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

In fact, Ryan’s plan is even more severe than his first attempt after Republicans won back control of the House. This reflects the relentless pressure on GOP leaders to tack to the right to appease Tea Party conservatives. But as the debt problem as grown, the whole tone of the debate has changed with factions in both parties more likely to stake out extreme positions that have little bearing on political reality.

For example, fully 136 Republicans Thursday backed a conservative alternative that promised to bring the budget into balance in just five years but also demanded a 25 percent cut in non-defense appropriations in 2013 alone. And Wednesday night, 107 Democrats backed a liberal Congressional Black Caucus alternative which called for nearly $4 trillion in additional tax revenues—beyond what Obama has already proposed.

At the same time a bipartisan proposal –proposing a mix of taxes and entitlement reforms—failed miserably, getting only 38 votes even after it won the endorsement of anti-deficit groups and the two leaders of the 2010 presidential debt commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles, a former top official in the Clinton Administration.

Important opinion-makers in the Democratic caucus, such as Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey and South Carolina’s James Clyburn—a member of the leadership—backed the initiative. But Hoyer pulled back despite his investment in some of the same ideas, and the amendment went down in a 10-1 rout.

Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook

Sourced from Washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

wpid-wonk_1-2011-11-25-16-12.gif

Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn’t take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that’s the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats.

In August, Republicans scored what they thought was a big win by persuading Democrats to accept a trigger that consisted only of spending cuts. The price they paid was 1) concentrating the cuts on the Pentagon while exempting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries, and 2) delaying the cuts until January 1, 2013. That was, they figured, a win, as it eschewed taxes. Grover Norquist’s pledge remained unbroken.

But 12 years earlier, George W. Bush had set a trigger of his own. In order to pass his tax cuts using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, he had agreed to let them sunset in 2010. A last-minute deal extended them until the end of 2012.

So now there are two triggers. One is an extremely progressive spending trigger worth $1.2 trillion that goes off on January 1, 2013. The other is an extremely progressive tax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on…January 1, 2013. If you count reduced interest payments, the two policies alone would reduce future deficits by about $6 trillion. That’s far more than anything the supercommittee came close to discussing. It’s distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing.

Republicans can’t stop these triggers on their own. They need Senate Democrats and President Obama to join them in passing an alternative, or they need House and Senate Democrats to join them in overturning President Obama’s veto of their alternative. So the only way for Republicans to avoid this dual-trigger nightmare is to somehow convince Democrats to bail them out. And for that, they have two points of leverage.

The first is political: Democrats don’t want to raise $3.8 trillions in taxes, much of which will fall on middle-class households. Already, Democrats have said that their preference is to make the the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000 permanent. That means making 80 percent of them permanent.

Continue reading »

Return of the robber barons

Sourced from Daily Kos

wpid-unknown-2011-11-14-20-171.png Daily Kos 11/13/11 9:00 AM rss@dailykos.com

(Mark E Andersen) gilded age history Howard Zinn Labor Robber Barons

wpid-jp_morgan-2011-11-14-20-171.jpg

J.P. Morgan himself

(Edward Steichen)

Recently I began to re-read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and in the chapter “Robber Barons and Rebels” I was struck by the similarity of what was happening from the 1870s through the early part of the 20th century and today.

All quoted sections, unless otherwise noted, are from A People’s History of the United States.


[T]he strikes of the white workers would not be tolerated; the industrial and political elites of North and South would take hold of the country and organize the greatest march of economic growth in human history. They would do it with the aid of, and at the expense of, black labor, white labor, Chinese labor European immigrant labor, female labor, rewarding them differently by race, sex national origin, social class, in such a way to create separate levels of oppression—a skillful terracing to stabilize the pyramid of wealth.

 

Sound familiar? It should. It is the same divide and conquer strategy the Republican party of today is using. Making teachers and other public servants pariahs, splitting the have-a-littles from the have-nots. Making soldiers into heroes, until they speak out against the system they served and fought for … then they are attacked and called cowards for speaking out against the very oppression they were fighting. Organized labor was the enemy of the robber barons then and is again today—even though the most productive time in our nation’s history was from the post-WWII years to roughly the mid-seventies when the unions were at the height of their power.


