 | |
 Facebook is downplaying the partisan aspects of the president's visit on Wednesday. | AP Photo | |
| SAN FRANCISCO — President Barack Obama and Facebook both have a lot to gain when he holds a town hall meeting at the company’s Palo Alto headquarters Wednesday. Obama can burnish his high-tech, “win the future” image by tying himself to Facebook ahead of the 2012 campaign. And Facebook can signal that it’s a serious player on the national stage by hosting the president ahead of a much-expected IPO. “This is the ultimate accolade of the emergence of Facebook,” said Peter Sealey, a business consultant who sat on Facebook’s advisory board back when the company had just 18 employees. “The president gets to talk directly to potential voters. Facebook gets incredible validation. It’s a win-win.” Well, maybe. Political consultants and brand managers says politicians and companies put themselves at risk when they become linked in the public eye. Think Dick Cheney and Halliburton. George W. Bush and Enron. Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart. And, increasingly, Obama and Google. Obama’s Facebook event is “political product placement — with the president seeking to leverage Silicon Valley's innovation, future, entrepreneur brand and the companies seeking to benefit from being associated with the most powerful office of the most powerful country,” said Chris Lehane, a political consultant to Democrats and unions who worked in the White House in the Clinton years. “Of course,” Lehane added, “the perils of such a mutual leveraging for the president is if a company does something that turns it into an Enron or BP and for the companies if they become defined as partisan in the way Halliburton or Koch was closely linked to the Bush White House and Republican Party." “It’s honorable for any company to host a president,” said Aaron McLear, GOP political consultant and former spokesman for then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, he added, “Large companies try to appeal to a mass audience and it’s smart of them to be nonpartisan. Administrations change. You want to have relationships and dialog with anyone in power. The better relationships you have with people in power, the better chance you have in getting things done for your company.” Facebook is downplaying the partisan aspects of Obama’s visit Wednesday. In a statement, a Facebook spokesman said: “We’re honored that President Obama will be visiting Facebook next week and will be using our platform to communicate directly with an international audience. More broadly, we’re heartened that political figures are using Facebook to organize and reach people in a direct, personal, simple way that was unimaginable a decade ago.” As the spokesman suggested, Facebook has friends on both sides of the aisle. Among the politicians who have visited the company's headquarters are former President George W. Bush and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are among those who have appeared on Facebook Live, the company's live-streaming channel. Facebook says it is “happy to consider other types of non-fundraising visits to Facebook headquarters by political candidates, elected and government officials.” But the company isn’t blind to political reality — and it has shown some sensitivity to the notion that it’s taking sides. Facebook’s D.C. office, for example, now has ties to the Obama and Bush administrations. The company recently hired Marne Levine, former chief of staff of Obama’s National Economics Council, as its new vice president of global public policy. But it also hired Cathie Martin, a former top aide for Bush and Cheney, as its director of public policy. Still, the Facebook-Obama connection is strong. Obama used Facebook in his 2008 campaign with the help of a Facebook co-founder who took a leave of absence to join the campaign. Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, who used to be at Google, sits on the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. In February, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg ditched his hoodie for a necktie and had dinner with Obama and other Valley leaders at the home of venture capitalist John Doerr. Wednesday’s town hall — one of several on Obama’s schedule this week — will focus on “the tough choices we must all make in order to put our economy on a more responsible fiscal path, while still investing in areas like innovation that will help our economy grow and make America more competitive,” according to the description on Facebook. The White House tried Monday to drum up interest in the event by posting a video in which Obama encourages people to “take a break from either friending or de-friending each other” to RSVP for the event on the White House’s Facebook page. Ironically, the White House posted the video on YouTube — which is owned by Obama’s old BFF, Google. Journalist Steven Levy, the author of the new Google bio “In the Plex,” said it must be a “strange feeling” for Google to have its “suitor” going “somewhere else” on the trip west. But others say it’s Facebook that should worry more about playing favorites. Sam Singer, president of the reputation and issues-management firm Singer Associates, said Facebook should follow up on the Obama event by hosting GOP presidential contenders as part of a “self-imposed fairness doctrine.” This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:32 a.m. on April 19, 2011 |
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Are Obama, Facebook too friendly?
