ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill

By Igor Volsky on Nov 30, 2009 at 7:05 pm

This afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill. The so-called ‘motion to commit’ would send the legislation back to the Senate Finance Committee and instruct that committee to remove the $491 billion in proposed reductions from Medicare and Medicaid programs:

Madame President, simply put, this motion to commit would be a requirement that we eliminate the half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that is envisioned by this bill. A half a trillion dollars in cuts that are unspecified as to how, and a half a trillion dollars in cuts that would directly impact the health care of citizens in this country. … All of these are cuts in the obligations that we have assumed and are the rightful benefits that people have earned. … I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country. That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts.

Watch it:

McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid…in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.” Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.

In 1997, McCain (along with many Democrats) voted for a series of Medicare cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act decreased Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years and instituted the kind of payment updates that the Senate bill is now recommending. In 1995, moreover, Republicans sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted, “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”

While Republicans wanted to strip funding from Medicare to ultimately kill the program, Democrats are finding cost savings to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and expand the number of seniors eligible for assistance with premiums and co-pays.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Health

After Introducing $1.3 Trillion In Cuts To Medicare During Campaign, McCain Condemns Far Less Drastic Medicare Cuts In Senate Bill

By Igor Volsky on Nov 30, 2009 at 7:00 pm

This afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill. The so-called ‘motion to commit’ would send the legislation back to the Senate Finance Committee and instruct that committee to remove the $491 billion in proposed reductions from Medicare and Medicaid programs:

Madam President, simply put, this motion to commit would be a requirement that we eliminate the half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that is envisioned by this bill. A half a trillion dollars in cuts that are unspecified as to how and a half a trillion dollars in cuts that would directly impact the health care of citizens in this country…All of these are cuts in the obligations that we have assumed and are the rightful benefits that people have earned… I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country. That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts.

Watch it:

McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid…in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.” Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.

In 1997, McCain (along with many Democrats) voted for a series of Medicare cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act decreased Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years and instituted the kind of payment updates that the Senate bill is now recommending. In 1995, moreover, Republicans sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted, “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”

While Republicans wanted to strip funding from Medicare to ultimately kill the program, Democrats are finding cost savings to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and expand the number of seniors eligible for assistance with premiums and co-pays.

Security

After Stalling The START Treaty Negotiations, Conservatives Now Blame Obama

By Max Bergmann on Nov 30, 2009 at 6:24 pm

jon-kyl-webIt looks quite clear that US-Russian negotiations over a new START treaty are proceeding smoothly. Yet while the START treaty reaches the finish line, conservative commentators have adopted the bizarre and hypocritical attack that not reaching an agreement before December 5th – the date at which the existing treaty expires – would represent a failure.

This line has been pushed by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and was reiterated by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard this weekend. Kyl in a floor speech last week claimed that the Administration “spent the first half of the year negotiating a joint understanding that would allow it to show progress toward the president’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons” and have “only now have negotiators begun looking at the question of verification.” Barnes added in an oped titled “another Obama diplomatic failure,” that the Administration “is desperate to avoid the humiliation of having failed to finalize” the treaty.

Conservative complaints reek of hypocrisy. Not only did conservatives not lift a finger to advance START over the last eight years, but they have also shown almost no concern for verification measures in the past. But what is most galling about this attack is that the Administration has had effectively only 5 months to negotiate an incredibly complex treaty – not a full year.

The reason for this is that conservatives in the Senate put a number of holds and stalled numerous appointments crucial to the START negotiations. For instance, Senator Kyl quite openly put a hold on Ellen Tauscher’s appointment as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security. So if conservatives were so concerned about getting a new treaty in place before December 5th, why then did Kyl hold up someone of critical importance to the START talks?

Laura Rozen, then at The Cable, reported that Kyl was putting a hold on Tauscher because of START.

A Congressional source says that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put a hold on all State Department nominees earlier this week because he is not satisfied with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia. “Kyl’s beef and the general Republican argument now emerging against the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy is that they are rushing to conclude a new agreement with Russia on strategic arms levels before their Nuclear Posture Review is complete.”

