Expect the GOP to gripe about migrants at the border; their answer: cut funding for border patrol

 The falls in to the category of putting money where their mouths are. For those who will be bitching about governmental failure to stop the surge in migrants, the GOP's answer is to cut funding for border security and enforcement. Contained in the GOP attempt to hold hostage spending for certain federal programs in their strategy to force budget cuts to be accepted as  condition fortheir approval to raise the debt ceiling would make it even harder to handle the migration. : Taking appropriations back to the level the GOP wants would cut  9% in discretionary spending compared to this year’s spending. Particularly dire in these spending cuts would be the ability to enforce federal laws from the TSA, food inspectors, border patrol, the justice system, and more.

 This illustrates the madness of trying to get future budgets to reflect their priorities by holding approval of raising the debt ceiling hostage to their budget demands.  If this is not what the GOP intended, then they should take their budget concerns through the budget process separately from the strategy of trying to force the government to fail to meet last year's financial obligations by voting against raising the debt ceiling. 

THIRDWAY.ORG

The Republican Debt Limit Plan Will Devastate Public Safety – Third Way https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-republican-debt-limit-plan-will-devastate-public-safety?fbclid=IwAR1w-jUOCQnTpv_VFapEKDGzqNCpLtogXLimvEwdzoVbgD-tld8VhhjIKgo.

The battle for raising the debt ceiling begins. Heads up, GOP, seniors are "woke" to your hijinks.

 The 2022 midterms have consequences as the GOP House majority begins its war on government spending by refusing to raise the debt ceiling and demanding a reduction in expenditures, instead. Heads up, GOP.  Seniors are "woke"  in 2022, and they helped stop the red wave in the midterms. They have become aware of the damage the GOP House could do to seniors. Seniors were once a GOP dependable voting block. Last November, the key block shifting to Democrats were seniors, accounting for making the expected red wave a ripple. 

"A post-election AARP survey points to one reason why — voters ages 50 and up, who represented 61% of the electorate in 63 of the most competitive congressional districts and helped give Democrats there a 2% edge" How older voters impacted midterms vote in key congressional districts (cnbc.com)  

 The usual GOP dogma is that more government spending is bad and more government debt is even worse. We will hear the GOP's platitudes and generalities as the debate over the debt ceiling begins.  Their initial posture: We will support raising the debt ceiling if we cut expenditures. This is hostage holding without specific ransom.   GOP has a charming and deceptive habit: They never specify what government expenditures they want to reduce and hope voters would continue in the dreams of traditional GOP platitudes by being the party of superior fiscal responsibility. . Voting against raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible since it does nothing to reduce expenditures and it would devastate retirement funds by making the US a risky place in which to invest.  However, the debate is an opportunity for Democrats to make deeper inroads into the support of senior or near-senior-age voters in 2024 planning for retirement.

 The GOP cannot be left getting away from being vague, but there are clues since their chief gripes have been about the infrastructure bill and, above all, the "inflation reduction act".  So what do they propose? What expenses would they cut? Social security? Medicare?

We can, however, assume that there will be legislation introduced by the GOP to cut social programs, aid to Ukraine, or roll back benefits of the "inflation reduction act." They could either starve the programs by cutting funding, privatize social security,  or cut the taxes on the rich, which were the payfors for the "inflation reduction act." Rolling back the benefits has re-election risks  and those hurt the most would be seniors and affordable health care:   ( Attack ads: "did you know your representatives voted to make you pay more again for your diabetes meds and health care insurance"? Or did you know your representative wanted to finance social security in the casino of Wall Street?") The restoration of tax cuts to the rich without cutting budgets and benefits will just add to the debt. 

 Top of the GOP ire is the misnamed"inflation reduction act" passed by a partisan vote before the GOP eaked out a House majority.  The legislation should have been the "deficit reduction act" since the impact, per the Congressional budget office, would be to reduce the deficit of $300 billion over the next ten years. When it comes to family finances, the cost of health care for seniors and those who could qualify for Obamacare are the big winners..  The task of the Democrats is to bring the meaning of this home to those who live on a budget and to draw the contrast with GOP House members who are on the record for rolling this back. 

 Here is what the GOP could try to roll back per a bullet point summary provided by  Democrats.Inflation Reduction Act One Page Summary (senate.gov).  In the debate over the debt limit, this is the first time in 2023  for Democrats to strike with pointed messaging while the iron is hot.  The last time will be in 2024, when all House members will stand again for re-election, and their votes in 2023-2024  will be on the record.  Here is  a summary provided by  Democrats.Inflation Reduction Act One Page Summary (senate.gov) . 