President Holds Facebook Town Hall
WASHINGTON, DC
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
President Obama is on day two of a three-day campaign-style tour to tout his plan for the federal deficit and take questions from voters.
Today, the president held a town hall via Facebook at the social media website's headquarters in Palo Alto, California. According to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, President Obama is "one of the most popular people on Facebook." with more than 19 million fans.
He spoke to the crowd of Facebook employees and more than 45,000 people who posted on their Facebook page that they were attending via the social media site about his plans for the deficit, immigration, energy and education.
When asked by a Facebook employee in the audience to reflect on his presidency, Obama said he would like to look forward at things he still wants to accomplish. He said, "Getting our debts and deficits under control in a balanced way has to happen." About immigration, he said "I care deeply," and that comprehensive immigration reform is a priority.
At a town hall gathering at a community college in northern Virginia Tuesday, Obama said his proposal to cut spending by $4 trillion in 12 years is a balanced approach to reducing the deficit.
He said reducing the deficit needs to be a "shared sacrifice" and that the "wealthiest Americans" should see a tax increase. He floated the idea of raising the social security tax beyond the first $106,000 of income.
As for spending cuts, the president said wasteful and ineffective programs should be cut from domestic and defense spending. But he told the crowd of college students and professors that priorities need to be protected. He proposed increased spending in transportation infrastructure, renewable energy and education to stay competitive.
Comparing his plan to the budget the Republican-led House of Representatives passed last week, President Obama said, "The debate isn't about whether we reduce the deficit, the debate is about how we reduce the deficit."
The Republican budget cuts up to $6 trillion dollars over the next decade by cutting spending and shrinking Medicare and Medicaid.
The Facebook Town Hall was moderated by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Later in the day, he will host two fundraisers. Thursday he will hold another town hall in Reno, Nevada.
Updated: 3 hr., 10 min. ago
Republican pitches raising health fees for elderly / State congressman says it's a trade-off for prescription bil
2003-10-25 04:00:00 PST Washington -- America's seniors must begin to pay a larger share of their health care costs if Medicare is to remain solvent, the chairman of the congressional committee that is striving to overhaul Medicare said Friday.
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, said it is up to Republican lawmakers to deliver that message by imposing additional costs on Medicare beneficiaries in return for adding prescription drug coverage to the program.
Thomas spoke to reporters at the end of another negotiating session attended by House and Senate lawmakers, Bush administration health care officials and congressional aides. The conference committee has been working since July to forge a compromise between House- and Senate-passed versions of legislation that would add prescription drugs to Medicare.
"The current program is not sustainable," Thomas said repeatedly, referring to a government trustees' report released earlier this year that predicted the Medicare trust fund for hospital expenses would go broke in 2026.
Given that, he said, adding a $400 billion drug benefit to the program without finding a way to control the government's costs would be "fiscally irresponsible."
Conferees said earlier in the week that they would produce a draft agreement by Friday. On Friday, Thomas predicted a final agreement by the middle of next week. The House and Senate could vote on a final Medicare bill in mid-November.
In an effort to keep the program afloat, negotiators are likely to agree to make wealthier seniors pay more for outpatient services, index Medicare premiums to inflation and require traditional Medicare to compete with private health plans, Thomas said.
"All of these very difficult decisions are being faced by a Congress controlled by Republicans on both sides," he said.
Thomas' remarks revealed few specifics of his committee's movement toward a compromise Medicare bill. But coming at the end of another week of partisan wrangling over a prescription drug benefit, they signaled his determination to produce a bill that includes some form of Medicare privatization and increased costs to beneficiaries, provisions strongly opposed by Democrats.
"One of the costs of getting (a final bill) is to address the long-term insolvency of the Medicare program," he said.