While some multimillionaires started in poverty, most did not. A study of the origins of 303 textile, railroad and steel executives of the 1870s showed that 90 percent came from middle- or upper-class families. The Horatio Alger stories of “rags to riches” were true for a few men, but mostly a myth and a useful myth for control.

 

Recently a right-wing friend told me that the reason he supports tax cuts for the rich is because he will someday be rich. I do not know how he will ever become rich—he is underwater on his mortgage and up to his eyeballs in credit card debt. But he will vote against his own best interests because of the myth that everyone, if they work hard enough, can become a millionaire in the United States. Mr. Zinn has it right: The myth of rags to riches is one to control the masses. It worked in the gilded age and it works today.


In 1895 the gold reserve of the United States was depleted, while twenty-six New York City banks had $129 million in gold in their vaults. A syndicate of bankers headed by J.P. Morgan & Company, August Belmont and Company, the National City Bank and others offered to give the government gold in exchange for bonds. President Grover Cleveland agreed. The bankers immediately resold the bonds at higher prices, making $18 million profit.

 

Continue reading »

“Class War” Update

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Progress
New report reveals “welfare for millionaires” [Newsweek]: “From unemployment payments to subsidies and tax breaks on luxury items like vacation homes and yachts, Americans earning more than $1 million collect more than $30 billion in government largesse each year, according to the report assembled by Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, who is so often at odds with members of both parties that colleagues call him  ’Dr. No.’ The Internal Revenue Service provided the data showing how much money was going to the much-referenced top 1 percent. In all, millionaires receive hefty help from Uncle Sam… Still, eliminating them would help make a small dent in the $1.5 trillion congressional leaders are trying to find by Thanksgiving.”
Mike Meyers writes that GOP policies would “soak the poor”: “Since the federal income tax became law almost a century ago, progressive taxation — taxing people according to their ability to pay — has been a bedrock principle of how Americans paid for their government. It makes sense. After all, the most prosperous obtain more than most people from a federal government that enforces copyrights and patents, maintains courts that officiate over property-rights disputes and (when the government does its job right) regulates markets to ensure their fairness… Great fortunes grow with government cooperation. In recent years, Republican leaders have been chipping away at the principle of progressive taxation. Lately, they have adopted a tax policy that some call ‘soak the poor.’”

Continue reading »

Higher Taxes On The Working Poor and Middle Class? Why Conservatives Have Lost Their Mind, And The Public

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Future

By Bill Scher, October 18, 2011

Over the weekend, NYTimes.com featured a Bloggingheads.tv discussion I had with Kristen Soltis of the Independent Women’s Forum about the conservative response to the “We Are The 99%” mantra of the Occupy Wall Street protests: “We Are The 53%.” After hearing the conservative justification for complaining that the working poor and middle class don’t pay enough taxes, you might ask: have conservatives lost their mind? I’d say, yes. And the public too.

Over the weekend, NYTimes.com featured a Bloggingheads.tv discussion I had with Kristen Soltis of the Independent Women’s Forum about the conservative response to the “We Are The 99%” mantra of the Occupy Wall Street protests: “We Are The 53%.”

After hearing the conservative justification for complaining that the working poor and middle class don’t pay enough taxes, you might ask: have conservatives lost their minds?

The conservative class warfare attack — that currently 47% of Americans don’t pay a net federal income tax — has been hashed out plenty. You probably already know that the stat is misleading, because 90% of Americans still pay federal taxes, even if they don’t pay net federal income taxes, not to mention state and local taxes.

But I don’t need to bombard you with more numbers to debunk this conservative argument, because no one is buying it anyway.

Poll after poll after poll shows the public is squarely behind raising taxes on those in the top 2% income bracket. In the most recent CNN poll, 63% support higher taxes on income above $250,000, and a whopping 76% supporting higher taxes on income above $1,000,000.

In other words, “The 53% Percent” opposing higher taxes on millionaires is more like the 24%.

So we don’t need to grapple with how to rebut this conservative misinformation. But it may be worth pondering why this conservative strategy is failing so miserably.

