SleepinJeezus's picture

    Dem Manifesto: Catfood Commission Report Underscores Need for Health Care Reform

    The trial balloon floated by The Obama Deficit Commission co-chairs Simpson and Bowles has been afforded all the respect it deserves. In a statement following the release of the "chairman's mark," Dean Baker does as good a job as anyone in dismantling the report. Baker is perhaps most critical of the ludicrous timing of such a counter-intuitive, anti-stimulative initiative smack dab in the middle of the greatest recession in modern history. Indeed, warns Baker, "The large government deficits are the only factor sustaining demand following the loss of (the housing bubble) wealth. If today's deficit were smaller, we would not be helping our children; we would just be putting their parents out of work."

    Just how ludicrous is the timing of this "deficit reduction" effort and the "chairman's mark" that was released this week? Consider, for a moment, that it includes a suggestion that we scale back or eliminate the homeowner's mortgage interest deduction from the tax code as a means of raising revenues. In other times, it's the type of discussion that should be welcomed within the context of reviewing our complicated tax policy for ways to make it more manageable and more effectively progressive. It is the type of suggestion one might expect from a pair of chairmen of such a commission, one who is a partisan Republican ideologue and the other who is a self-involved Democrat Investment Banker.

    But forget even arguing the issue on its supposed merits. It doesn't take a Harvard economist to understand that this is crazy-talk in the midst of our present economic reality. To suggest that a proper response to the collapse of the housing market is the elimination of a longtime, de facto subsidy of that market segment simply defies any notion of common sense. It is akin to responding to the recent episode of the disabled cruise ship off Mexico by insisting that we should fire a shot into the bow, making certain we target it below the waterline. 

    Meanwhile, in Mother Jones Kevin Drum makes a very succinct case why this "bi-partisan" proposal is anything but reflective of the interests of both sides in the Class War that is ongoing between Wall Street and Main Street. This isn't a matter of the government looking for solutions to our problems, according to Drum. Instead, this is nothing more than the same old assault we've come to expect of the trickle-down Libertarian elite seeking their pound of flesh (and pounds of dollars) from the middle class and their social safety nets:

    "Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit."

    I highly recommend both articles linked above to gain a proper perspective on the value - or, more properly, the lack thereof - of this deficit reduction effort initiated by our Democrat President. In his failure to stand as a champion of Democratic principles that would insist on a full-throated Keynesian response to our economic crisis, Obama has instead played into the hands of the slash-and-burn Libertarian elite who would feed upon this crisis for their own personal enrichment.

    So where to from here?

    Well, it seems like the justification for good policy will keep bubbling forth despite every effort to suppress it, either directly or through the incompetence of fools and cowards charged with its promotion. Such is the case with Health Care Reform.

    In Kevin Drum's piece in Mother Jones, he includes a significant graph reproduced from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testimony submitted to the Obama Deficit Committee Hearing. The graph shows quite plainly the real threat we confront in terms of "exploding deficits" in our future. And guess what? Our real threat has little to do with discretionary spending. It has little to do with Social Security. What the graph shows is that increasing medical costs are having our lunch in our national budget, which happens to be the same impact it is having on our households, as well.

    Want to actually DO something about our exploding deficits? Then focus on legitimate Health Care Reform. That is the primary takeaway to be learned from the Debt Commission. Drum says:

    "To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious." 

    Likewise, the CBO points to rising health care costs as being a prime issue confronting those concerned with our deficits.

    "Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid - the federal government's major health care programs - will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs - which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices - is ultimately the nation's central long term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy" (my emphasis. I would also include VA benefits as one of the health-cost stressors the government faces going forward, especially as we confront the fallout of our increasingly perpetual wars.)

    Given our present economic reality, it was incredibly foolish for Obama to be bullied into forming this Deficit Commission and thus provide a rhetorical vehicle for the slash-and-burn neo-Hoovers to use in their effort to drive the middle class in America over a cliff.

