Boehner Says Nothing’s Changed – Must Cut Social Security & Medicare to Protect Millionaire’s Tax Cuts
We watched House Speaker John Boehner’s news conference yesterday hoping to see signs that the voters’ clear message about their expectations for our nation’s fiscal future has finally been heard by GOP members of the House. Unfortunately, it’s clear nothing has changed. In fact, the Speaker has doubled-down on Republican demands that middle-class benefits in Social Security and Medicare must be cut to pay for tax reforms that will largely benefit the wealthy.
Firedog Lake has this terrific recap:
Boehner Opens Grand Bargain Negotiations By Proposing the Romney Plan
I touched on this yesterday, but let’s take a closer look at John Boehner’s opening offer on revenue, designed to avoid the fiscal slope (it’s not a cliff). I think it will become familiar to you if you look at the exact language.
For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. What matters is where the increase revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher taxe rates? Or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? And at the same time we’re reforming the tax code, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country’s entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we just going to continue to duck the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the problem?
So Boehner is calling for an across the board rate cut, paid for by (and actually with a revenue gain from) closing loopholes and deductions. All the while, he wants to “reform” entitlements to reduce the cost to government.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it’s the Mitt Romney platform. The one defeated at the polls. Boehner’s opening bid is just the Romney tax plan, made even more ludicrous by the notion that you can increase revenue with it. Romney was widely mocked during the election for trying to make a large rate cut revenue-neutral; here Boehner wants to add to the fantasy world. He also alludes to the idea that lowering tax rates will increase economic growth and therefore tax receipts.
This is precisely the claim that was debunked by the Congressional Research Service study of 65 years of tax rates, which Republicans found so dissonant and offensive, they got the study torpedoed.Boehner’s lower-the-rates, broaden-the-base gambit has already been rejected by the likes of Chuck Schumer. He’s already blown up the tax reform con. And he got backed up by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. So if it comes back, we know exactly where it came from – the White House.
And this from Think Progress:
Like Romney, Boehner cited the Reagan 1986 tax reform — which included lowering rates and closing loopholes — as proof that his vision of boosting growth (and thus raising revenue) through tax reform is possible. But as Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett has noted, the 1986 reform didn’t actually result economic growth: “Real gross domestic product growth was about the same after the 1986 act took effect in 1987 as it was before…By the mid-1990s, it was the consensus view of economists that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had little, if any, impact on growth.” Other studies came to the same conclusion.
It is theoretically possible to close enough loopholes and deductions to raise revenue in a tax reform package. But Boehner’s insistence that tax reform will cause growth that raises significant revenue is a conservative fantasy. This is the same game Republicans, including Boehner, have played since Obama came into office: promising that they’re open to revenue, so long as taxes never go up.
So that vote you cast on Tuesday? It appears Washington may just be pretending it didn’t happen.
What’s Next for Social Security and Medicare?
Election Reaction from NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman
“President Obama’s re-election is good news for America’s seniors and their families. Their new Medicare benefits provided through the Affordable Care Act will be preserved, threats to turn Medicare into a voucher plan have been rebuffed, and the voters have made it clear they do not support cutting middle-class benefits to preserve tax cuts for millionaires.
President Obama is right…we are not as divided as our politics suggests…especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Our grassroots voter education campaign heard from citizens throughout the nation who are frustrated with Washington’s inability to protect the middle-class. Outside of the Beltway, there’s been little disagreement about the path we should take going forward. The vast majority of the American people of all ages and political stripes soundly reject the idea that cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be used as bargaining chips in any deficit reduction plan. Putting tax cuts for the wealthy on the table is the right thing to do and shouldn’t be negotiated at the expense of seniors and their families.
