Archive for category Democrats
Gallup Poll: ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Now 25 Points
Posted by Richard Warnick in 2010 Elections, Democracy, Democrats, Disaster, Elections, National Politics, Party Politics, Republicans, This Blog on September 2, 2010
Also, Republicans lead on the “generic ballot” by an unprecedented 10 points.
Source: Gallup.com
The last Gallup weekly generic ballot average before Labor Day underscores the fast-evolving conventional wisdom that the GOP is poised to make significant gains in this fall’s midterm congressional elections. Gallup’s generic ballot has historically proven an excellent predictor of the national vote for Congress, and the national vote in turn is an excellent predictor of House seats won and lost. Republicans’ presumed turnout advantage, combined with their current 10-point registered-voter lead, suggests the potential for a major “wave” election in which the Republicans gain a large number of seats from the Democrats and in the process take back control of the House.
Glenn Greenwald has a roundup of some of the reasons why. In general, we have a Democratic administration and Congress that steadfastly refuses to implement progressive policies. They are even plotting to roll back Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security Isn’t At Risk Except From the People Trying to Destroy It!
Posted by Richard Warnick in American People, Capitalism, Democrats, Economic Exploitation, Federal Budget, National Politics, Poverty, This Blog, congress on August 2, 2010
StrengthenSocialSecurity.org – Sign the petition.
Social Security is the only defined-benefit retirement plan available to most Americans. My generation paid double payroll taxes so that we could fund the retirement of the generation ahead of us, and build up the trust fund for our own retirement.
On December 1, President Obama’s secretive Catfood Commission is going to recommend cuts to Social Security in the name of deficit reduction.
Dr. Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch:
Here is the bottom line right up front: the Social Security system will remain solvent far longer than is generally expected, so there is no need to tinker with it.
…Since 1983, revenues from payroll taxes have exceeded benefits paid to retirees. In 2003, income totaled $632 billion while benefits paid were $471 billion. Assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities totaled $2.5 trillion (the trust fund), with this amount expected to grow significantly over the next dozen or so years.
Ten years ago, the system’s actuaries thought the trust fund would be depleted by 2029. Five years ago they thought it would be 2032. Now the date when the surplus is expected to be gone is 2042 — and the Congressional Budget Office thinks it could be 2052.
The reason for these changing projections? More money coming in than previously expected.
This alone should signal policymakers that major surgery may not be needed. But when you look at the assumptions underlying these projections, you have to be even more cautious.
The system’s actuaries actually produce three long-range projections. The one that’s been picked by the politicians, pundits and the press and turned into the conventional wisdom is their intermediate projection — the one that expects the trust fund to be depleted by 2042.
But the assumptions underlying these projections are very pessimistic — especially when it comes to economic growth.
The actuaries assume that the U.S. economy will grow by an annual rate of 1.9 percent per year over the next 75 years. This is far below the 3.6 percent average of the past 75 years — a period that includes the Great Depression.
The system’s actuaries have a somewhat more optimistic projection. It assumes, among other things, a slightly faster rate of growth of 2.7 percent per year over the same period.
While this, too, is below the economy’s 75-year average, it shows that the system never runs out of money. That’s right, never.
So before they start fixing the Social Security system, policymakers should first understand that it’s not broken to begin with.
UPDATE: The Social Security Trust Fund is $2.5 trillion, not $1.5 trillion as originally stated above.
UPDATE: James K. Galbraith has a good idea– let’s expand Social Security and Medicare to save the economy:
There are many older workers who’ve already worked hard jobs for many years. They would love to retire. But they don’t, because early retirement on Social Security is very costly: you lose benefits every month over your entire future life, unless you hang on to the regular retirement age. We should give these people a break, and lower, not raise, the full-benefit Social Security retirement age—say, to 62 for the next three years. This would give millions a chance to get out, if they want to.
…Encouraging early retirements would mean that young people—just out of school, with fresh skills, good health, and high energy—would get the jobs they need now. They would not be stuck waiting, or spinning their wheels in school, for years and years.