Seniors need to be woke as well to attacks on mail-in voting, a major drive by election deniers and many in the GOP.  The greatest beneficiaries of this are seniors and what the GOP anti mail in vote advocates make it harder for seniors to vote. MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: An election denier aspires to be Colorado state GOP chair after GOP losses in 2022

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some  more background:

In addition to reducing the debt by $300 billion over ten years: "• Lowers energy costs, increases cleaner production, and reduces carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030 • Allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices and caps out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 • Lowers ACA health care premiums for millions of Americans • Make biggest corporations and ultra-wealthy pay their fair share • There are no new taxes on families making $400,000 or less and no new taxes on small businesses – we are closing tax loopholes and enforcing the tax code.

"Beneficiaries will see three significant changes in 2023.

"The first is the $35 monthly cap on insulin, which will affect more than 1 million insulin users who have Part D through Medicare Advantage plans or free-standing plans purchased along with traditional Medicare.

"From 2007-20, beneficiaries’ aggregate out-of-pocket insulin costs quadrupled, even though the number of users only doubled. They spent an average $54 a month on insulin in 2020, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

"The cap will save average users at least 35% and applies immediately without requiring them to first pay the Part D deductible, which amounts to $505 in 2023. About 10% of Part D insulin users, such as Lubin, paid more than $1,300 out of pocket in 2020 and will save much more. Although all Part D plans must cap the cost, they aren’t required to offer every form or brand of insulin" (inferring changing plans is an option when there is part D open enrollment again).

Helpful background:  Per AARP,  good lay explanation: The deficit is the difference between what the U.S. Government takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money it spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the government operating. It borrows the money by selling securities to the public.

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds then become part of the total debt.

What's the Difference Between the Debt and the Deficit? (aarp.org)

If Ron DeSantis is the GOP nominee in 2024, what is his record on public policy issues including those important to seniors?. From my 1/17/2023 blog posting:

Opening salvos for 2024: possible Biden v DeSantis. Both have plenty on the record for past votes, administration, and public statements. The question: will DeSantis's Florida record translate to winning public policies nationwide. Assuming public policy issues are the deciders and DeSantis is the GOP candidate, not Trump, we need to educate ourselves. Wikipedia (I know...it is a problematic site) did catalog DeSantis' record and footnoted sources. It is a beginning to start the conversation, however, as the matchup looks more and more possible. What grabbed me was the anti-women's choice on abortion history that DeSantis has of record that may sell well in Florida, but it was the public policy issue aside from saving democracy from autocracy that undercut the predicted red wave in 2022. Not in the Wikipedia article is where DeSantis stands on cutting Medicare and social security. At best, his record is squishy. Obviously, he has pussyfooted on this issue since most in his party want to privatize social security. Since there are so many retirees in Florida, he has been. making sure whatever he proposes does not change current policies for retirees and near-retirees. https://www.politifact.com/.../putnam-ad-exaggera-about.../

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Political positions of Ron DeSantis - Wikipedia

The political positions of Ron DeSantis have been recorded from his 2012 United States House of Representatives elections and his tenure as Representative, the 2016 United States Senate election in Florida, and during his tenure as governor of Florida. DeSantis is considered a conservative 

Boehner and McConnell fall on swords to stop Tea Party bitten by amnesia bug

This past  week, John Boehner, House Speaker  and 27 of his fellow Republicans, fell on their swords to aid their party  when they joined with Democrats   to raise   the debt ceiling  with no strings attached and to block  Tea Party  threats to shut down the government again. The Senate then passed the legislation on a party line vote, though  enough Republicans led by  minority leader Mitch McConnell,  voted to break  the filibuster rule requirement of 60 votes. The GOP leaders realized the Tea Party must have been bitten by the amnesia bug.to try to repeat their last fiasco and other failed strategies.   

Last fall,  Boehner let the Tea Party have their way and the GOP did shut down the government. The  political backlash   was so severe , Republicans  even feared they would lose seats in the 2014 midterms and set up another Democratic win for the White House in 2016.   The GOP was  saved by   the bungled roll out of Obamacare, charges the President’s” lied” about keeping insurance,   and a budget deal.

That Boehner’s action risked  his  speakership and Mitch McConnell gave fuel to Tea Party opponents in his upcoming primary  shows that the Tea Party has   nearly   completed their takeover  of the Republican party.   In Colorado,  traditional  business oriented Republicans are only bystanders in a battle between the Tea Party Express and local ultra conservatives   to see who can endorse the most conservative candidate to take on Democrat Sen.  Mark Udall in November.  Similar battles elsewhere   guarantee that Democratic candidates for state houses and  Congress in blue and purple states will have an advantage in facing  the most extreme opponents who will have problems  pivoting to the center to  appeal  to moderate middles in the general election.  