Americans do have common hopes and dreams that drove them to re-elect President Obama –key among them are the preservation of the nation’s most successful economic and health security programs.”… Max Richtman, President/CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Voters Falling for Medicare Dodge and Deflect
Back in the summer, a National Republican Campaign Committee memo and video laid out their incredibly cynical “dodge and deflect” strategy on Medicare. In a nutshell, the GOP plan has been to avoid talking about their universally unpopular plan to end traditional Medicare by replacing it with a privatized CouponCare plan. To do that, they’ve stuck to the thoroughly debunked and disproven meme that “Obamacare” cuts Medicare. As Max Richtman, NCPSSM’s President/CEO said in August:
“The GOP strategy for their candidates is clear — simply don’t talk about the GOP plans for seniors in Medicare. Talk about the Affordable Care Act, instead. If you get a question about the Ryan budget? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. Get a question about the GOP plan to end Medicare? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. What about raising seniors’ preventative care and prescription costs? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. You get the idea. The strategy is to continue to tell seniors their benefits were cut, even though they weren’t. Ignore the fact that health care reform preserves every dime of Medicare benefits while the GOP/Ryan plan uses that money to pay for millionaire tax breaks. Disregard the 32 million seniors who have already received new preventive benefits through ACA. Don’t talk about the closing of the Part D donut hole or the $3.1 billion dollars in real savings seniors have already seen in their prescription drug coverage. And whatever you do, absolutely never, ever, let on that the same GOP candidates — decrying Medicare reforms falsely labeled as benefit cuts in the Affordable Care Act — voted for those same provisions when they passed the GOP/Ryan budget. At the same time by the way, Republicans also voted to end Medicare leaving seniors at the mercy of private insurers to face higher costs for less coverage.”
Incredibly, a new Kaiser Health News poll shows that once again GOP Mediscare tactics (remember the fake “death panels” claim from the last presidential election) work.
“Most troublesome for Obama is that, among likely voters, GOP candidate Mitt Romney has pulled nearly even with him on which candidate would do a better job with Medicare — an issue that resonates in battleground states with large elderly populations, such as Florida and Pennsylvania. Obama’s advantage on that question has shrunk despite the fact that six in 10 likely voters continue to oppose Romney’s idea of changing Medicare to a premium support system, in which the government would guarantee each senior a fixed amount of money to help them purchase coverage. Overall, about 46 percent of voters said they prefer Obama on Medicare compared with 41 percent for Romney, a gap that is not statistically significant. In September, Obama held a 16-point lead on the Medicare question.” AARP Bulletin Today
Like us, you’re probably wondering: “How can voters say they trust Romney/Ryan on Medicare when the majority of those same people oppose their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program?” All we can say is – scare tactics work. Especially during campaign season where fear and propaganda are tools used to manipulate Americans into voting against their own self interests.
As you prepare to go to the polls next week please remember and share these basic truths about the future of Medicare with friends and family who will all have a stake in this vital program. On day one of a Romney administration, current seniors (not those 54 and younger) would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Our children and grandchildren will face an even worse future as traditional Medicare is ended in favor of a Romney/Ryan CouponCare plan in which retirees will once again be at the mercy of private insurers. Retirees will pay more for less coverage while private insurance companies reap the profits.
While it’s clear this isn’t the Medicare most Americans want in their retirement or for future generations, what remains to be seen is if they understand it’s their vote on Tuesday that will determine Medicare’s future.
Medicaid: The Forgotten Issue – Huffington Post
By Max Richtman
President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
10/22/12
Originally posted on Huffington Post
As we enter the final weeks of the 2012 campaign season, middle-class Americans are finally getting a glimpse of just how devastating Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s radical plans for Medicare and Social Security would be for generations of seniors and their families. In spite of repeated attempts to deflect attention from their proposals to cut benefits and privatize these programs, it’s clear that the more voters find out about the Romney/Ryan plan the less they like it. Unfortunately, Medicaid is not yet on the radar screen for most Americans. They don’t realize that the Romney/Ryan plan for the 62 million Americans helped by the Medicaid program is just as destructive.
No political candidate should get a pass on a plan that fundamentally changes the Medicaid program by shifting responsibility to states through block-grants while cutting $810 billion in federal funding during the first decade alone, with even more cuts to follow. When Chairman Ryan included a similar Medicaid block-grant proposal in his budget last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute estimated it would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021. An additional 13 million people would also lose Medicaid benefits because of the repeal of health care reform promised by Governor Romney.
Many Americans don’t realize that the largest component of Medicaid is long-term care for America’s elderly followed by the disabled. People should be asking — what will happen to those 30 million or more Americans who will likely lose their Medicaid coverage during a Romney/Ryan administration? Where will they go for health care coverage? As is often the case, there are no answers to these critical questions because so few people even know to ask them.