UPDATE: Via HuffPo:
Social Security, according to its annual report (PDF), is expected to pay out slightly more in benefits than it receives in payroll tax this year, for the first time since changes were made in 1983. But payroll taxes are only one source of income for the program, and with the others — including interest income on its $2.5 trillion trust fund, held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities — the program is expected to continue to run a surplus until 2024.
How Can We Stop the Catfood Commission?
Posted by Richard Warnick in Deficit, Democrats, Disaster, Economic Exploitation, Economy, National Politics, This Blog, Unemployment, congress on July 23, 2010
It is absolutely beyond the Republicans’ power to cut Social Security, even if they re-take the House and Senate in November, since Obama will continue to wield veto power. The real impetus for Social Security cuts is from the “Deficit Commission” which Obama created in January by Executive Order, then stacked with people (including its bipartisan co-Chairs) who have long favored slashing the program, and whose recommendations now enjoy the right of an up-or-down vote in Congress after the November election, thanks to the recent maneuvering by Nancy Pelosi. The desire to cut Social Security is fully bipartisan (otherwise it couldn’t happen) and pushed by the billionaire class that controls the Government.
If the Catfood Commission proposes a bill slashing Social Security and Medicare benefits and it comes to the House floor, Republicans and Blue Dog Dems will vote for it. Even if all the progressive-leaning Democrats oppose it on a straight vote, it will probably pass. Millions of retirees will fall out of the middle class into poverty.
Jon Walker on FDL thinks that House progressives can threaten to remove Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House if she allows such a vote. That does not seem likely. IMHO if they had that kind of cojones then Bush would have been impeached and health care would include a public option.
Here’s the question. How can we stop the Catfood Commission?
Related One Utah post:
Budget Priorities Left to Catfood Commission (July 6)
Hope is Fading Away
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Civil liberties Infringement, Democrats, Disaster, Economy, Health Care, National Politics, Party Politics, This Blog, Unemployment on July 16, 2010
John Harris and Jim VandeHei yesterday wrote a Politico article in which unnamed White House functionaries complain that the administration isn’t getting enough credit for bringing the change promised in the 2008 campaign.
Digby offers a few thoughts that are obvious to those of us outside the Beltway:
First of all, the central premise seems to be that liberals should be happy that Obama has “gotten something done” without regard to what that “something” is. But the fact is that professional politicians always rattle off a legislative laundry list while activists care about process, politics and policy — and average voters only care about the results.
…Therefore, his political advisers should know that when the country is still reeling from unemployment and foreclosures after nearly two years, the passage of an inadequate stimulus bill, which unrealistic benchmarks and a giddy victory party ensured would be the only chance they got, the only people who will consider that a “success” would be beltway insiders. They should have realized that a health care bill that nobody in their right minds would have designed from scratch, the worst aspects of which liberals will be asked to defend for years to come, would be met with dampened enthusiasm by those who watched the process devolve from a sense of progressive purpose to an exhausting farce. They are expected to be able to predict that financial reform without accountability for what’s gone before, combined with the administration’s unwillingness to confront the civil liberties abuses of the last administration — indeed expanding on them in some cases — would show a lack of fundamental concern for justice among those who care about such things.
Since the Village is essentially a Republican town perhaps they assumed that liberals were all going to be the same dead-enders the Bush cultists were, defending their man until the day he was out of office (and then insisting they never liked him in the first place). That’s what “little people” (and paid political hacks) are supposed to do. But liberals are not known for cultlike devotion to their leaders — ask Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.
Like I said, some things are obvious outside the Beltway.
An American Way Forward
Posted by Glenden Brown in Activist groups, American History, American People, Bigotry, Democracy, Democrats, Party Politics, This Blog on July 15, 2010
At its height, American liberalism combined strong social democratic instincts with a uniquely American innovations to create a powerful alliance between blue collar workers, professionals and technocrats, raised living standards and real incomes, produced a strongly egalitarian society and minimized economic disparity, tackled issues of racial injustice and produced a powerful, and effective, public education system. Ultimately it would be undone by its own success, a foreign policy disaster and a set of external shocks. At least in part, American liberalism tamed its initial opponents who created the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party that produced the first President Bush – someone moderate to the core of his being, a responsible leader, someone who took governing seriously while also being aware of the limitations of government. Nixon represented that wing of the party and for all his contradictions and failures, he nevertheless led an administration more liberal than any we’ve seen since.