Conservatives are very hung-up on attacking wealth redistribution. The tagline of “We Are The 53%” is: “Those of us who pay for those of you who whine about all of that… or that… or whatever.” In other words, my class is already giving handouts for your class, so shut up and stop asking for more.

Continue reading »

The Tea Party loses another round

Sourced from washingtonpost.com

by danamilbank@washpost.com

It was a(nother) great day to be a member of the Washington elite.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House was steamrolling toward passage of a trio of free-trade agreements without a whisper of objection from the Republican side. Finally, hours into the debate, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) rose to appeal to his fellow Tea Partyers to heed the people who elected them.

“Here we have roughly 9.1 percent unemployment in this country, due in no small part to the Washington elite jamming these job-destroying trade agreements down our throats,” Jones pleaded on the House floor. “It’s time we started listening to the will of the American people, doing what’s in the best interest of the American people, not in the best interest of the foreign nationals who desperately want to take our jobs.”

It was a passionate speech but useless. Lawmakers, including the overwhelming majority of Tea Party Republicans, voted in support of the three trade deals, which had been at the top of corporate America’s wish list.

That was just one of the day’s party favors for corporations. Hours earlier, House Speaker John Boehner made clear he would guard the corporate elite’s interests in avoiding a trade war with China. He refused to take up a bill that would have punished China for its currency ma­nipu­la­tion, saying he had “grave concerns.” (The bill would have passed easily if it had the chance.)

Boehner and his Republican colleagues aren’t necessarily wrong in their desire to expand trade with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, as they did Wednesday, or to prevent a tit-for-tat with China. But the Republican support for the free-trade deals, and the leadership’s refusal to consider the China legislation, show where the power still resides in Washington.

Continue reading »

Hermanomics: Let them eat pizza

Sourced from washingtonpost.com

by Steven Pearlstein, 16 October 2011

“Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

What you have in this statement from the leading Republican candidate to be president of the United States is the purest distillation of the attitude of the New Republican Party toward rising poverty and inequality in the United States.

Normally, Republican politicians are politic enough to dance around questions about poverty and inequality, accusing anyone who brings them up as engaging in “class warfare” or blaming President Obama, conveniently forgetting that these were big problems when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

But not the Hermanator. Indeed, one of the things we love about Cain is that there is no filter between the brain and the mouth. He just tells you what he thinks, even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

We were first introduced to Cain’s economic world view in 1993, when as chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza he stood up at a nationally televised town meeting and told then-President Bill Clinton that requiring employers to offer health insurance to their workers would force businesses like his to eliminate large numbers of jobs.

Cain apparently enjoyed his moment in the national spotlight so much that he’s been trying to get back in it ever since — as head of the National Restaurant Association, radio talk show host, motivational speaker, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia and now, according to the latest poll, the leading Republican presidential contender.

Continue reading »

The 9-9-9 plan for an aveage household, and for a wealthy one

Sourced from washingtonpost.com

Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:12 PM ET, 10/13/2011

My earlier post Thursday on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was a bit theoretical. So I asked Edward Kleinbard, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California, to walk me through the tax burden for a typical family of four with an income of $50,000 in the current system and under Herman Cain’s plan. Before we get to the details, here’s the bottom line: Cain’s plan would increase the family’s tax bill by thousands of dollars.

wpid-cain_2012_06fc4-2011-10-14-11-18.jpg

Republican Herman Cain has surged in the polls since his appearance Tuesday at a Washington Post-Bloomberg presidential primary debate. (Evan Vucci – AP)

Now, the details. Let’s start with the calculations for the current system. If you take the employer and employee side of the payroll tax, payroll taxes come to 15.3 percent of our hypothetical family’s $50,000 income.Final bill? $7,650 in payroll taxes. But that’s almost all they’re going to pay in federal taxes.

When it comes time to fill out their federal income taxes, they take the standard deduction ($11,400), plus four personal exemptions ($3,650 each), plus two child-tax credits ($1,000 each), which leaves them paying $766 in federal-income taxes.

Total tax bill? $8,416.