The Romney/Ryan block-grant strategy is especially problematic for people who need nursing home level of care. The average annual nursing home cost is prohibitively expensive — over $75,000 for a semi-private room. No matter how hard they save for retirement, most middle-class families simply cannot afford the staggering costs of 24-hour skilled care and are forced to seek help from Medicaid. However, according to the Center for Medicare Advocacy, all too many nursing homes residents could lose their Medicaid coverage under the proposed Romney/Ryan plan.
States will also be able to change their Medicaid financial and eligibility rules, making residents and their relatives legally responsible for paying for a greater portion of nursing home expenses. To recover Medicaid costs, states could place a lien on the resident’s property even if the resident’s spouse or children continue to live in the home.
Likewise, the clock could be turned back on spousal impoverishment rules. Currently, nursing home residents’ spouses are allowed to retain some of their assets and income to live in their own homes and communities. However, if the law changes, spouses could be required to contribute even more of their income forcing many who are living on the edge into certain poverty. Americans already contribute $450 billion in uncompensated care with many being forced to quit their jobs and tap into their own retirement funds to help care for a family member. Passing along even more costs to cash-strapped families does not make sense for our nation.
As our nation’s population ages, we should be looking for ways to improve critical health care programs like Medicaid to protect our hardworking families. Medicaid is more efficient than private insurance (96 percent of funding goes directly to coverage) and provides a lifeline to young and old who are among the sickest, and most in need. The future of this program deserves close scrutiny during this election season and it is up to voters to ask the questions and demand straightforward answers.
Follow Max Richtman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maxrichtman
Remembering George McGovern – Social Security & Medicare Champion
News of former Senator, Presidential candidate, and political icon George McGovern’s death, reminded us of a wonderful interview he did earlier this year with Charlie Rose. In it, he offered a wonderfully full-throated defense of Social Security and Medicare.
He also provided sound advice for Democrats toying with the idea of cutting those benefits away in a so-called “Grand Bargain” with Republicans who refuse to even talk about raising revenue. If only more lawmakers would take a page from George McGovern’s Social Security and Medicare playbook.
Boehner Says Nothing’s Changed – Must Cut Social Security & Medicare to Protect Millionaire’s Tax Cuts
We watched House Speaker John Boehner’s news conference yesterday hoping to see signs that the voters’ clear message about their expectations for our nation’s fiscal future has finally been heard by GOP members of the House. Unfortunately, it’s clear nothing has changed. In fact, the Speaker has doubled-down on Republican demands that middle-class benefits in Social Security and Medicare must be cut to pay for tax reforms that will largely benefit the wealthy.
Firedog Lake has this terrific recap:
Boehner Opens Grand Bargain Negotiations By Proposing the Romney Plan
I touched on this yesterday, but let’s take a closer look at John Boehner’s opening offer on revenue, designed to avoid the fiscal slope (it’s not a cliff). I think it will become familiar to you if you look at the exact language.
For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. What matters is where the increase revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher taxe rates? Or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? And at the same time we’re reforming the tax code, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country’s entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we just going to continue to duck the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the problem?
So Boehner is calling for an across the board rate cut, paid for by (and actually with a revenue gain from) closing loopholes and deductions. All the while, he wants to “reform” entitlements to reduce the cost to government.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it’s the Mitt Romney platform. The one defeated at the polls. Boehner’s opening bid is just the Romney tax plan, made even more ludicrous by the notion that you can increase revenue with it. Romney was widely mocked during the election for trying to make a large rate cut revenue-neutral; here Boehner wants to add to the fantasy world. He also alludes to the idea that lowering tax rates will increase economic growth and therefore tax receipts.
This is precisely the claim that was debunked by the Congressional Research Service study of 65 years of tax rates, which Republicans found so dissonant and offensive, they got the study torpedoed.Boehner’s lower-the-rates, broaden-the-base gambit has already been rejected by the likes of Chuck Schumer. He’s already blown up the tax reform con. And he got backed up by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. So if it comes back, we know exactly where it came from – the White House.
