A new Dem threat to health care law

By: Manu Raju February 7, 2011 07:35 PM EST

A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama’s health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections. They haven’t decided whether to propose legislation, but any effort by moderate Democrats that takes aim at the individual mandate could embarrass Obama and embolden Republicanswho are still maneuvering to take down the health care law. And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules. The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana — all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008. The goal is to lay down a record of bipartisan compromises with Republicans, but it could also put Obama at odds with key centrists, right at the moment the president himself is looking to forge a more centrist path. And their efforts could put Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) at a potential disadvantage on key votes. The Senate leader has to protect 23 Democratic seats next year, giving moderates and swing-state Democrats plenty of leeway to prove their independence, but he also has to worry about keeping a unified front for the party ahead of the presidential election. With only 53 Democrats leading the thin Senate majority, if three or four break away on any key issue, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could in some cases claim a simple majority. The Democratic moderates said they’re not concerned about how their positioning will affect their party’s overarching political strategy. “I’m not worried about the politics of this; I’m worried about the substance of it,” McCaskill said. “My goal has always been pretty simple: affordable, accessible, private-market insurance for people in America who want insurance. The politics of this are hard; it’s just easier to stay focused on the substance because that’s what matters.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats face a “dilemma.” But there’s a political complication for Republican leaders as well. Some in GOP circles fear that by teaming up with Democratic moderates, they could give these Democrats bipartisan cover that would help them in 2012. Some Republicans are quietly warning colleagues not to work with vulnerable Democrats in the first place. This comes after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) teamed up with McCaskill to back a proposal that would dramatically cut spending over the next decade and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) worked with Manchin to repeal a small-business reporting provision in the health care law. “It would be one thing if they were collaborating with Democrats on issues [for] which they’ve long shared an alliance,” a senior GOP aide said. “But there needs to be a recognition that this is not about principle for these vulnerable Senate Democrats. It’s all about election cycle gamesmanship, and our side shouldn’t be handing them political cover.” The Democratic moderates strongly refuted suggestions that their positioning is being influenced by electoral politics. “I truly believe all bills need to be bipartisan,” said Manchin, a freshman who won the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat in a special election last year. The individual mandate and efforts to overhaul it would certainly gain the most attention, especially if moderate Democrats teamed up with Republicans, something that would be a clear rebuke of the core of Obama’s health care law. For now, it’s unclear whether they’ll even offer a bill, but moderates are certainly open to it. Democrats justify the provision by arguing that it’s meant to ensure that individuals don’t drain the health care system by waiting until they are sick to purchase coverage — particularly now that the new law prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. The provision has become one of the most controversial of an already-controversial law, especially in red states, where Republicans have seized on recent court rulings to characterize it as an unconstitutional federal power grab. Nelson, who faces a tough road to win a third term next year, asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to outline alternatives to the mandate, potentially by bringing large numbers of people into insurance coverage through open and closed enrollment periods. He may offer legislation once the congressional scorekeepers report back to him. “This is about making it better,” Nelson said. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it.” Nelson fired back at GOP critics who said he’s trying to distance himself from the law. “What’s their plan? Is their plan, 'hope you don’t get sick'?” Last year in Missouri, voters approved a ballot measure to nullify the federal health care law — and McCaskill is well-aware of the unpopularity of the individual mandate in her state. In an interview, McCaskill said she’d “love to” modify the mandate and is “looking at different ways to try to” extend coverage without a mandate. “We’re running numbers to see how many new people we can get into the pool with something less than a mandate, something that would be more limited enrollment periods with severe financial penalties for not signing up.” McCaskill added that an alternative “may not be workable; it may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it. But I think we should explore it.” Tester said his Western rural state of Montana is “libertarian in nature,” which he said explains the unpopularity of the individual mandate. The first-term Democrat said he’d be “open” to overhauling that provision if there’s an alternative that makes access to health care more affordable. Unlike the other three senators, Manchin wasn’t in Congress to cast a vote on the legislation, though he voted last week with the rest of his Democratic colleagues against GOP efforts to repeal the entire law. But he’s looking to make other changes to the law, including paring back the state Medicaid expansion that covers insurance costs for lower-income families. Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. With federal spending issues expected to dominate the early battles between the GOP House and the Democratic Senate, a number of senators up for reelection are staking out hawkish stances on the debt. In early December, Democrats wrote to Obama and congressional leaders and called for tougher steps to reduce the budget deficit, including several who are facing reelection next year, like McCaskill, Tester, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper. With bipartisan discussions led by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) now under way, endangered Democrats could very well jump on board whatever proposal eventually emerges to slash the debt. In the meantime, some Democrats — like Colorado Sen. Mark Udall — aren’t waiting for an upcoming election to get in front of the spending issue. In recent weeks, Udall has co-sponsored a GOP constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance its budget, has taken a hawkish stand against earmarks, signed onto Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s plan to give the president line-item veto authority and is pushing for an up-or-down vote on the presidential deficit commission’s proposals. And he was the driving force behind the push for Democrats and Republicans to sit next to one another at last month’s State of the Union address. Udall said his recent push has nothing to do with moderating his image ahead of his 2014 reelection effort. “What I heard from the voters is to focus on jobs, get the debt [under] control and work together,” Udall said. “And what I’ve been doing the last month reflects what the voters said.”