Cain’s plan, by contrast, acts like a 27 percent payroll tax with basically no exemptions. To understand why that is, read my earlier post, or, if you really want the details, see Kleinbard’s full analysis. So here, too, the calculation is fairly straightforward: $50,000 x 27% = $13,500.

And that leaves us with simple subtraction. $13,500 – $8,416 = $5,084. That’s how much more a family of four with $50,000 in income and a very simple tax return would pay under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

I want to stress that this is a simplified analysis. We can make it more complicated, of course. Most economists would argue that the employer is paying the family’s payroll tax out of a separate pot of money, so they’re really making a bit more than $50,000. That would increase the tax hike in Cain’s plan if we took it into account. But you could also argue that Cain’s consumption taxes are applying to $45,500 in income, as the worker won’t spend the portion that goes to the nine percent income tax. That would lessen the tax hike in Cain’s plan.*

That said, let’s look at the other side of this, too. Take a family of four with $1,000,000 in income. I wanted to stop bothering Kleinbard at this point, so I just ran these numbers myself. Assume again that the family files a very simple tax return: standard deduction, four exemptions. According to Turbotax, they would owe $311,208 under the current system.

Cain’s plan is a bit tougher to apply to them. Many of his taxes are consumption-based, and it’s likely that this family would hold on to much of their income in any given year. But as the tax professors will tell you, all income is eventually spent, so all the income they make this year will eventually be taxed under the 9-9-9 plan.

If you grant that premise, then the calculation is no harder than it is for the family of more modest means: $1,000,000 X 27% = $270,000. That means Cain’s plan is, for a household making $1,000,000, a tax cut of $41,208 (which I got by subtracting $311,208 from $270,000).

You can complicate this analysis, too. In the current tax system, a family making $1,000,000 would not take the standard deduction. They would likely hire an accountant and do some fancy footwork and end up paying a lower tax rate than I’ve assumed here, which would mean that the difference between Cain’s plan and the current system would, for the richer family, narrow a bit.

But this simplified calculation gets at the basic reality of Cain’s plan: He’s got what he says is a revenue-neutral tax proposal, so we can assume that it raises the same amount of money as the current system, but he replaces progressive taxes with regressive taxes. So the poor and middle class will face a big tax hike — $50,000 is actually slightly above the median household income in America — and the rich will get a huge tax cut.

*Update: Kleinbard got in touch to assure me his estimate accounted for the fact that some income would go to personal income taxes and thus would not be taxed by the two consumption taxes. He even provide the calculations. Here’s Kleinbard:

As an aside, you wrote:

“But you could also argue that Cain’s consumption taxes are applying to $45,500 in income, as the worker won’t spend the portion that goes to the nine percent income tax. That would lessen the tax hike in Cain’s plan.”

Actually, my numbers took that into account. My 27 percent (technically, 27.08 percent, I think) was not just 9 x 3! I converted everything into a wage-equivalent tax base.

If you want to get fancy, you can look at the Cain tax plan this way, where 100 is the starting corporate income before corporate tax, and T is his tax rate (9% in his actual proposal), expressed as a percentage:

CT = 100X

PT = X (100 – 100X)

= 100X – 100XX [I don’t know how to do superscripts in Outlook]

ST = X [100 - 100X - (100X - 100XX)]

=X [100 - 200X + 100XX]

= 100X – 200XX + 100XXX

Which in turn means that total tax = CT + PT + ST =

100X + 100X-100XX + 100X-200XX+100XXX

= 300X – 300XX + 100XXX

So for example when applied to a tax rate of 9 percent, total tax =

300(0.09) – 300 (0.09×0.09) + 100 (0.09 x 0.09 x 0.09)

= 27 – 2.43 + 0.07

= 24.64

And finally, to put total tax bill on a payroll tax equivalent basis, we have to compare it, not to 100 (the employer’s pre CT income), but to the wages paid the employee, which are: 100 – 100X

So the payroll tax equivalent rate (dividing both sides by 100 for clarity and restating the numerator) =

(3X – 3XX + XXX) ÷ (1 – X)

Which in his actual plan works out to 24.64/91 = 27.08%

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.