Agreement on Debt Talks: Health Groups Dislike Proposals

July 13, 2011 By ChristianDems 

It will take EVERYONE standing up for the values we believe in to see justice in our health system and to make sure cuts don’t happen. Health care is a basic human need and right – if you are pro-life, that means you are pro-health-care-for-all!

From NY Times:

WASHINGTON — Budget negotiators have not found a way to avert a government default on federal debt obligations, but with their ideas to cut Medicare and Medicaid they have managed to provoke opposition from almost every major group that represents beneficiaries and health care providers.

The latest provocation was a list of proposed savings presented at the White House this week by the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia.

Mr. Cantor said Tuesday that the ideas had all been seriously discussed, with varying levels of Democratic support, in seven weeks of negotiations led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But with House Republicans adamantly opposed to new taxes, Democrats said they would not accept cuts in Medicare that reduced benefits.

Mr. Cantor’s list included 27 proposals that he said would save up to $353 billion over 10 years, in the context of a budget deal that could save anywhere from $2 trillion to $4 trillion over the same period.

Items on the list touched off howls of protest from lobbyists and Democratic lawmakers who saw details for the first time on Tuesday.

Some of the proposals would hit Medicare patients in the pocketbook, charging co-payments for home health care and clinical laboratory services like blood tests. One proposal would increase premiums and co-payments for beneficiaries with relatively high incomes. Another would require millions of recipients to pay more of the costs now covered by private insurance policies that supplement Medicare.

The Congressional Budget Office says the proposal could save Medicare up to $53 billion over 10 years, mainly by curbing the use of health care by people with supplemental coverage known as Medigap policies. Studies show that such policyholders use about 25 percent more services than Medicare patients who have no supplemental coverage, the budget office said.

But Medigap policies are popular with older Americans, who like the financial security they get from the extra insurance.

“The Medigap proposal would shift costs onto Medicare beneficiaries,” said Howard J. Bedlin, vice president of the National Council on Aging, a service and advocacy group. “Our fear is that many would go without the care they need and end up in a hospital emergency room, which costs Medicare more than proper treatment would have cost.”

Likewise, Mr. Bedlin said, the proposed co-payments for home health care would “significantly increase out-of-pocket costs for many low-income widows with multiple chronic conditions.”

When such co-payments were seriously considered in the past, Democrats wheeled some of the widows into the Capitol to denounce the idea.

Mr. Cantor’s list includes $100 billion in savings from Medicaid over 10 years — the same amount sought in a White House proposal that has caused consternation among some officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Laboratories were surprised to learn Tuesday of the proposal to start charging Medicare beneficiaries a $1 co-payment for each lab test. Lab tests and home health visits are now exempt from such cost-sharing.

Alan B. Mertz, president of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, a trade group, said that collecting the co-payments from beneficiaries would be “a huge administrative hassle.”

The average lab test costs $12 or $13, Mr. Mertz said, and labs typically “do not have a face-to-face relationship with patients.” In many cases, he said, “we will not be able to collect the money, or the cost of collecting it will be more than the amount of the co-payment.”

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the din of criticism was disappointing.

“These are not big Medicare savers,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview. “They do not save a lot of money in the whole scheme of things. If we come to a political paralysis over a few hundred billion dollars, the credit markets will really start turning on us.”

The Obama administration said Tuesday that instead of cutting benefits or increasing co-payments, Congress should increase the power of an independent agency, created by the new health care law, to make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.

At a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the new agency, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would be a backstop to ensure a sharp reduction in the growth of Medicare spending per beneficiary.

Mr. Ryan said the 15-member board was “just a mechanism to take power out of the hands of politicians so they can absolve themselves of responsibility for the inevitable price controlling and rationing that is to come in Medicare.” Such rationing, he said, “is not necessary if you do fundamental Medicare reform.”