Voodoo Economics: Debt Central

There are numerous links that you can check out and see more graphs and information

The National Debt — Where Did it Come From?

In 1981, the country had just elected Reagan to cure the "all-time-high, Trillion-Dollar debt." But compared with the size of the American economy, the debt was at its lowest point in fifty years (see graph just below). Reagan was duped by the "supply siders" and his greatest "disappointment" was adding $1.6 trillion to the $1T debt he said was catastrophic.

     Now, here's the new slide show that explains what happened step by step. In case you have questions, it's documented here.  And if you agree that this story really needs telling, we hope you'll tell your friends.

The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see documented here. WWII caused the debt to shoot up, starting in 1942, and reach 30% higher relative to the country's wealth than it is today. The economic stimulus of that government spending pulled us out of the great depression and into high gear to win the war. (When to save / when to borrow.)

... The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step with inflation and the economy—if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a president who said he'd do far better than those before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP. By the end of the Reagan-Bush 12-year "revolution," the extra debt they had piled on the country was costing the country an extra 2.6% of GDP in interest—$300 million a day. Without that interest working against him, Clinton would have paid down the debt a bit faster. That helps the green-line goes down in the Clinton years. That's what would have happened without the Reagan-Bush interest burden. Now if W. Bush had held the line as all non-supply side presidents had done, the national debt would have been only 21% of GDP, and the country would have been ready to pull itself out of the Great Recession with ease. In fact when W. Bush's last budget year ended we would have had $9 Trillion less in debt. So how did Reagan, the great debt-slasher, go so far wrong? Partly it was his belief in supply-side "economics." This "theory" claims that when the government cuts taxes, especially taxes on corporations and the rich, it makes them so happy to keep more of their money that they work much harder, get richer, and pay even more taxes than before the tax cut. So the lower the tax rate, the more money the government collects to pay down the debt! Believe that happy talk, and you can run up quite debt. Of course the rich loved this "theory" and fed the press many stories about the wonders of the new supply-side "economics" (cooked up by Laffer, as a graduate student). Money talks, and a lot of people listened. It's time to rethink what radical conservatives have done and are doing to our country. The Reagan-Bushes National Debt now totals $9.2 trillion. That's the lions share of our present debt.

US National Debt Graph:  What They Never Tell You

Debt Compared to National Income Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America. In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay. Is this just Republicans vs. Democrats? Not quite, see: voodoo economics. It's a terrible thing to scare America about its debt when we're doing great and then send the debt through the roof for no reason. So the supply siders invented another lie — Congress did. As this graph shows, Congress changed the presidents' budgets only a tiny bit and more down than up — by $16 billion over Reagan's eight years. And over those eight years Reagan increased the debt by $1,860 billion. Blaming that on the tiny budget reductionby Congress is just political nonsense.More+Documentation.

Explanation and Check It Yourself This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.) Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident. The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they've scared America again about the debt. It's easier now that they've run it through the roof.