In a letter to President Bush, 41 senators -- including one Republican and an independent -- said Thursday that "a restructuring of Medicare that could raise the premiums of the elderly and coerce them to join HMOs, PPOs, or other private insurance plans is unacceptable."
One of the two Democratic lawmakers Thomas has allowed to attend committee meetings said Friday that he expected a controversial House-passed competition provision to be dropped from a final bill.
"The 800-pound gorilla has not been wrestled to the floor," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed that lawmakers had not really tackled the competition issue. But House Republicans predicted that a final bill would include some form of private competition.
Senate Medicare battle looms / Prescription drug measure squeaks through House
2003-11-23 04:00:00 PST Washington -- A fierce political battle over the biggest expansion of Medicare since the program's creation in 1965 will move to the Senate on Monday, after House Republicans and the Bush administration early Saturday quashed a conservative rebellion to pass a $400 billion prescription drug benefit.
"In the nearly 40 years since Medicare was launched, this is the most significant opportunity for any Congress to improve health coverage for our seniors," President Bush declared in his Saturday radio address.
Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are expected to tip the balance, it will be the first time that the giant health care program for the elderly has offered coverage of prescription drugs, now a vital component of modern medicine.
Starting in 2006, the legislation would provide Medicare's 43 million seniors and disabled the option of purchasing a prescription drug benefit for $35 a month with a $250 deductible. They also have the option of joining a private health plan such as a preferred provider organization that would provide a drug benefit as part of broad health care coverage.
The cliffhanger vote in the House, after a three-hour roll call, capped a contentious debate and some heavy pressure from Bush, who lobbied reluctant Republicans from Air Force One on his way back from England to push the bill over the finish line.
With Bush's help, GOP leaders, offering still unknown deals to individual members, finally pressured enough lawmakers, including Democrats, to change their votes to prevail 220-215. However, the Bay Area delegation voted along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.
What may be most remarkable about the battle over the proposed prescription drug benefit is the way in which both liberals and conservatives have lined up against the historic expansion of the Great Society's most popular entitlement program, which the White House views as critical to Bush's re-election campaign.
So intense is the unified liberal and conservative opposition that Republican leaders at one point actually had lost the pivotal House floor in an extraordinary battle that began Saturday morning at 3 a.m. and did not conclude until nearly three hours later.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who made defeat of the Medicare bill the fight of her party, nearly managed to get enough votes to deal Bush a stunning defeat, thanks to the unlikely support of conservative Republicans.
Accusing the bill's supporters of a 40-year campaign to destroy Medicare, Pelosi called the measure "the beginning of the end of Medicare as we know it. " For their part, the conservative Republicans see the plan as an enormous expansion of a huge entitlement program that neither privatizes Medicare nor creates other substantial market reforms.Amid this pitched battle, it is hard to decipher just what the legislation would actually do.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson called the proposal "one of the most complex pieces of legislation that Congress will ever vote on. "
Sen. Hillary Clinton held up on the Senate floor a crazy patchwork of arrows and lines to mock the legislation as a Rube Goldberg contraption -- precisely the tactic that her own opponents used to crater her ill-fated national health care reform in 1994.
That complexity makes it all the more likely that the bill will have unforeseen consequences on how seniors receive health care.
Will insurance companies step forward to deliver the new benefit? Concern is such that the bill promises billions of dollars in subsidies to entice them to do so.
Will the new benefit encourage employers to drop health care coverage for their retirees, a trend that is already well under way? Concern is such that more billions have been added to lure them to maintain coverage.
Will seniors choose to participate in a confusing plan that pays for 75 percent of drug costs after paying a $250 deductible -- until coverage suddenly stops once those costs reach $2,250 -- but then kicks in to hold seniors harmless for all catastrophic costs once they've paid $3,600 out of pocket? Concern is such that many politicians on both sides of the aisle fear open rebellion if the bill takes effect in 2006.
Supporters argue that the measure, flawed as it may be, offers the last, best hope for Congress to address Medicare's most serious shortcoming: its lack of a prescription drug benefit that every modern health care plan offers as a matter of course.
