Medicare In As Much Trouble As GOP Says?

Posted at Jobsanger by Ted McLaughlin: I think all of us can agree that Medicare is in need of some help.

The program works as well as any government program in that it gives all of America's elderly citizens health care coverage. This is what the program was designed to do, and it does it very well.

... The Republicans want us to think the program is in such bad trouble that it cannot be fixed, and if we don't make substantial changes it will soon be bankrupt and won't be able to cover any elderly citizens. And by substantial changes they mean the program must be abolished for everyone now under 55 years of age.

... Let me put this as gently as I can -- what an outrageous load of horse manure! Does Medicare need more funding? Yes. Is it about to implode? No, not at all -- at least not unless the Congress fails to do its duty and adequately fund it. The truth is that the Republicans have never liked Medicare. They believe health care is not a right, but a commodity which should only go to the people who have the money to pay for it. And they, with the cooperation of too many Democrats, have been underfunding the program for many years now.

... According to the Center for Economic Policy and Research, the Medicare system could be fixed for at least the next 75 years with a cash infusion amounting to less than 0.4% of GDP. And how much is that? About one quarter of the money we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

... Isn't it amazing that the Republicans can't find the money to fix Medicare to protect ALL of America's elderly citizens, but they have no trouble coming up with the money [to not only continue Pres Bush's massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but give them even more tax cuts?

Read the full post at Jobsanger Blog...

Krugman: Getting to Crazy

NYT Op-Ed Column, "Getting to Crazy," By Paul Krugman:

... President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

... If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

... Yet, Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal - [Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan's proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that includes huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and converting Medicare from guaranteed coverage to a private health insurance voucher coupon program.]

... Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P. Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

Read the full column at the NYTimes...

Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

Huffington Post -- A resolution to raise the nation's debt ceiling may remain far off. But the long-term framing of the debate over spending and debt is becoming slightly clearer, and it's causing philosophical fissures among Democrats.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D) aired his concern that the fiscal "belt-tightening" President Obama and many Democrats have pursued has effectively diminished the party's brand. Democrats, he argued, have "allowed the center of the political debate to be shifted so far to the right that we find ourselves debating on their territory and using Republican language ... It's very troubling".

Removed from office after a bruising re-election campaign, Strickland has largely avoided the political spotlight, choosing, instead, to help to build Democratic infrastructure in Ohio. But the debt ceiling debate has piqued his interest and drawn him back into the national conversation -- in large part, he said, because he's worried that his party is unnecessarily folding its superior hand.

Instead of conceding philosophical points to fiscal hawks, he said, the president should being using his bully pulpit to reframe the debate. Congressional Democrats, he added, should be forcing regular votes on "jobs bills" that would create an effective contrast between themselves and Republicans.

"You've got to create conflict, but it's got to be the right kind of conflict," he said. "The thing that bothers me is we allow ourselves to debate issues using their frame and we're doing it with this deficit issue. Everyone now, with the exception of maybe [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi, begins their first statement with, 'Oh, we've got to deal with the deficit.' Yes! But not in 2011. We've got to deal with job losses in 2011."