Klobuchar calls out oil companies to give up subsidies

Written by

Larry Bivins

 

6:26 PM, Jul. 12, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Amy Klobuchar urged oil companies Tuesday to follow the lead of the ethanol industry and give up government subsidies to help defray the nation’s burgeoning deficit.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Klobuchar said oil companies have been receiving tax breaks for almost 100 years. In the past decade, she said, the five largest oil companies have netted close to $1 trillion in profits, with the industry’s profits up 30 percent in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the same quarter last year.

Over the next decade, the oil industry tax breaks will cost taxpayers $50 billion, Klobuchar said.

“The oil companies no longer need those tax breaks, and we can’t afford them when we look at the debt we’re facing,” Klobuchar told colleagues. “The question isn’t about whether the oil companies deserve the profits. It is a question about whether a hugely profitable industry should continue to enjoy lucrative tax advantages at a time when our nation can least afford it.”

The Minnesota Democrat’s remarks came as President Barack Obama met again with congressional leaders to try to forge a deal to prevent the federal government from defaulting. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said unless Congress allows the government to borrow more money, the United States will not have enough revenue to pay all its bills as of Aug. 2.

Republicans have balked at raising the $14.3 trillion limit on the national debt without substantial cuts in spending. Democrats have countered that any debt-reduction plan must include revenue increases, such as elimination of tax breaks for the wealthy, along with spending cuts.

At the center of the debate is what to do about entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Most agree costs for the programs are growing at unsustainable levels.

Klobuchar told colleagues that partisanship on the issue can be overcome, and she offered as a model a recent compromise worked out between herself, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., to end government subsidies for the ethanol industry.

Under the agreement Klobuchar and Thune announced last week, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit would expire on Aug. 1. The deal still must be voted on in the Senate and would need to be approved by the U.S. House. The credit, which provides companies 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline, costs taxpayers $400 million a month.

The deal calls for $1.3 billion of the savings this year, about two-thirds of the total, to be dedicated to deficit reduction.

“The ethanol industry came to the table and offered up over a billion dollars in savings to reduce the deficit and supported a compromise that is a model for reducing government subsidies going forward,” Klobuchar said. One reason the industry and its Senate supporters came to the table was an earlier Senate vote showing broad bipartisan support for eliminating the ethanol tax break.

Stephen Comstock, tax policy director for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry agrees it can do more to help address the nation’s economic crisis, but doesn’t think relinquishing tax breaks should be part of the equation.

“We believe the solution to our jobs and deficit problems should not be punitive tax increases when our industry can contribute over the long term by letting us produce more of our own vast domestic resources here at home,” Comstock said. “Let us create more American jobs, increase our energy security and actually send more revenues to federal, state and local governments.”

Last week, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minneapolis, spoke for nearly 45 minutes on the Senate floor about the need for a balanced approach to addressing the debt crisis. Franken said the question centers on who should be asked to bear the burden, Exxon Oil or a Minnesota girl whom he identified only by her first name of Evelyn. She was born with cystic fibrosis and suffered liver failure at age 10 and has to rely on Medicaid for her medical expenses.

“In order for us to agree to balance the budget, everyone has to pay,” Franken said. “Who’s in a better position to give? Exxon or a little girl in Minnesota named Evelyn.”

Klobuchar, in closing her remarks Tuesday, reminded colleagues of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility report that said the solution to deficit reduction should involve shared sacrifice.

“We know this deficit isn’t going to fix itself,” Klobuchar said. “We all know we can’t just close our eyes and click our heels and wish our debts away.”

Senate Democrats Outline Stark Reality Country Will Face if GOP Forces Default on Debt

JUL 14, ’11
 12:27 PM

Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Ben Cardin (MD) , Mark Begich (AK) and Chris Coons (DE) warned this morning of a calamitous outcome if the GOP forces the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time in history. The chart below illustrates just how difficult it would be for our country to pay its bills (explanation of chart below).

Download full-size PDF version of these charts.