All sides agree that it is bizarre for Medicare to pay tens of thousands of dollars to perform a heart surgery, but refuse to pay a few dollars for the screening tests and drugs that would make such surgery unnecessary.
"We are the only industrialized country in the world that does not provide prescription drugs to seniors," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who helped write the bill. "Many times we have come close. Many times we have failed. We must seize this moment."
And that is why the 35 million-member AARP, until now a reliable liberal ally on health care issues, has risked its credibility and thrown its enormous political weight behind a bill that it acknowledges is in many ways deeply flawed.
Likewise, several moderate Senate Democrats are joining Baucus and John Breaux of Louisiana, who also helped write the bill, to support it when the Senate moves toward its vote planned for Monday.
Sen. Feinstein has said she is "inclined" to vote for the bill for these same reasons. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota have all said they will vote yes.
One salient issue that has often been obscured in the heated debate is that the drug benefit is entirely voluntary. Seniors can remain in Medicare exactly as they are now, or they can buy the new benefit for a $35 monthly premium and a $250 deductible.
They can also join a preferred provider organization or health maintenance organization to get broader coverage that includes a drug benefit.
The more serious question, economists contend, is what effect such a huge program expansion will have on such things as drug prices and the availability of other health plans that seniors use in addition to Medicare, such as employer-paid plans for retirees.
Democrats also railed against the bill's prohibition on re-imports of cheaper drugs from Canada, where prices are controlled, and a prohibition on using the government's purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Both provisions were sought by the pharmaceutical industry.
Republicans said the latter provision was necessary to prevent the government from becoming the de facto price setter in the pharmaceutical market, while Democrats blasted the provision as a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.
Conservatives contend that reforms are so meager that the package is little more than a gigantic new spending program for the elderly that will lead to staggering costs that will reach into the trillions of dollars in liabilities for future workers, well beyond the $400 billion estimated over the next decade.
Medicare, now covering 43 million seniors, including 4 million in California, is fast headed toward insolvency when the 77 million Baby Boom generation retires -- even without a drug benefit.
But Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, who was instrumental in writing the bill, asked, "If we are trying to destroy Medicare,
why is the AARP supporting this proposal? My friends, the AARP has not abandoned you. You've abandoned seniors."
At the core of the legislation's problems -- its size, its complexity, its confusion, and the heated opposition from two wildly different quarters --
that it tries to bridge an ideological divide. Conservatives seek a market-driven health care provision, while liberals seek a government- guaranteed benefit.
The result is a Medicare prescription drug bill that is a mishmash of the two, offensive to both sides. In the end, Democrats who support the package hope that the bill will be expanded by later Congresses -- as has happened many times in the past -- while Democrats who oppose it fear that it will set in motion changes that undermine Medicare's guaranteed benefit.
As Baucus put it Friday, "This is difficult. This is messy. But it's democracy. It is absolutely frustrating. But it means we are working together."
Republicans who support the package contend that this is their only chance, when they control the White House and both chambers of Congress, to pass at least minimal market reforms, during an administration that will write regulations friendly to those reforms.
For Democrats supporting the bill, the question, and answer, is precisely the same. Better a drug benefit now that can be improved later, than none at all.
And for opponents on both sides, the answer was, better nothing, than this. Overhauling Medicare
The Medicare bill -- which passed the House on Saturday, 220-215, and heads to the Senate on Monday -- would add a prescription drug benefit and overhaul the government health care program that serves 43 million older and disabled Americans. Medicare recipients currently pay no premium for hospital coverage and about $700 per year for medical coverage. Details include:.
Drug plan
Interim card: In 2004 and 2005, recipients would qualify to purchase a discount card that the Bush administration estimates would cut drug costs by 15 percent or more. Low-income seniors would get a $600 annual subsidy. .
Primary benefit: Beginning in 2006, Medicare beneficiaries could sign up for a privately administered stand-alone drug plan or a health plan that offers primary care and drug coverage. They would be charged an estimated premium of $35 per month ($420 per year). After meeting a $250 deductible, insurance would pay 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250..