See the Full Slide Show above The Present Danger The Great Depression lasted about 12 years with business conservatives scaring people about inflation (there was none) and about government borrowing (negligible until WWII). Now the supply siders are keeping us in the Great Recession the same way. So What Worked? World War II. Uncle Sam (the U.S. government) borrowed the equivalent of 10.5 Trillion (see top graph) and bought war goods from private industry. Supply siders say this creates no jobs. But industry hired Rosey the Riveter and millions more. Unemployment ended with over-employment. The U.S. had its greatest economic boom ever — by far. It doubled output in six years. Back then we had real Patriots. They loved Uncle Sam and they bought war bonds to help him borrow to hire people and win the war. Now people, who hate Uncle Sam almost as much as Al Qaeda, call themselves Patriots. They should call themselves Hateriots. But they have just been duped by the Wall Streeters who invented supply-side economics -- and who have been telling us lies for 30 years. America is about to vote the supply siders and hateriots into Congress. They will give tax cuts to the rich, which is what got us into debt. And though the rich will spend a bit more on gardeners, nannies, and yachts, the country will have nothing to show for this extra debt. It's simply immoral to give more tax cuts to today's rich so the next generation can pay for them. $12 trillion of this voodoo taxing of the future is enough. But the real patriots of WWII, who borrowed and spent and gave 400,000 lives for their country, showed us the way. Another lie: Spending now won't work because it's not for war. That's what the Wall Streeters tell us so we'll give them tax breaks instead. But does it help future generations more to build battle ships or to fix our bridges and dams? Does it help the economy more to put our men to work at home or send them to die in France? It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous claim than the one that spending for war is more productive than spending on infrastructure and education for our future. Supply-side "voodoo" economics is an immoral trick of thievery, designed for today's rich at the expense of the future. It hoodwinks many by offering the middle class some of the booty — the rich get the big tax cuts, but hey, the middle class can have some too, also at the expense of the future. The result of falling for this, is an out-of-control debt that scares us into staying in recession and will soon be used to kill social security and Medicare — which the rich don't need. It's time to put America back to work. Let's say thanks to our real patriots who showed us how.

‘Christians and Muslims, We Are All Egyptians’

by Reza Aslan 02-07-2011

While much of the prognostication about Egypt’s future has focused on the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the threat that it could pose to Egypt’s Christian minority, one need only view the massive demonstrations that have roiled the streets of Cairo, Suez, and Alexandria to recognize that this is a multi-faith movement against a regime whose brutality and repression have been felt by Muslims and Christians alike. Indeed, when the dust of this crisis finally settles, the most iconic image of the protests against the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak may be that of the Christians who formed a human chain around Muslim protesters in Tahrir Square, so that they could safely perform their Friday prayers.

That image of Christians protecting Muslims at prayer calls to mind a similar event that took place last year, after the bombing of Saints Church in Alexandria by a (non-Egyptian) member of an al-Qaeda affiliated group from Gaza known as the Army of Islam. Lost in the media frenzy that followed that despicable act, which left 21 dead, was the fact that a few days later thousands of Egyptian Muslims gathered at Coptic Churches across the country, forming human chains of protection around their Christian countrymen as they observed Christmas Eve mass. In the words of one Egyptian Muslim at the gatherings: “This is not about us and them. We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.” According to the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, in the days following the attack, solidarity between Muslims and Christians in Egypt soared as millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent: the symbol of unified Egypt.

The same image of the cross within a crescent has been ubiquitous on the streets of Egypt these last two weeks, as thousands of Christians have joined their Muslim brethren to call for an end to Mubarak’s regime. “We came here to show that every Egyptian should be here and wants to be here,” said one Egyptian Christian taking part in the demonstrations. “There is no difference between Christians and Muslims [on this matter].” When some members of the Muslim Brotherhood began chanting their group’s slogan — “Islam is the Solution” — at a recent protest, they were drowned out by Egyptian youth chanting: “Christians and Muslims, we are all Egyptians.” And when Egypt’s notoriously corrupt police forces fled the streets of Cairo, Muslims and Christians joined together to form neighborhood committees to provide security to one another.

The protests against Mubarak, like the attack on Saints Church, seem to have brought the the Muslim and Christian communities closer together. As one young demonstrator explained to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm,“Mubarak is the one who created a ‘fitna’ [rift] between the Muslims and the Christians in Egypt over the past 30 years.” Of course, it remains to be seen whether this solidarity will last into the formation of a new government once Mubarak leaves. But what cannot be denied is that the aspiration for freedom and democracy, and the desire to be freed from the yoke of dictatorship, are sentiments shared by all Egyptians, no matter where they pray.

Dr. Reza Aslan, an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions, is a contributing editor at the Daily Beast. Aslan is President and CEO of Aslan Media Inc, whose holdings include BoomGen Studios, a mini-motion picture and media company focused entirely on entertainment about the Greater Middle East and its Diaspora communities. Born in Iran, he now lives in Los Angeles where he is Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.