American liberalism was undermined by its own success. Read the rest of this entry »
Budget Priorities Left to Catfood Commission
Posted by Richard Warnick in Deficit, Democrats, Disaster, Economic Exploitation, Economy, National Politics, This Blog, Unemployment on July 6, 2010
The country’s best known Nobel economist, Paul Krugman, put it plainly: “[P]enny-pinching in the midst of a severely depressed economy is no way to deal with our long-run budget problems.”
Democrats aren’t listening to Krugman. The House just passed a “budget enforcement resolution” that didn’t actually contain a budget, but did call for a spending cap of $1.12 trillion. That means $7 billion will probably have to be carved out of existing domestic spending. The bloated Department of Defense budget plus supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from cuts.
How do they propose to eliminate $7 billion in non-military spending? The details were left to President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission (aka the Catfood Commission), which is supposed to report a long-term budget plan by December.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was established with little fanfare last February. It is stacked with prominent advocates of drastic cuts to social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. Thanks to Monica Lewinsky, most people have forgotten President Clinton’s plan to raid the Social Security Trust Fund for the benefit of Wall Street. Now it’s back.
There is no way the Catfood Commission is going to recommend raising taxes on the rich, quickly bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, or creating jobs for 15 million unemployed Americans. Those measures would balance the federal budget, but they wouldn’t benefit Wall Street as much as privatizing Social Security.
Marie Antoinette never said “let ‘em eat catfood.” But she was in favor of balancing the budget on the backs of low-income people, and that’s what the Catfood Commission is all about.
UPDATE: The hand wringing about $7 billion in budget cuts is astounding when you stop to think that’s ONE PERCENT of military spending. Also, the federal government hands out more than $4.5 billion a year to the oil & gas industry in tax subsidies alone (this does not include the federal leases auctioned off at bargain prices).
My Endorsement #1: Noyce for County Council
Posted by Glenden Brown in Democrats, Party Politics on June 22, 2010
Here’s why:
I am currently serving as the President of the Central Utah Federation of Labor, which also includes membership on the Utah AFL-CIO Executive Board. I am also currently serving as Vice Chair of the Jordan Meadows Community Council, and an advisor-trainer with Head Start Policy Council. I am also the First Vice President of the Salt Lake Community Action Program Board of Directors.
For decades, I have been involved in community activities within Council District 1, and beyond – I have served on the Board of Directors for the East Liberty Park Neighborhood Housing Services; on the Board of Directors for the United Way of Salt Lake; I also was an original member of the Salt Lake Police Civilian Review Board.
Equal rights are very important to me, and I have made use of my knowledge and experience to help advance equality in the workplace. I am the founder of the Utah Coalition of LGBT Union Activists and Supporters, and was a co-founder and co-chair of the Pride At Work Constituency Group of the National AFL-CIO.
As part of my commitment to providing engaging and effective community services, I am currently working with Salt Lake City Councilman Carlton Christensen on several projects, and I have an excellent relationship with the Democratic House and Senate members who reside in Council District 1.
He has support of both Paula Julander – who I tremendously admire – and Scotty McCoy about whom I’m slightly less than sanguine. Another of his supporters is Ralph Becker – and quite frankly our mayor is a smart man with good judgement.
My less than honorable reason for supporting Cal Noyce below the fold: Read the rest of this entry »
Why I’m Voting For Claudia Wright
Posted by Richard Warnick in Claudia Wright, Democrats, This Blog, Utah Politics on May 19, 2010
What is the outcome when you give Democratic primary voters an actual Democrat to vote for? Ask Rep. Joe Sestak, who won yesterday’s election in Pennsylvania:
“This is what democracy looks like,” said Sestak, a retired Navy admiral who served in the Clinton White House. …”I will never forget that it was the people of Pennsylvania that made it happen tonight.”
Can it be done here? Can we replace a Republicrat with a genuine Democratic candidate? Why not?