But Kyl knew that the Nuclear Posture Review was not scheduled to be completed until next year – so demanding that the NPR be completed prior to conducting negotiations over a new START treaty, was simply an effort to torpedo the Administration’s ability to negotiate a treaty before the December 5th deadline. But instead of just being upfront about his opposition to controlling the Russian nuclear arsenal, Kyl is now trying to attack the administration from a pro-arms control position by proclaiming his support for verification measures – something he has consistently discounted in the past. This is all just bizarre and by trying to disguise his own position, Kyl is just demonstrating how weak and out of the mainstream his actual position on arms control really is. Instead of wanting a world without nuclear weapons, Kyl wants one with many more.

Politics

GOP Senate Candidate Rob Simmons Says Unemployed Workers Should Seek Government Health Insurance

By Lee Fang on Nov 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm

On Saturday, DoingItLocal.com’s David Smith interviewed former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT), a candidate for the Senate in 2010. Simmons, who is facing a crowded primary for the Republican nomination, has lurched to the far right to accommodate his party’s tea party base. He has renounced his support for progressive policies like cap-and-trade and the Employee Free Choice Act, and now proudly displays an actual tea bag tucked away in his copy of the Constitution.

Most recently, Simmons has tacked to the right on health reform as well. He attacked current legislation as a “government takeover” and denounced government interference in health care as placing “bureaucrats between patients and doctors.” But during his interview with Smith, Simmons went off his conservative script, stating that unemployed workers should seek the government-sponsored program of Medicaid:

SMITH: One of the aspects of the economy that is taking a very serious toll on families is of course healthcare. When people lose jobs, typically they lose they lose their health care. […] What do you suggest, what kind of answers do you have for people who are facing the all too real, daunting situation of not having health care?

SIMMONS: Well back in my part of the state and I know throughout the state you have community health centers or clinics that are available. Obviously if you lose your job and you fall within the income limits, you are eligible to sign up for Medicaid. There are other low cost options available but we really have to make sure is that people have the information they need so they can sign up for a plan that’s going to work for them. [...] I am sympathetic to those confronted with the loss of healthcare. I would urge people to get in contact with their member of Congress to learn about the options available.

Watch it:

Simmons appears to be advocating a government-provided backstop health care option for unemployed people. Will Simmons face censure now that he appears to be violating yet another provision of the Republican Party Purity Pledge? If you ask Simmons’ prospective GOP colleagues, like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Medicaid is an abhorrent “medical ghetto.”

In reality, Medicaid is “cost-effective compared to private health insurance” and 74% of Americans, according to a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, consider it a very important program. The program protects low-income Americans from uncontrollable out-of-pocket costs charged by private insurers and also “covers services not usually covered in private health insurance.” Under the Senate health bill, “most nonelderly people with income below 133 percent of the [federal poverty line] would be made eligible for Medicaid” starting in 2014.

Yglesias

Auto Concerns Holding Back South Korea Trade Deal

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm

160px-Debbie_Stabenow_official_photo

In principle, an agreement with South Korea to lower trade barriers should make more countries more prosperous. It’s all the more appealing in that we’re talking about two wealthy democracies, so you don’t even have concerns about systematic undercutting of American wages. But there are some problems:

President Barack Obama’s call to complete a trade deal with South Korea in 2010 is stirring a hornet’s nest among Michigan lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

They worry it will harm the U.S. auto sector and warn it will have to be significantly changed to win support.

“If we don’t get an agreement on access for American automakers, I can’t support moving forward on an agreement,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) in a short interview last week.

As I said earlier, it’s hard for me to see how liberal trade regimes are going to be sustained—much less expended—in the face of weak labor markets as far as the eye can see. I would ordinarily be quite comfortable telling the U.S. auto industry that their interests can’t take priority over an overall beneficial measure. But given the state of things in Michigan, who’s really going to say Debbie Stabenow is doing the wrong thing for her constituents? Nobody likes becoming a victim of frictional unemployment, but if it really is just frictional you can say that it’ll all work out in the end and observe that these measures raise overall living standards. But sustained high levels of unemployment make flexibility an incredibly hard sell. Which is fine for “insiders” who’ve got jobs, but makes it hard to generate the kind of economic growth that provides employment for new entrants into the labor market.