And this from Think Progress:
Like Romney, Boehner cited the Reagan 1986 tax reform — which included lowering rates and closing loopholes — as proof that his vision of boosting growth (and thus raising revenue) through tax reform is possible. But as Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett has noted, the 1986 reform didn’t actually result economic growth: “Real gross domestic product growth was about the same after the 1986 act took effect in 1987 as it was before…By the mid-1990s, it was the consensus view of economists that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had little, if any, impact on growth.” Other studies came to the same conclusion.
It is theoretically possible to close enough loopholes and deductions to raise revenue in a tax reform package. But Boehner’s insistence that tax reform will cause growth that raises significant revenue is a conservative fantasy. This is the same game Republicans, including Boehner, have played since Obama came into office: promising that they’re open to revenue, so long as taxes never go up.
So that vote you cast on Tuesday? It appears Washington may just be pretending it didn’t happen.
What’s Next for Social Security and Medicare?
Election Reaction from NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman
“President Obama’s re-election is good news for America’s seniors and their families. Their new Medicare benefits provided through the Affordable Care Act will be preserved, threats to turn Medicare into a voucher plan have been rebuffed, and the voters have made it clear they do not support cutting middle-class benefits to preserve tax cuts for millionaires.
President Obama is right…we are not as divided as our politics suggests…especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Our grassroots voter education campaign heard from citizens throughout the nation who are frustrated with Washington’s inability to protect the middle-class. Outside of the Beltway, there’s been little disagreement about the path we should take going forward. The vast majority of the American people of all ages and political stripes soundly reject the idea that cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be used as bargaining chips in any deficit reduction plan. Putting tax cuts for the wealthy on the table is the right thing to do and shouldn’t be negotiated at the expense of seniors and their families.
Americans do have common hopes and dreams that drove them to re-elect President Obama –key among them are the preservation of the nation’s most successful economic and health security programs.”… Max Richtman, President/CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Voters Falling for Medicare Dodge and Deflect
Back in the summer, a National Republican Campaign Committee memo and video laid out their incredibly cynical “dodge and deflect” strategy on Medicare. In a nutshell, the GOP plan has been to avoid talking about their universally unpopular plan to end traditional Medicare by replacing it with a privatized CouponCare plan. To do that, they’ve stuck to the thoroughly debunked and disproven meme that “Obamacare” cuts Medicare. As Max Richtman, NCPSSM’s President/CEO said in August:
“The GOP strategy for their candidates is clear — simply don’t talk about the GOP plans for seniors in Medicare. Talk about the Affordable Care Act, instead. If you get a question about the Ryan budget? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. Get a question about the GOP plan to end Medicare? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. What about raising seniors’ preventative care and prescription costs? “Obamacare robs Medicare”. You get the idea. The strategy is to continue to tell seniors their benefits were cut, even though they weren’t. Ignore the fact that health care reform preserves every dime of Medicare benefits while the GOP/Ryan plan uses that money to pay for millionaire tax breaks. Disregard the 32 million seniors who have already received new preventive benefits through ACA. Don’t talk about the closing of the Part D donut hole or the $3.1 billion dollars in real savings seniors have already seen in their prescription drug coverage. And whatever you do, absolutely never, ever, let on that the same GOP candidates — decrying Medicare reforms falsely labeled as benefit cuts in the Affordable Care Act — voted for those same provisions when they passed the GOP/Ryan budget. At the same time by the way, Republicans also voted to end Medicare leaving seniors at the mercy of private insurers to face higher costs for less coverage.”
Incredibly, a new Kaiser Health News poll shows that once again GOP Mediscare tactics (remember the fake “death panels” claim from the last presidential election) work.
“Most troublesome for Obama is that, among likely voters, GOP candidate Mitt Romney has pulled nearly even with him on which candidate would do a better job with Medicare — an issue that resonates in battleground states with large elderly populations, such as Florida and Pennsylvania. Obama’s advantage on that question has shrunk despite the fact that six in 10 likely voters continue to oppose Romney’s idea of changing Medicare to a premium support system, in which the government would guarantee each senior a fixed amount of money to help them purchase coverage. Overall, about 46 percent of voters said they prefer Obama on Medicare compared with 41 percent for Romney, a gap that is not statistically significant. In September, Obama held a 16-point lead on the Medicare question.” AARP Bulletin Today
Like us, you’re probably wondering: “How can voters say they trust Romney/Ryan on Medicare when the majority of those same people oppose their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program?” All we can say is – scare tactics work. Especially during campaign season where fear and propaganda are tools used to manipulate Americans into voting against their own self interests.