    But it presents opportunity for Obama and the Dems to at last seize the high ground and use the facts of this report to make the case that we are on the right course already. As they proceed into the Lame Duck Session of Congress, we need to hear a unified voice from our Democrats declaring the following:

    • Rising health care costs represent a major portion of the federal budget that threatens to undermine our national security and limit our ability to control deficit-spending going forward. These same rising health care costs threaten the financial stability of every household in America as the middle class struggles to provide minimal health care coverage for their families.
    • In this Congress, we have successfully taken a substantial step forward in the effort to reform our health care system in an attempt to get these costs under control while ensuring that health care remains a universal right for all Americans.
    • We're now confronted with choices:
    • The Republicans will tell you we need to abandon the middle class and simply eliminate any responsibility the government has in providing long-standing social safety nets (like Social Security and Medicare) won by Democrats like FDR and LBJ in years past. The Republicans will tell you they prefer giving away over $700 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest among us rather than targeting those funds toward deficit reduction of a kind that will benefit American families across the board and for generations to come. The Republicans will continue selling the snake-oil of the last thirty years; will continue insisting that we must direct all our efforts at enriching the wealthiest among us with tax cuts and other giveaways; that, somehow, when the rich are finally sated we will at last all begin to benefit as objects of their largesse in some kind of perverse economic trickle-down.
    • We Democrats instead stand firm in our belief that this economic recovery and the future of this great nation depends upon our ability to stand together - shoulder to shoulder - as Americans who will not be bowed by economic adversity. We will not abandon our responsibility to one another as Americans, and we will grow strong once again through our efforts to meet these challenges with a unity of purpose and the strength of our combined efforts. And we know that the fiscal health of our government and our economy relies upon a the financial stability and growth of our middle class.
    • The Deficit Reduction Commission has now shown that we are on the right path in targeting health care costs as the first step in addressing our fiscal responsibilities to this generation of Americans and all those that will follow. It is for this reason that we Democrats now insist that Health Care Reform remain inviolate. We move forward in refining and improving our initial efforts at Health Care Reform, and we refocus our entire financial recovery efforts away from giveaways to the rich and instead look for ways to directly alleviate the suffering and insecurity that is now experienced by the vast majority of Americans.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already signaled a willingness to work with Republicans in addressing some of the tweaks that need to be made of the Health Care Reform measure passed by this Congress. In particular, she has pointed to a willingness to change the "Form 1099" reporting requirements that have been shown to impose a hardship on small businesses. The Health Care Reform Act is a comprehensive and complex enterprise, as was the passage of Social Security and Medicare in their time. For this reason, we will forever be dynamically engaged in fine-tuning this effort and making certain that it successfully meets the needs of the people.

    But we aren't going back. The Repubs have stated their intention to demolish this effort in favor of the status quo ante, which the Deficit Commission has now clearly shown to be unsustainable. Instead, we look forward to working with those who believe Liberty and Justice are not simply slogans to be purchased on the open market, but are instead the guaranteed birthright of all Americans. Health Care Reform - targeted to make health care affordable for all Americans - is a step in the right direction in guaranteeing those rights still accrue to all in our society. And the report from the Deficit Commission now shows that it also protects and preserves our ability to sustain the blessings of Liberty for generations of Americans to come.

    Of course, the preceding assumes that we are at last invested with Democratic leaders who actually understand the message of these last two elections. America grows desperate in need of political leaders who actually have sufficient courage to truly "Change the Way Washington Does Business." Do the Democrats at last find their principles in place of their campaign finance pocketbooks? Or do we revert once again to the pay-to-play politics-as-usual that has dragged us all so low these last thirty-plus years, and which George (No, the OTHER George!) warned us about in his prescience:

    I look forward to the discussion.

    Comments

    When the Catfood Commission comes out with its recommendations the Washington Post editorial page can reliably be counted on to sermonize about how much political courage it will take Obama to embrace and fight for its recommendations.  It will be roughly as passionate about that as it was unpesistent about the need to press on for fully adequate financial reform. 

    In other words it will label as political courage what is wrong and dangerous what is right.  Welcome to the world of Washington, where these days in official, received opinion circles right is wrong, and wrong is right.


    I guess it's time to invest in Meow Mix futures ... Everyone supports standing up together, it's the falling down together possibility they find untenable.


    Excellent post with good suggestions for how this blasted commission's work product might be redirected to some useful purpose.  Also, lots of good language. 

    Should the $700 billion in tax cuts be used for deficit reduction now?  Is that stepping on part of the message, which is the need for more stimulus now, not less?