Security

Minuteman Leader Slams ‘Ron Paul Fanatics,’ Calls Anti-Immigration Tea Bagger ‘Outright Racist’

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Nov 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, was caught on video last week slamming “Ron Paul fanatics” in the anti-immigration movement along with tea-bagger wannabe William Gheen who organized poorly attended “copycat” anti-immigration tea party protests:

I used to support Ron Paul, until I had this falling out with these Ron Paul fanatics. They’re not all that way, just too many. The ones that I’ve met, who are very hateful people, have no business supporting Ron Paul. Jeff Schwilk and William Gheen have no business being in political activism because, in my blatant personal opinion, they are outright racists.

Watch it:

Gilchrist has long attempted to distinguish his “multi-ethnic” border vigilante group from more overtly racist organizations such as Gheen’s Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC). However, their public feud is more the product of personal infighting than ideological differences.

To begin with, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists both the Minuteman Project and ALIPAC as “nativist extremist” organizations. SPLC has extensively documented the Minuteman Project’s ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a “white supremacist hate group” which even co-hosted a “strategy session” with one of the Minuteman Project’s chapters. The Anti-Defamation League points out that the Minuteman Project is “highly publicized among right-wing extremists ranging from militia groups to white supremacist organizations,” including neo-Nazi National Alliance members. Harvard University recently canceled Gilchrist’s invitation to speak at the campus, explaining that his views were “not compatible with providing an environment for civil, educational, and productive discourse on immigration.”

Earlier in the interview, Gilchrist offers a more convincing explanation for the mutual contempt held amongst nativist groups: “personality disorders” or “just hate for the competition.” Gilchrist claims Gheen’s hatred for him started when he refused to hand over his email lists and that his group was later attacked by Gheen for endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) for President over Ron Paul. Both candidates pandered to the right-wing anti-immigrant fringe during their 2008 presidential campaigns.

Politics

‘Official Chicago Tea Party’ distances itself from heckling by ‘splinter’ tea party group.

By Amanda Terkel on Nov 30, 2009 at 5:00 pm

At a town hall event in Illinois earlier this month, tea party activists heckled a woman who recounted how her daughter-in-law and her unborn grandchild died because they didn’t have health insurance. These activists were encouraged to attend the event by the Chicago Tea Party Patriots, which sent around a flier railing against “socialized medicine.” After media outlets reported the heckling, the “Official Chicago Tea Party” was forced to distance itself and firmly denounce the heckling, which it says was carried out by a “splinter group.” The organization’s website is now down, replaced with this message:

The site of the Chicago Tea Party Patriots remains up and running.

Yglesias

Food Stamp Stigma

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm

(cc photo by Mills Baker)

(cc photo by Mills Baker)

To an extent, the viability of social democratic public services depends on a cultural context that maintains a modicum of bourgeois distaste for dependence upon them. In other words, you want people to have the attitude that these services are available for people who are really in need, but that it’s preferable to earn what you need through work when possible. So I have some sympathy for Mickey Kaus’ idea that use of “food stamps” should be socially stigmatized, but I think he takes it too far:

But a stigma placed on cash-like welfare (which food stamps are) remains a positive sign of a healthy work ethic. If you came across two societies–Society A, in which food stamps were stigmatized, with families reluctant to go on the dole even if they were eligible, and Society B, in which they weren’t, you would want to bet on (and live in) Society A. It’s one thing to relax the stigma on welfare in times of epic economic decline. It’s another if the stigma doesn’t return with the possibility of employment. The CBPP chart would also have demonstrated that food stamp rolls have risen rapidly before–in the slump from 1988 to 1994–only to fall just as rapidly when the economy picked up in the mid-90s. Of course, at that time we had a President (Clinton) who was campaigning against “welfare as we know it.” It seems unlikely that President Obama will repeat the performance.