Coverage gap: No coverage between $2,250 and $5,100 of a person's total drug costs.
Catastrophic coverage: When out-of-pocket spending reaches $3,600, insurance covers 95 percent or requires a modest co-payment.
Low-income subsidies: The premium, deductible and coverage gap would be waived for people earning up to $12,123 a year. To qualify for the subsidy, seniors could have no more than $6,000 in fluid assets. The subsidies would be phased out between $12,123 and roughly $13,500 in yearly income..
Retiree coverage: Would provide tax-free subsidies, perhaps worth as much as $70 billion, to employers who maintain drug coverage for retirees once Medicare drug benefit begins in 2006. Medicare (Part B)
Changes in Part B (doctor and out-of-hospital changes) of the existing Medicare plan include: .
Premium: By law, Medicare beneficiaries pay 25 percent of the Part B premium and the government pays the rest. Individuals with incomes greater than $80,000 would pay a larger premium. The size of their premium would increase on a sliding scale, topping out at 80 percent for people with incomes over $200,000..
Deductible: Would rise from $100 to $110 in 2005 and thereafter be indexed to the growth in Part B spending..
Role of private companies: Private firms would administer the drug benefit on a regional basis. Would provide $12 billion in subsidies to private insurers that choose to offer basic health insurance. Those include preferred provider organizations (PPOs), which encourage use of certain doctors but allow patients to go elsewhere if they pay extra, and private fee-for-service plans, which allow patients to see any doctor. Beginning in 2010, traditional Medicare also would face competition from private plans in six metropolitan areas in which at least two private plans enroll at least 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. For those who remain in traditional Medicare, premium increases would be capped at 5 percent a year and waived for low-income seniors. The competition would last six years. The government would provide drug coverage in any region that does not have at least one stand-alone drug plan and one private health plan..
Rural health: Would spend about $25 billion to increase payments to rural hospitals and doctors. .
Generic drugs: Would speed generic drugs to the market by limiting ability of drug companies to block cheaper equivalents..
Drug importation from Canada: Would maintain the ban on importing prescription drugs. Would allow such drugs from Canada, but only if Department of Health and Human Services certifies safety, which it has declined to do. Would authorize a study of safety issues..
Hospital payments: Would allow hospitals to avoid future cuts in payments by submitting quality data to the federal agency that runs the Medicare program. At the same time, would increase payments through Medicaid to hospitals that serve a large number of disadvantaged patients. Would impose 18- month pause in development of new specialty hospitals and limit expansion of existing ones..
Physician payments: Would block planned cuts in physician payments in 2004 and 2005 and instead provide a 1.5 percent increase..
New benefits: Would cover an initial doctor's appointment for new Medicare beneficiaries and screening for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Would provide benefits for coordinated care for people with chronic illnesses. Would increase payments for doctors administering mammograms in hope that more are given..
Health-related tax savings accounts (Health Savings Accounts): Would allow people with high-deductible health insurance policies -- at least $1, 000 a year for individuals, $2,000 for couples -- to shelter income from taxes. Individuals younger than 65, employers or family members would make pretax contributions equal to the deductible, up to a maximum of $2,600 a year for individuals and $5,150 for families. After 65 years of age, earnings and distribution also would be tax-free, provided the money is used for health expenses, including insurance premiums, prescription drugs and long-term care. Otherwise, a 10 percent penalty would apply..
Home health care: Would cut payments to home health agencies, but not require co-payments from patients. .
Cost containment: When general revenues constitute 45 percent of Medicare spending, Congress and the administration would have to review Medicare's finances.