    Great questions, AD. The message should be that the Dems have already taken responsible steps toward fiscal responsibility by passing Health Care Reform, thus framing HCR as a successfully responsible accomplishment that has been made DESPITE the opposition of the Republicans. The Dems are about providing solutions to our nation's problems. The Repubs think the solution to anything is "every man for himself, and may the best man win."

    The work that should be focused upon subsequent to the Commission Report would involve structural fixes of the program, not "deficit reduction" per se. Pelosi's expressed willingness to fix the 1099 issue is one such common sense fix of a very complex program. I'm certain there are others that can be accomplished as well without additional fiscal impact. The Dems should highlight these efforts as their willingness to work together with the GOP to address legitimate concerns about this program and make it more responsive to the needs of the elctorate. But this focus also serves to draw a line in the sand beyond which the Dems will not compromise. The Dems will not allow the Republicans to drag us back to status quo ante and eliminate this effort for reason that the Commission has shown such a course to be fiscally irresponsible. We ain't going back. We're moving forward.

    The overall message, as I see it, needs to be that the Republicans promote a continuation - nay, an acceleration - of their crazed trickle-down nonsense that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Everything they propose (tax cuts for the rich; giveaways to bankers and lobbyists; elimination of social safety nets; "Free Trade" agreements instead of "Fair Trade" measures; "Nuclear Wasteful Spending"; etc.) are top-loaded solutions that enrich the wealthy but do nothing to actually relieve the pain and anxiety of the middle class. Trickle-down Reaganomics has been an interesting thirty-year experiment that has failed America, and it's time to put responsible adults in charge of fighting for the middle class and returning fiscal sanity to our economic policies. THAT'S what Democrats are about, and they need to send this message loud and clear if we are ever going to get back to any notion of economic justice within our fiscal policies.

    For far too long, the Dems have cowered before those who complain that such rhetoric is "socialist" or that it is "Class Warfare." They have comported themselves as vampires who shrink and cringe when confronted with the "crucifix" of laissez faire capitalism. It's past time to stand tall in defiance instead.

    "Why, that's Class War you're talking!" the Republicans will predictably complain.

    At long last, the proper response from the Dems will be "And just what is your point? It's about time someone stands on the side of the American family in this ongoing assault that has been waged against their financial security and their better interests. Which side are YOU on?"


    You're absolutely right. We need to use an IV line and pipe that response directly into the bloodstream of every Dem politician.

    I just don't understand why such statements seem so obvious to us and never seem to occur to the Dems running for or holding office.  Maybe it's time we shook up the Dems with our own inter-squad movement questioning the Dems leadership.


    I believe arguments such as that are known, and even believed, by many liberal politicians. 

    The real reasons more don't pursue such courses of action, I believe, are several, among them the following:

    *they don't believe the public that agrees will have their back.  What they observe is too many people who might well agree if they were engaged have tuned out and disengaged, leaving the playing field disproportionately to the special interests and people who are angry and all fired up to vote GOP by the GOP Spin Machine. (made far harder for them when a Dem White House does not use the Bully Pulpit effectively to explain itself on its own terms well and connect with ordinary peoples' concerns) 

    *they know that the liberal side, although it is making progress thru groups such as Media Matters, does not yet have a Spin (we like it call it small "t" truth) Machine of its own that can compete as effectively as the one the GOP has built up. 

    *liberal activists have different issue priorities, waste precious time quibbling with one another too often, and have a hard time agreeing enough even to mobilize a serious advocacy effort.   Politicians considering sticking their necks perceive a fragmentation of effort that leads to less effective advocacy supporting the tough stances they might otherwise like to take. 

    *liberal activists in the blogosphere and elsewhere are seen as quick to criticize and beat them up, sometimes on the basis of incomplete or even factually incorrect information about what they have actually done, but not as quick to help them take on the opposition.

    *liberal politicians themselves often disagree with one another and have difficulty coalescing firmly and persistently around a shared strategy of any sort, even when a critical mass are willing and ready to take on a particular issue at a particular time

    These are some of the candid reasons liberal politicians who agree with much of the substance of the points of view expressed above would cite, I believe, if they felt able to say so without making their situation worse.

    All of this is amenable to change.  And some of it has changed for the better in recent years.


    Thanks, AD, for your well-considered comments. Please look to my response to "we are stardust" (below) for additional perspective.