This year the situation is different . The web site works. As of February 1 nearly 14  million are already covered by Obamacare (3.3 million through the exchanges; 7 million through Medicaid expansion and  3 million young adults on parents’ policies).  An estimated 60% of the  5 million losing individual insurance have found other insurance policies or qualified for cheaper ones.. By the 2014 mid terms, the administration  projects    six  million will have signed up through Obamacare  exchanges. .  The Tea Party still is adamantly advocating  total repeal and no replacement. All those  benefiting  by November 2014  will not look kindly on candidates wanting to take away their newly acquired affordable  insurance coverage.

The Tea Party’s domination of the GOP will also help  Democrat’s chances of holding onto the Senate since key states with large Hispanic populations swung  blue in 2012  by their  disaffection with the GOP’s perceived hostility, Colorado included..   Thanks to Tea Party fanatics in Congress, Boehner was forced to back down from any compromise or even a piecemeal approach to immigration reform this year.

The Tea Party  continues to  alienate  unmarried women, a must win voting block.   Anti choice platforms and  Insults  continue, the latest by former  Gov. Mike Huckabee who opined   women wanted the pill  because they could not keep their “libido” under control.   The GOP ‘s repeal  of  Obamacare would   eliminate  Obamacare  standards  that prohibit  higher  premiums  for women  or covering  mammograms  and birth control pills sans  co-pays. Since women comprise much of the minimum wage workforce, GOP opposition to raising it is one more  turnoff.

The real Sword of Damocles hanging over our fiscal heads

There is a difference between the real sword of Damocles and a fake one in the fiscal issues before Congress.

The looming fiscal cliff part 2 is as good as plastic, a flexible set of deadlines concocted in the halls of Congress. The sword hanging over our heads is the one wrought in steel that will fall on our necks in the long run: real life, harmful consequences if we do not reduce the deficit. But the swordplay has degenerated to one delay of game trick after another.

The GOP was realizing that their bargaining chip, threatening to vote no on raising the debt ceiling, was about to blow up in their faces because of the dire blowback on the economy if they carried out the threat. The GOP congressional caucus came out of their huddle last week and punted the debt ceiling downfield until the end of March. As an incentive to force a final deal for long term deficit reduction, they made failure subject to a penalty: Congress not getting paid.

Now sequester, government shutdown and debt ceiling will all meet in March madness. The GOP must be hoping that by April Fools' Day, the joke will be on the Democrats because Republicans will have succeeded in making their strategy of calling for spending cuts without being the first to name which ones. Credit the GOP caucus with being clever.

On the left of the spectrum, liberal economists such a Paul Krugman claim that the deficit is not so big a problem, so just ignore it. Economists may ignore it, but the rating agencies did not do so in last year's debt ceiling debacle, and the economy took a dip. Last week, Fitch's rating agency warned that if the debt ceiling is not raised, they would indeed downgrade the country's credit rating.

Most pencil pushers estimate that about 40 percent of the deficit is due to the Great Recession and the resulting decrease in government revenue. Growth will help, but it will not be enough.

The plan on the table that would get the job most thoroughly accomplished is the Simpson- Bowles plan. Both Democrats and Republicans piously invoke their proposal, but they ought to read it. Simpson-Bowles proposed $1.4 trillion cut in defense spending in addition to withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Other politically hard to swallow recommendations: capping deductions on charities and home mortgages, taxing capital gains and dividends as normal income, and raising Medicare and Social Security retirement ages to 69 by 2075.

Both Simpson-Bowles and President Obama proposed ending Bush tax cuts for earners over $250,000, but to avoid the December fiscal cliff, the President compromised at $400,000. However, he was closer to Simpson-Bowles when he said we must still raise more revenue. Just ending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and cutting spending was not enough to reduce the deficit.

The president in his inauguration speech Monday addressed the need to reduce the deficit and revamp our tax code, but still we must “care for the vulnerable.” He used the term “reduce,” which sets a goal of degree, not a matter of complete elimination.

Since Simpson-Bowles, a degree of progress has been made. Richard Kagan at the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities explains, “Congress passed $1.5 trillion of spending cuts in August 2011.” If you take out the recommended cuts that are already enacted, getting to the “how much” is not as difficult as the GOP claims.

The political hang-ups are the “what” cuts and “who” will take the blame for cutting defense spending and for tinkering with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. While both houses of Congress delayed the game in 2012, this time the GOP has delayed the penalty while deserving the penalty flag.