Senator Schumer, explaining the stakes as shown above, said –

“We are definitely going to want to pay Social Security benefits, and that takes 50 billion dollars off the table.” [He took the Social Security tile off the obligations chart and placed it onto revenue chart]

And we have to make sure America’s seniors continue to get healthcare so we need to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. There goes another $50 billion [He took the Medicare/Medicaid chart off of the obligations chart and placed it onto the revenue chart]

So now we have 72 billion left.  We have to pay our troops, keep our promise to America’s veterans, and fund our  defense priorities. That is going to take us almost up to the limit.  [He then took the troops, veterans, and defense tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

And we still have the interest on our debt, and that takes up most of the difference. [He then took the interest on treasury securities tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

We wouldn’t have a dime for Student loans, the FBI, Cancer Research, IRS refunds, or border patrol agents… What from this list are you going to remove to fund these jobs that keep America safe?

Do you want to stop paying hundreds of thousands of troops? [He removed the troops tile]. Do you want to stop paying 60 million social security recipients? [He removed the social security tile] That is the choice, and the consequences we face if we don’t raise the debt limit.”

As Senator Coons put it, “This is the most predictable financial disaster in our history. Let’s avoid it.”

Senator wants shareholders to have a say

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011

BY HERB JACKSON

WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

THE RECORD

Corporations would have to get shareholder approval for campaign spending under a bill U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez unveiled Tuesday in response to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling.
Corporations had been barred from spending on federal campaigns before the 2010 Supreme Court ruled last year they could fund non-profit groups running issue-based advertising.
That kind of spending, however, is largely shielded from public disclosure laws governing campaign contributions, and Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to get Congress to approve new laws requiring disclosure of such spending.
The measure proposed by Menendez, D-N.J., and Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., would require corporations that want to spend on campaigns to secure approval annually of a campaign budget from shareholders. Corporate boards of directors also would have to approve, then make public disclosure, of any expenditures of more than $50,000.
"We must be certain at the very least that if corporations are allowed to spend unlimited funds on elections — something I personally oppose but nonetheless we are dealing with the realities of the Supreme Court's decision — they are doing so only after their shareholders have had an opportunity to weigh in," Menendez said in a news conference.
Menendez, who is seeking reelection next year, said that while chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee he saw corporate funding of $70 million to $75 million against candidates he supported.
He said it was "fundamentally wrong" that corporations could make decisions on United States policy by influencing elections.
"I can see very easily as someone who's trying to undo the $21 billion in tax breaks to the big five oil companies how they would like to influence an election to make sure that those with my views are not around, and those with their views to keep those corporate tax breaks stay," Menendez said.
According to filings available from the Federal Election Commission, Menendez is the only New Jersey candidate raising money to run for Senate next year. He said his quarterly report for the period ending June 30, which will become public later this week, will show he raised $2.1 million and had about $5.5 million on hand for the campaign.
He rejected the suggestion he was trying to handicap a potential opponent by seeking limits on corporate spending.
"We're operating under a system where there are limits … up to $5,000 for an individual," he said.
The bill, he said, deals with "tens of millions of dollars being spent by a corporation, should they choose to do so, to influence an election or a series of elections. So that's fundamentally different," he said.

The debt ceiling panic mode

By The Last Word Staff

  -  

Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:04 PM EDT

Lawrence explains why the normally disciplined Congressional Republicans are now in all-out panic in the most difficult negotiation they have faced to date with President Obama.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Debt Crisis Déjà Vu

Republicans once came under Democratic fire for boosting America’s debt ceiling, but now the situation is reversed. Howard Kurtz on the hype and hypocrisy when the two parties switch positions.

Jul 12, 2011 9:37 PM EDT

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad is losing patience with arguments for raising the debt ceiling.

“The question is: Are we staying on this course to keep running up the debt, debt on top of debt, increasingly financed by foreigners, or are we going to change course?” he asked.

But Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley says there is no alternative, with lawmakers facing “a choice between breaking the law by exceeding the statutory debt limit or, on the other hand, breaking faith with the public by defaulting on our debt.”

That was the state of play in 2006, when George W. Bush wanted to lift the debt ceiling from $8.2 trillion to $9 trillion and the Democrats were ripping his handling of the economy. In fact, every Senate Democrat—including Barack Obama and Joe Biden—voted against boosting the debt ceiling, while all but two Senate Republicans voted in favor. It was Bush’s fourth debt-ceiling hike in five years, for a total of $3 trillion.

Eric Cantor and John Boehner voted then to raise the ceiling, and on other occasions during the Bush administration; now they’re leading the opposition. Obama, who warned Tuesday in a CBS interview that he can’t guarantee Social Security checks will go out after the August 2 deadline, has said his 2006 vote was a mistake.

“That’s the beauty of being in the minority, you don’t have to be responsible,” says John Feehery, who served as a spokesman for Dennis Hastert when the Illinois Republican was House speaker. The Democrats “just voted against it and made us do all the heavy lifting … Hypocrisy is one of the coins of the realm.”

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo

Ari Fleischer, the former Bush White House spokesman, recalls working for Hill Republicans who routinely opposed debt-ceiling hikes during the Clinton years. “The problem this time is split government—it still has to get done somehow,” Fleischer says. “Which is why I view so much of this as ‘wake me at the last minute.’”

Democratic strategist Jenny Backus calls it a “Washington parlor game … It’s a lot easier to oppose raising the debt ceiling when you’re the party out of power because you don’t have the perceived responsibility. I don’t think I’d say it’s hypocrisy. I’d say it’s political reality. There are very few ways to make a statement about whether the economy’s on the wrong track.”

Today, of course, it’s the Obama administration pushing to raise the debt ceiling, and the Republicans strongly resisting a deal—except on their terms. “This debt-limit increase is his problem,” Boehner said Tuesday.

There is one critical difference, of course: When the Democrats voted against Bush’s requests, it was what Backus calls “a ‘gimme’ vote”; they knew the GOP-controlled Congress had the margins to pass the measures. This time, if the two parties can’t resolve (or at least paper over) their differences within three weeks, the federal government will actually default on its obligations. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell threw a curveball Tuesday by suggesting that Congress grant Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own, provided that he propose spending cuts.


““That’s the beauty of being in the minority, you don’t have to be responsible.””

Republicans argue that the U.S. debt, at $14.3 trillion, is far worse than in 2004 or 2006. Democrats say that’s in part because Bush prosecuted two wars without paying for them and left his successor a financial crisis that required massive bailouts.

Back then, the rhetoric was reversed. In the fall of 2004, when the government hit the debt limit, Treasury Secretary John Snow had to delay contributing to a federal-employee pension system to avoid running out of cash. Democrats noted that Bush had run up more debt in 17 months than the country had accumulated from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

The Republicans postponed the vote until after the election to avoid giving campaign ammunition. But there was little sense of crisis because GOP leaders made clear they would raise the ceiling during the lame-duck session, which they did.

“To pay our bills,” said John Kerry, who had just lost his presidential bid, “America now goes cup in hand to nations like China, Korea, Taiwan, and Caribbean banking centers. Those issues didn't go away on Nov. 3, no matter what the results.”

They still haven’t gone away; the major players have just switched positions. “Part of it is just naked politics,” Feehery says.

Stewart: Republicans Are Like Doctors Relying on Magic

In moments of political absurdity such as we're experiencing with astounding regularity these days, sometimes the most ridiculous analogies are the most appropriate.

Exhibit A: Jon Stewart, last night, comparing the GOP's completely clueless approach to the debt ceiling project to doctors attempting to use mystical cures to heal things like broken legs.

He had some especially withering words to offer about the GOP's introduction of lightbulb-related legislation (as did Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Twitter, here) rather than jobs or budget offerings.