One thing here is that I just doubt that Clinton’s campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” was really all that decisive in the decline in food stamp enrollment. Objective economic conditions improved rapidly during this period, with the late-1990s being the only period of substantial low-end wage growth of the past several decades. Whether food stamp use declines or not as we enter an economic recovery depends first and foremost on how robust that recovery actually is.

But as for Society A and Society B, whether or not I would bet on Society A is going to have a lot to do with whether Society A is suffering from much larger quantities of undernourished children. If it’s able to scrimp on food stamps without achieving that result then, yes, its bourgeois stolidity looks promising. But if Society B is doing a much better job of ensuring that its kids are healthy, then Society B is going to have a better-educated workforce, lower crime, less disability, and a generally better-off population and economy for years to come.

Which I think leads to the conclusion that the problem with SNAP isn’t that it ought to be more stigmatized, but that it’s too much like cash welfare. It’s called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and a supplemental program to assist people with obtaining adequate nutrition is a good idea. But if you read ye olde eligibility guidelines you’ll see that “nonalcoholic beverages, snack foods, soft drinks, candy, and ice.” are all eligible. I like Fritos, I like Diet Coke, I like Twizzlers, but none of this is supplementing anyone’s nutrition. Conversely, you can’t use SNAP money to buy any “foods that are hot at the point of sale” even though this restriction has nothing to do with promoting nutrition. I don’t think we need to go all the way in the direction of turning this into a monastic “fruit, vegetables, and whole grains only” program but we could surely go a good deal further in the direction of targeting the money at actual nutrition assistance.

Economy

Treasury Set To Scold Banks (Again) For Lack Of Progress On Mortgage Modifications

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 30, 2009 at 4:30 pm

AP090507050624Back in August, the Treasury Department produced a list of mortgage servicers and their progress (or lack thereof) in successfully getting eligible borrowers into the administration’s signature mortgage modification effort — the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). As the Associated Press reported at the time, “by publishing the names of companies that are lagging behind in the government’s plan to ease the housing crisis, officials are counting on public outrage to get the industry on track.”

Though conservatives freaked out about the public naming (with Neil Cavuto slamming Treasury for writing a “cockamamie scarlet letter list“), public outrage did not work the wonders that it was supposed to. Some banks are still enrolling borrowers at a snail’s pace, and as Andrew Jakabovics and I reported last week, Bank of America is even siphoning borrowers off into its own private modification program, in violation of HAMP guidelines. 650,000 borrowers have received trial modifications under HAMP, and just 1,711 of those have received permanent modifications. Meanwhile in the third quarter of this year alone, 937,840 homeowners received a foreclosure letter.

If foreclosures continue unabated, economic recovery is going to be delayed even longer than it otherwise would have been, and Treasury clearly recognizes that it needs to do something. The new strategy? Scold the banks again:

“The banks are not doing a good enough job,” Michael S. Barr, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial institutions, said in an interview Friday. “Some of the firms ought to be embarrassed, and they will be”…Mr. Barr said the government would try to use shame as a corrective, publicly naming those institutions that move too slowly to permanently lower mortgage payments. The Treasury Department also will wait until reductions are permanent before paying cash incentives that it promised to mortgage companies that lower loan payments.

As Tim Fernholz put it, “unfortunately, I don’t think shame will be enough to change these banks’ behavior (what, are they going to become less popular?) and withholding cash payments will probably be an incentive for the banks to stop doing the modifications altogether.”

Since its inception, HAMP has been hobbled by the lack of enforcement mechanism to use against banks that violate or slowfoot their way through the program. Some servicers have gotten upwards of forty percent of their eligible borrowers into trial modifications, proving that there is little excuse for the servicers which are still struggling to break into double digits. There is simply no reason for them to accelerate their efforts, as opposed to bogging homeowners down in an endless sea of paperwork and documentation requests.

Treasury is not suffering from a shortage of options for turning things around. It could implement right-to-rent, or try to spark an interest in reviving cram-downs, which were envisioned as the stick in Treasury’s plan before going down in flames in the Senate. It could also push Congress to support mandatory mediation programs across the country, which mandate that a servicer meet with the borrower before finalizing a foreclosure. Such programs have been quite successful at mitigating foreclosures, particularly once they’ve been underway for a while.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up