This is my column in the Sky Hi Daily News today

For more, go to  www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

Warning to the GOP: don't overplay your hand in the March fiscal cliff

In the winter of 1995-1996 there was a death with repercussions lasting a decade. The deceased was the Newt Gingrich Republican Revolution.

It was a self-inflicted wound. The weapon used to commit suicide was the shutting down of government for days, used as a GOP bludgeon in arguments over the budget. So angered were the voters that in the next election cycle, Bill Clinton was re-elected easily.

In 2011, the GOP used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip again and the economy took a measurable dip. In 2013, the debt ceiling, continuation of the resolution to fund government, sequestered spending cuts, and raising the debt limit unite in a perfect storm of entangled issues in March. The GOP should know from past experience if they overplay their hand, they risk a public backfire and a dent in economic growth.

The compromise avoiding the fiscal cliff on Jan. 2, also delayed debate on sequestered spending cuts for 60 days. The GOP is threatening to use disapproval of raising the debt limit and shutting down government as bargaining chips to get their way. They think they have a hot one, too. Hot, indeed.

What they may have done is set up the possibility of some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past 125 years, addressing the fundamental question of the separation of powers. Just how far does the GOP want to take their “leverage?” Are we now headed for a constitutional crisis, too? Do they really want to default on our loans if we do not raise the debt ceiling and imperil the economy to get their way over the debt ceiling? A wiser Newt Gingrich called this strategy a “dead loser” last week. Or is this just more brinkmanship bluffing?

While not precluding reduction in spending or more revenue enhancement, the president made it clear in remarks Jan. 2 he would not allow the GOP to use the debt ceiling to get their way on future spending cuts. The president staked his legal claim that Congress voted for the expenditures and he had the obligation to pay bills as they came due. That is indeed a major constitutional issue the Supreme Court could decide: Can Congress keep him from his duty as the executive branch to pay bills Congress had already authorized?

The president could also choose to tap the 14th Amendment, daring the GOP sue him and throw the issue to the Supreme Court. The president could continue to make good on payments on bonds (treasury notes) even if Congress forbids him from doing it. At issue is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution regarding the executive's power to pay bonds as they came due. Legal experts are divided so the outcome could be risky for both parties.

The question is not whether the debt problem should be tackled: Both the GOP and the Democrats know it must happen to avoid a credit rating downgrade or future economic problems. The issue is how. That “entitlements” need trimming is also acknowledged by both sides of the aisle and the Pentagon budget also needs close scrutiny. It is a matter of coming up with ways acceptable to a bipartisan coalition large enough to get it through Congress.

The GOP is laboring under a questionable belief they have the public mandate because they were re-elected to be the majority in the House. Some 2011 gerrymandering resulting in more safe districts for conservatives may have been greater factors. Public opinion polls in November 2012 showed more than 60 percent supporting balanced taxing and cuts. Public opinion also counted in the mid-90s when the GOP shut down government and the Republicans paid the price in the next election.



This is my column that appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com today

For more, go to  www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

Is there an emerging pragmatic middle, a coalition of the willing to compromise?

The painful Congressional machinations to avoid the fiscal cliff and defaulting on our loans up to now had been an irresistible force meeting an unmovable object. What we have needed is the emergence of a strong, pragmatic middle, a coalition of the willing to compromise. Whatever middle is born this week will be on life support through March. Debates on tax policies, budget cuts, defense spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and debt reduction will take place in a series of votes on the fiscal cliff, dire budget cuts, debt ceiling, and in “the continuing resolution” to avoid a government shutdown. Just what we need: a government shutdown, the final evidence of a dysfunctional democracy.

These votes will signal whether a pragmatic middle has grown strong enough in Congress to control the political process and to marginalize those unmovable objects, straight jacketed by ideology, pledges, campaign promises, and lobbyists.

Recently I heard liberals tagging Tea Party members of Congress as “extremists”. I reached for my dictionaries. General consensus is that someone is extreme if they are out of the mainstream of thought. Common wisdom is that we are so polarized, there is no mainstream. We are all extremists: Anti tax on one side and pro unaltered social programs on the other and nothing in between.

However, exit polls in November showed over 60 percent of all voters, more than voted for Pre. Obama, supported increasing taxes on the rich and a balanced approach of some cuts, some tax increases. This may be an emerging new mainstream that is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. The question is will the new mainstream be reflected in Congress to be sufficiently powerful in the next couple of months to overcome filibusters and parliamentary tricks.