Source: Staff of Medicare bill negotiators
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 669
H R 1 YEA-AND-NAY 22-Nov-2003 5:53 AM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Conference Report
BILL TITLE: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
| YEAS | NAYS | PRES | NV | |
| REPUBLICAN | 204 | 25 | ||
| DEMOCRATIC | 16 | 189 | ||
| INDEPENDENT | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 220 | 215 |
| Aderholt Alexander Bachus Baker Ballenger Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Beauprez Bereuter Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boucher Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burns Burr Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Carson (OK) Carter Castle Chocola Coble Cole Collins Cox Cramer Crane Crenshaw Cubin Cunningham Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeLay Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dooley (CA) Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers English Everett Ferguson Fletcher Foley Forbes Fossella Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Gerlach Gibbons | Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Goode Goodlatte Goss Granger Graves Green (WI) Greenwood Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hyde Isakson Issa Istook Janklow Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Latham LaTourette Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (OK) Manzullo Marshall Matheson McCotter McCrery McHugh McInnis McKeon Mica Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Murphy Myrick Nethercutt Neugebauer Ney Northup Nunes Nussle Osborne | Ose Otter Oxley Pearce Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Royce Ryan (WI) Saxton Schrock Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simmons Simpson Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Souder Stearns Stenholm Sullivan Sweeney Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner (OH) Upton Vitter Walden (OR) Walsh Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wu Young (AK) Young (FL) |
| Abercrombie Ackerman Akin Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Ballance Barrett (SC) Becerra Bell Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Brown, Corrine Burton (IN) Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carson (IN) Case Chabot Clay Clyburn Conyers Cooper Costello Crowley Culberson Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeMint Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Emanuel Emerson Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Feeney Filner Flake Ford Frank (MA) Frost Garrett (NJ) Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green (TX) | Grijalva Gutierrez Gutknecht Harman Hastings (FL) Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hoeffel Holden Holt Honda Hooley (OR) Hostettler Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kleczka Kucinich Lampson Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lynch Majette Maloney Markey Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McIntyre McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murtha Musgrave Nadler Napolitano | Neal (MA) Norwood Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Pence Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rodriguez Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryun (KS) Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Sandlin Schakowsky Schiff Scott (VA) Serrano Shadegg Sherman Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Stark Strickland Stupak Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Toomey Towns Turner (TX) Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wamp Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wynn |
Republican Deficit Hypocrisy
Notations
11.20.09, 12:01 AM ET
The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.
This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history--$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review. But a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs.
Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.
However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote. (See this report by the HHS inspector general and this article by Foster.)
It's important to remember that the congressional budget resolution capped the projected cost of the drug benefit at $400 billion over 10 years. If there had been an official estimate from Medicare's chief actuary putting the cost at well more than that, then the legislation could have been killed by a single member in either the House or Senate by raising a point of order. Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., later said he regretted not doing so.
Even with a deceptively low estimate of the drug benefit's cost, there were still a few Republicans in the House of Representatives who wouldn't roll over and play dead just to buy re-election. Consequently, when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.
What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.
Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.
Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)
Otter and Istook are no longer in Congress, but Franks still is, so I checked to see what he has been saying about the health legislation now being debated. Like all Republicans, he has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.
Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.
Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)
Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.
Of course, there are good reasons conservatives oppose expanding the government, as the pending health legislation would do, even if it adds nothing to the deficit. But anyone who voted for the drug benefit, especially someone who switched his vote to make its enactment possible, has zero credibility. People like Franks ought to have the decency to keep their mouths shut forever when it comes to blaming anyone else for increasing the national debt.
Franks is not alone among Republicans for whom fiscal responsibility never consists of anything other than talk. The worst, undoubtedly, is DeLay, who actually went so far as to attack Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last year for his principled vote against the drug benefit, one of only nine Republican senators to do so. (By my count, there are still 24 Republicans in the Senate who voted for the drug benefit, including such alleged conservatives as Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona.)
Amazingly, leading Republicans still defend the drug benefit. Just the other day, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., celebrated its passage, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., berated me for criticizing it. In each case, their main argument was that it ended up costing a little less than originally projected. Somehow, I doubt that Frist or Thomas would feel the same way if their wives thought it was OK to buy a closet full of expensive new shoes just because they were on sale.
I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are any better when it comes to the deficit, although they have a better case for saying so based on the contrasting fiscal records of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.
It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term. As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt. Space prohibits listing all their names, but the final Senate vote can be found here and the House vote here.
Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is: The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)