From the Claudia Wright for Utah website:
Utah is infamous for having record-breaking low voter turnouts, and consequentially, the 2010 Congressional election belongs to anyone who can get the voters out. With enough energy, motivation, and dedication, I believe that my campaign can bring formerly disillusioned or uninspired District Two voters to the polls, by offering them a candidate who is worthy of their time, energy, and votes.
It’s people-powered politics. And this election finally got me motivated to change my Republican party registration to “unaffiliated,” so I can vote for Claudia on June 22.
Check out Operation Chaos Utah Conservatives for Claudia Wright. They are trying to get Republicans to change their registrations en masse so they can vote in the Democratic primary. Not likely, because the deadline is only a few days away, and there is a hotly contested Republican primary this year.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a post on the broad anti-incumbent movement that seems to be gathering momentum:
[I]t’s hard not to be encouraged by the disgust which the citizenry clearly has for the political establishment regardless of party, as well as the resulting (and increasing) fear and confusion on the part of the political class. This sort of citizenry anger can re-arrange political alignments and explode political orthodoxies in fundamental and unpredictable ways.
UPDATE: The Democratic Party has said that anyone can vote in their primary. I read elsewhere that Republicans had to change their party preference to vote in the Dem primary, and just to be on the safe side I switched to unaffiliated. Today’s Salt Lake Tribune reports that the Democrats are correct, and the confusion arose from the rules being different in 2008.
Health Care: Beyond Cynicism
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Conservatives, Democrats, Disaster, Health Care, Hypocrisy, John McCain, Liars (politics), National Politics, Party Politics, Republicans, Tea Bag Party, This Blog, Tribalism & Blind Obedience to Authority, congress on March 24, 2010
This year’s health care debate is so hard to describe. The concept of cynicism (defined as “having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity”) hardly covers it.
The word “cynic” or “dog-like” was first applied to the followers of the original ancient philosophy of Cynicism.
[T]he dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it.
The Blue Dogs of the U.S. Congress might not follow all the dictates of the ancient Cynics, but they embrace shamelessness wholeheartedly. And the same can now be said for most other Democrats. Of course, Republicans already repeatedly upped the ante on cynicism during the Bush administration.
Source: Poll: Most Say Health Care Fight About Politics, Not Policy
Candidate Barack Obama campaigned FOR the choice of a public option in health care. He was AGAINST the individual mandate, and AGAINST the Hyde Amendment. Only a month before the election, Obama severely criticized Senator John McCain’s proposal for an excise tax on health benefits for what it is, a new tax on the middle class.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not even pretend that the AHIP/PhRMA giveaway bill signed into law yesterday includes progressive policy ideas. No, she credits the conservative Heritage Foundation and quotes WaPo’s E.J. Dionne to say the legislation “built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.”
If Bush had tried to pass this bill the entire progressive movement (such as it is) would have squealed like stuck pigs, with the volume and intensity they responded to Bush’s privatization of Social Security. …The question is why anyone was ever hoodwinked into thinking this was a “progressive” victory simply because the Republicans were against it. It was a Democratic party victory.
The White House is betting that those who committed themselves to Obama during the campaign won’t be bothered if he triangulates against his own campaign rhetoric and passes a right-wing health care bill — that their commitment to the ideals of the campaign will be trumped by their commitment to him as a personality. They may well be right.
UPDATE: Obama Hosts Anti-Abortion Signing Ceremony
UPDATE: Republicans Block Senate Committee Hearings, Including On National Security Matters, For Second Day In A Row
UPDATE: Viagra, ACORN and Gay Marriage: The 10 Most Ridiculous GOP-Proposed Health Care Amendments (Senator Bennett wrote one of them).
UPDATE: The prize for the lamest excuse has to go to Senate Democrats. They deliberately missed the chance to add in the public option to reconciliation, because then the legislation would have to go back to the House for another vote. Which it did anyway. Jon Walker on FDL runs down the list of now-inoperative Democratic excuses for why we can’t have the public option.
UPDATE: The prize for the worst bald-faced lie goes to President Obama today in Iowa City:
Challenged by a young man in the audience who shouted several times, “What about the public option,” a liberal-backed proposal for the creation of a government-sponsored plan to compete with private insurers, Obama said: “We couldn’t get it through Congress.”
How stupid does the President think we are?
killed
wounded
Recent Comments