    I think the single most important limitation on the Democrats' ability to actually embrace the "Class War" message is their fear of pulling free from the corporate teat. This is not an unreasonable fear. In a system wherein money is "speech," our Dem pols can be forgiven their anxiety over potentially killing the golden goose that supports their increasingly more expensive political campaigns.

    But we are now at a very dangerous crossroads in our history, and we can no longer afford the gamesmanship that allows for half-measures designed to appease both the Democratic base and the wealthy oligarchs. The Dems can no longer afford the luxury of serving two constituencies - the middle-class wage earners AND the wealthy campaign contributors. It truly is time for "Change We Can Believe In." And it begins by sticking it in the neck of the corporate campaign contributors and casting the Democrats' lot with the honorable opposition in this Class War at last.

    It's an extremely dangerous move in political terms. But the present duopoly (H/T to was) is untenable if we are ever to realize the benefits of democratic rule in our lifetime. It's time to embrace the drastic option of turning our backs on easy access to campaign contributions in favor of defending democratic (small "d") principles, and to see if a change in direction can at last steer us away from the precipice to which we are presently headed.

    Ultimately, the relevant question centers upon the people's ability to support a political party that will stand tall against those who would oppress and "own" them. Can this support be effectively mobilized in the face of all the money and riches and power that will be allayed against them? I wish I could say with confidence that the answer is "Yes!" But I can say that we will never know unless we try. And the alternative of surrendering in this Class War without a fight is simply too depressing to consider. 


    I love your verve, and I love most of your conclusions.  I've even a bit envious of your faith in Dems.  On the other hand, LOL, I woke at 4 and read this about America's Duopololy, then went on to read everything I could find on the subject of my diary today, the possiblity that MERS will be validated as a mortgage registrar, and be protected from legal financial recourse.

    So I'm a bit more iffy on Dems Doing the Right Thing right now.  Cool  Keep Feingold going strong during the Lame Duck session; he's a good 'un!  He may be able to lead on this MERS shite, if it is fact in the works.  The Robo-signing bill passed, and Obama was affected by a massive amount of objections comong into the WH switchboard and email inbox.

    Good take on health care as being such a huge debilitating factor to our economic health, too.


    I think you are aware that I am keenly aware that there is little reason to have faith in the Democrat pols as presently constituted. And I make this point in the blog post at its conclusion. George Carlin has it right about who owns the government, and this point is heartily reinforced in the "America's Duopoly" link.

    My suggestion here arises from a fact that it is a duopoly; that there is room for only two parties in this republican (small "r") form of government. My further point is that there are two sides to the very real Class War that has been visited upon the middle class. Our only hope, therefore, is that one of the two entities engaged in the duopoly be inspired (forced?) to disengage from the circle-jerk-dance and actually take the opposing side in this supposed two-party system. The Dems are all we've got. They're the logical candidate to stand in the arena in opposition to the corporate oligarchy. And I stand by my suggestions for the message (followed by consistent action) they need to adopt in defense of the middle class in this ongoing assault we suffer at the hands of the monied interests.

    My faith - such that it is - is predicated on a belief that the corruption of this system is an anomaly that can be corrected if only we all accept our responsibility to "own" our government rather than surrender it to the oligarchs. We are all collectively "We, the People" after all. They may have the guns (or the money, as it is), but we've got the numbers. It's about time someone points that out, and inspires the true patriots among us to regain control of this corrupt system that has supplanted our legitimate democracy. And it begins by securing a political party that envisions a future in actually choosing to fight for our side while letting the bastards be damned to choke on their money and their hubris.


    Lord luv a duck, Jeezus; I didn't mean to sound critical: I do know what you know ang get.  I am just feeling so less than enthusiastic for hope of changing it, and am in awe at the moment at your strength and hard-charging rhetoric.

    So for now, there's a Lame Duck session of two or three weeks, depending?  So we need to make a whole hell of a lot of calls, and connect with each other and hope the unions get jazzed up, and Indies and whomever start seeing things more as us v. the Money Class.  I sure wonder what will be the agenda for the LD session; Pelosi will be key to so much.