As you prepare to go to the polls next week please remember and share these basic truths about the future of Medicare with friends and family who will all have a stake in this vital program. On day one of a Romney administration, current seniors (not those 54 and younger) would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Our children and grandchildren will face an even worse future as traditional Medicare is ended in favor of a Romney/Ryan CouponCare plan in which retirees will once again be at the mercy of private insurers. Retirees will pay more for less coverage while private insurance companies reap the profits.
While it’s clear this isn’t the Medicare most Americans want in their retirement or for future generations, what remains to be seen is if they understand it’s their vote on Tuesday that will determine Medicare’s future.
Medicaid: The Forgotten Issue – Huffington Post
By Max Richtman
President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
10/22/12
Originally posted on Huffington Post
As we enter the final weeks of the 2012 campaign season, middle-class Americans are finally getting a glimpse of just how devastating Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s radical plans for Medicare and Social Security would be for generations of seniors and their families. In spite of repeated attempts to deflect attention from their proposals to cut benefits and privatize these programs, it’s clear that the more voters find out about the Romney/Ryan plan the less they like it. Unfortunately, Medicaid is not yet on the radar screen for most Americans. They don’t realize that the Romney/Ryan plan for the 62 million Americans helped by the Medicaid program is just as destructive.
No political candidate should get a pass on a plan that fundamentally changes the Medicaid program by shifting responsibility to states through block-grants while cutting $810 billion in federal funding during the first decade alone, with even more cuts to follow. When Chairman Ryan included a similar Medicaid block-grant proposal in his budget last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute estimated it would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021. An additional 13 million people would also lose Medicaid benefits because of the repeal of health care reform promised by Governor Romney.
Many Americans don’t realize that the largest component of Medicaid is long-term care for America’s elderly followed by the disabled. People should be asking — what will happen to those 30 million or more Americans who will likely lose their Medicaid coverage during a Romney/Ryan administration? Where will they go for health care coverage? As is often the case, there are no answers to these critical questions because so few people even know to ask them.
The Romney/Ryan block-grant strategy is especially problematic for people who need nursing home level of care. The average annual nursing home cost is prohibitively expensive — over $75,000 for a semi-private room. No matter how hard they save for retirement, most middle-class families simply cannot afford the staggering costs of 24-hour skilled care and are forced to seek help from Medicaid. However, according to the Center for Medicare Advocacy, all too many nursing homes residents could lose their Medicaid coverage under the proposed Romney/Ryan plan.
States will also be able to change their Medicaid financial and eligibility rules, making residents and their relatives legally responsible for paying for a greater portion of nursing home expenses. To recover Medicaid costs, states could place a lien on the resident’s property even if the resident’s spouse or children continue to live in the home.
Likewise, the clock could be turned back on spousal impoverishment rules. Currently, nursing home residents’ spouses are allowed to retain some of their assets and income to live in their own homes and communities. However, if the law changes, spouses could be required to contribute even more of their income forcing many who are living on the edge into certain poverty. Americans already contribute $450 billion in uncompensated care with many being forced to quit their jobs and tap into their own retirement funds to help care for a family member. Passing along even more costs to cash-strapped families does not make sense for our nation.
As our nation’s population ages, we should be looking for ways to improve critical health care programs like Medicaid to protect our hardworking families. Medicaid is more efficient than private insurance (96 percent of funding goes directly to coverage) and provides a lifeline to young and old who are among the sickest, and most in need. The future of this program deserves close scrutiny during this election season and it is up to voters to ask the questions and demand straightforward answers.
Follow Max Richtman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maxrichtman
Remembering George McGovern – Social Security & Medicare Champion
News of former Senator, Presidential candidate, and political icon George McGovern’s death, reminded us of a wonderful interview he did earlier this year with Charlie Rose. In it, he offered a wonderfully full-throated defense of Social Security and Medicare.
He also provided sound advice for Democrats toying with the idea of cutting those benefits away in a so-called “Grand Bargain” with Republicans who refuse to even talk about raising revenue. If only more lawmakers would take a page from George McGovern’s Social Security and Medicare playbook.