Watch below:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

By Sarah Seltzer | Sourced from AlterNet 

Posted at July 13, 2011, 9:26 am

What if Bachmann's "moment" actually lasts?

WEDNESDAY, JUL 13, 2011 14:25 ET

WAR ROOM

BY STEVE KORNACKI

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is now running in second place nationally among Republican presidential candidates, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. And she's moved into the lead in Iowa and is second to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire (possibly by a close margin, possibly not). At least for now, there is no sign of her momentum slowing.

It's possible to interpret Bachmann's surge as a fleeting early-summer phenomenon. The explosion on her poll numbers and media visibility can be traced to her breakout performance at the first major GOP debate, just over a month ago. Whatever you think of the substance of her comments that night, Bachmann showed far more poise and polish than many had been expecting, and the positive reviews helped generate enthusiasm among a Republican base that has been yearning for someone, anyone, to get excited about.

This could easily be temporary. Herman Cain experienced a similar, if less dramatic, surge after a strong showing in a (Romney-less) debate earlier this year, but he's on his way back to obscurity after his moment gave way to Bachmann's. And Bachmann's moment, one theory holds, will soon give way to that of another candidate: Rick Perry, who has been teasing Republicans for weeks and may soon jump in the race. The new Quinnipiac survey shows Perry with 10 percent, just 4 points behind Bachmann. If he does get in, Perry has the potential to stir the base's passions while also -- thanks to his long run as the governor of the nation's second-largest state -- winning approval from the party's elites. That combination could send his poll numbers north and Bachmann's south.

Of course, it's also possible that Perry will be a dud -- 2012's answer to Fred Thompson and Wesley Clark, late-starting entrants whose candidacies failed to live up to the hype that preceded them. And it's possible that Bachmann's surge will be more than momentary. Is anyone in the current field better at connecting with true believers on the right than her?

This is why a recent piece from Politico's Jonathan Martin is so interesting. Martin likens Bachmann's rise to that of Howard Dean in the run-up to the 2004 primaries, and it makes a certain amount of sense. As Martin notes, Bachmann is fueled by "the base’s unalloyed contempt for a president they consider illegitimate," just as Dean was. Dean, the former governor of a state smaller than Essex County, N.J., began the '04 race in utter obscurity, but the base's magnetic attraction to him and his message quickly filled his campaign coffers and pushed him near the top of national and key early state polling. Even as he surged, though, the political and media establishments considered him a weak general-election candidate, someone whose presence on the ballot would cost his party support that it would otherwise receive. The same is now said about Bachmann.

I have long been arguing that this makes it essentially impossible for her to win the GOP nomination -- that even if she were to score a win in Iowa next year, the party's elites would take aim at her and quickly close ranks behind her most viable remaining opponent. Certainly, there is a precedent for this -- it's how Republican elites responded when Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire over Bob Dole.

But the Dean example may be worth keeping in mind here. Yes, it's true that he ended up falling flat on his face when the primaries and caucuses began and that his collapse was encouraged by establishment players who feared the consequences of nominating him. But there was also a moment just before all of that, in late 2003, when Dean's grass-roots-fueled surge translated into endorsements from some party elites that would have been unthinkable even months earlier. Everyone remembers when Al Gore climbed aboard, but he wasn't alone. By Christmas 2003, the overwhelming consensus -- even among Democrats who didn't want him -- was that Dean would be George W. Bush's opponent in 2004.

What Dean's example showed is that it is possible for an insurgent candidate deemed unelectable by the establishment to build and sustain enough support from the party base to compel otherwise reluctant members of the establishment to climb aboard. If Bachmann continues to improve her position in the polls -- and if she can then sustain that support -- she could be in position to force a similar reckoning among GOP elites.

Or, you know, maybe sometime between now and then she'll let down her guard and say something that makes it easy for them to marginalize her for good.