    The man we hired to be President just called for a three-year spending freeze in his Saturday radio/internet address, and will support earmark reform.  Kinda going right of most Republicans. Dunno exactly waht a freeze means, but I'm pretty sure that means no jobs bill, and the small business bank sitting where it is..a bad time for government not to spend money.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/crossing-gops-obama-calls-earmark-reform-threeyear-spending-freeze/

     


    YeeGads! I wish LBJ were around to pay a little visit to the Oval Office. For all his faults, the former President knew politics. He'd chew Obama a new ass, telling him to get up off the floor and fight like a man.

    Aw, hell, I guess I'll tell him myself. Time to send another goddam email to add to the collection.


    I was watching television last night when a commercial came on showing a generic politician giving a stump speech with fans in front of the podium holding signs.  I mute all commercials so I didn't hear any of the audio, but I watched it to the end because I wondered what idiot product would put on a commecial that looked like one of the political ads everyone was so thoroughly sick of during the midterm campaigns.  Turned out it was the Pete Peterson's foundation trying to keep the tea kettle simmering for debt reduction.  At least they added  a line claiming credit for it.  I can't imagine that it was effective given the timing, but then it would never have seemed effective to me because I disagree that the issue is priority at the moment, or if at all.

    Anyway, it seems the push is on from old Pete, Erskine, and Alan and the rest of the gang.  I thought it was very strange and pointedly partisan that the two chairs released their manifesto without any agreement at all from the rest of the commission and most particularly when Obama was out of the country.  The opponents are obviously trying to keep him off balance.

    /FDRdog


    Yeah, hugh Jidette (as in 'huge debt', ha ha ha.)  Josh has it up.  I put the websire up a couple days ago after the ad freaked me out.  Apparently they have huge buys in lots of markets, plus billboards.  Get people thinkin' right about the debt, they'll be dyin' ta be heroic, and give up their saftey nets!


    Sorry, we are, I've been away from the computer and didn't see your post.  hugh jidette, that's the blowhards name?  Aren't they clever.


    It wasn't a 'sorry' thing; I jst meant to convey it was so effective, and so great at cementing the meme that I poked around about it.  Hell; I can't even remember whose diary I stuck it all on!  'They' are much better at selling a message, even if it means supporting it ruins your life.  I swear. 

    Looks like Lux's list is pretty good, though I already forgot if it incluses taxes on every financial transaction. 

    And welcome back. AmiBlue.  Wink


    Mike Lux at Open Left has a few ideas to eliminate the deficit.

    You could write a deficit reduction plan, as well as a plan to shore up Social Security (the two are very different things) that would garner pretty broad support from the American people. On Social Security, a very minor adjustment- raising the cap on payroll taxes- would keep Social Security solvent through the end of this century. On the deficit itself, there are a whole set of options to dramatically reduce the deficit that garner clear majority support in the public polling on economic issues, including:

    1. Increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires.  
    2. Imposing a financial transactions tax on Wall Street speculation.
    3. Ending a wide array of corporate tax loopholes for things like overseas investment.
    4. Ending corporate agribusiness subsidies larded into the farm bill.
    5. Ending loopholes and subsidies of various kinds to the big energy companies.
    6. Reforming the government contracting process to end no-bid contracting, impose penalties on cost over-runs, and cut down on excessive bonuses.
    7. Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the big pharmaceutical companies.
    8. Having a vigorous public option to provide competition for health insurers.

    Depending on the level you did them at, all of these items would bring in or save tens of billions of dollars a year, some of them hundreds of billions.

    Not that anyone in Washington these days gives a wet slap about the Middle Class anymore.


    I think the real objection from the right towards maintaining the social safety net is not even so much to protect the entrenched interests of the healthcare sector so much as it is the action of an avaricious eye cast on all the wealth that is removed from the "free enterprise" system by these programs.  Just loosening up the amount of wealth captured by these federal programs, and removed from any possibility of being able to support and inflate whatever the next "bubble", (read: middle class  wealth extraction device), happens to be would benefit these robber barons immensely.  This is probably also the right's biggest problem with any healthcare plan that didn't entrench the insurance companies, whose role in the finance sector is as significant as the banks themselves.  Finance rulz, and all others be damned.  Thanks for the post SJ.  Never know.  Maybe there will be a populist uprising someday, but the questions being asked rarely reflect the real issues that should be under consideration.  That's the real problem with trying to get the Dems to act meaningfully.  The public debate is like a sleight of hand in which one hand, (public political discourse), distracts while the other hand is busy picking the pockets of middle class Americans in the long run.


    Latest Comments