The fundamental problem is that compromise has become a dirty word, yet It is the heart of our political system. Our founding fathers hammered out many compromises in formulating our Constitution and the amendments. They constructed a government they had hoped would balance power, protecting the minority from absolute rule of the majority, while allowing the majority to rule. They gave us a Congress with a platform to work out differences. Since then, Congress has established rules that have allowed a minority to be the tail wagging the majority dog by abusing the filibuster, certain party caucus practices, and denying votes on issues. Those rules are compromise killers and stonewall enablers.

To make the process even more dysfunctional, the Tea Party caucus and fellow travelers are not only anti-tax, they are anti-compromise. They have been throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of our Constitutional government dependent on compromise. They seem to be willing to kill economic recovery in the name of tax protesting ideological purity, opposing a 4 percent tax increase on 2 or 3 percent of the rich, no matter what ratio of cost cutting to tax increases the Administration offers them. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising such taxes on the top would not hurt the economy, in spite of Tea Party claims.

To their credit, the left has been a bit more pragmatic. While grousing about any tinkering with “entitlements,” they so far seem unwilling to vote against compromises the President makes. If the cliff and debt ceiling debates result in deadlock, and our economy crashes, the Tea Party is more likely to get the blame. They can hide in gerrymandered safe districts. However, those from more diverse districts who join them should fear voters' wrath in the next election cycle.

The laurel leaf of voter approval in the future will be awarded to members of a new moderate coalition formed from both parties to solve our problems in a balanced, fair way. Democracy based on compromise will then function again.

This is a column that appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com today

For more, visit www.mufticforumblog.blogspot.com and www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

A possible compromise on entitlements?

In the summer of 2011 the 2012 elections seem very close as the matadors and the picadors are already goading the bull for the final fight. Whose blood will be spilled and how much of it will be bull is yet to be determined. Much can happen in a year, but here is how the contest looks today.

The economic situation is indeed not where the Obama administration would have it. The GOP wants to play games with the debt ceiling but they have only come up with budget-cutting plans that even made the Teaparty choke. Unfortunately, both extreme political wings have failed to do more than object and they propose the kinds of cuts more liking to their ideology when a comprehensive or different approach would make each thrust of the sword seem less painful.

The GOP smells blood: “Obama failed the American people. He did not pull us out of the recession as well as he promised; Keynes and government stimulus are dead; long live tax cuts as the only valid stimulus.”

Obama supporters retort, “Tax cuts never pulled us out of recessions; they may have a track record some other time in the business cycle, but not now.”

The Democrats are stuck with a puny argument that, We sort of have failed to meet goals, but the Republicans would have failed worse. We at least saved us from Great Depression II.”

Not to be forgotten: Obama combined tax cuts to business, tax rebates to consumers, payroll tax cuts with government spending. His approach split the difference with Keynes and the low tax folks.

Both extreme political wings are being bull-headed. Let us credit the GOP for winning the prize for being the best at it, though. They have dug their hooves so deeply into the dirt that to change their position on no new taxes on anyone would be a defeat of epic proportions. Upping the ante, they changed the definition of taxes to include closing any loopholes, reducing any corporation welfare of subsidies and tax breaks, and coined the impossible goal of “no new revenue.”

Any and all commissions comprised of those not in Congress or running for office conclude there is no way the deficit can be reduced without more revenue and reforming entitlements.

The progressives, on the other hand, snort at any proposed change to entitlements, but backing down now would not have the same dire political blowback as it would on a GOP that wed itself with fanfare to the Ryan plan. The GOP claims it has the only plan to save Medicare and its vouchers would protect seniors (even though the CBO said it would cost seniors an average of $6,000 more per year). The GOP reassures those over 55 they will be grandfathered in, but those younger have already paid in a bundle toward their entitlements and they are not taking kindly to that subterfuge. With glee, progressives are sticking their lances into the GOP hide.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) promoted a reasonable idea that deserves serious consideration: Simply move eligibility for Medicare gradually to 67. Some GOP senators just introduced a bill to save Social Security by raising eligibility ages to 70 after 2017 for those born after 1970 and reducing benefits to the rich over 50 years. The details await scoring, scrutiny, and debate, but why was the concept not applied to GOP Medicare proposals, too?

The reality is that most seniors are living longer, better and can work past 65. Family finance guru Suzy Orman on CNN recently pointed out that seniors will have to work past 65 anyway because their retirement nest egg of home equity has disappeared , a decade of market gains has been wiped out, and pension funds are shaky.

I only tolerate “ no kill” bull fights. It would also be more tolerable if partisans would not fight to the death and sincerely seek out the best and least painful plans.