Thursday, August 16, 2012
Do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program? Yep!
From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/16/barack-obama/does-paul-ryan-want-turn-medicare-voucher-program/
Mostly True!!
In their attacks against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running mate, the Obama campaign and Democratic allies have been repeating a familiar word: vouchers.
During a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa, on Aug. 15, 2012, President Barack Obama said, "I’ve strengthened Medicare. I've made reforms that save millions of seniors with Medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs. We're closing the doughnut hole. I've proposed reforms that will save Medicare money by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health care system. Reforms that will not touch your Medicare benefits.
"And Gov. Romney and his running mate have a different plan. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher system. That means seniors would no longer have the guarantee of Medicare -- they’d get a voucher to buy private insurance. And if it doesn’t keep up with costs, well, that’s the seniors' problem. It was estimated that Gov. Romney's running mate, his original plan would force seniors to pay an extra $6,400 a year."
We wondered whether Romney and Ryan really "want to turn Medicare into a voucher system."
"Voucher" is a word Democrats have used over the years to criticize a variety of Republican privatization proposals, such as efforts to help private schools. Republicans don't like the word and try to avoid it. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant specializing in "message creation and image management," boasts on his website that he "moved the public debate from ‘school vouchers’ to ‘opportunity scholarships.’"
In the context of Medicare, Republicans prefer to call it "premium support" -- the one Ryan himself has used from day one when talking about his own proposals. A Romney-Ryan spokesman told us the campaign considers it a "premium support" plan, not a voucher plan.
Both sides are acting in self-interest, said Ben Zimmer, executive producer of the Visual Thesaurus and Vocabulary.com and language columnist for The Boston Globe. "I can understand Republican willingness to embrace this alternative term, just as I can understand Democratic eagerness to remind voters of the dreaded ‘v-word’ at every turn," Zimmer said.
In this item, we will sort through the claims and see whether it’s reasonable for Obama to call the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare a "voucher system."
We'll start with the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines a voucher as "a written affidavit or authorization … a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures; a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a child's education in either a public or private school."
Ryan’s plans
The initial Ryan plan that used "premium supports" was released in early 2011 and was approved by the GOP-controlled House before dying in the Senate, where Democrats called it radical and argued that it shifted too much of Medicare’s financial burden to beneficiaries.
Under Ryan’s original plan, Medicare would have changed from a program that pays doctors and hospitals fees for particular services to one in which beneficiaries would be paid an amount by the government that they could use toward private insurance premiums. This would have affected people who today are under 55 only. The private plans would comply with standards set by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Ryan has since offered updated versions of the plan, the first in conjunction with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and then as part of his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Ryan’s most recent plan is similar to his original one, with one key difference. The newer version allows beneficiaries under 55 a choice -- they can use their payment to buy private insurance or for a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. The amount a beneficiary receives would be based in part on the second least-expensive plan available on the exchange.
But note that Obama said, "Gov. Romney and his running mate have a different plan." Is the most recent Ryan plan also official policy for the Romney campaign?
In an interview with a Green Bay, Wis., television station on Aug. 15, Romney said, "Paul Ryan and my plan for Medicare, I think, is the same, if not identical -- it's probably close to identical." Based on this, we’ll evaluate Obama’s claim based on the most recent Ryan plan.
A history of ‘premium support’
When Ryan unveiled his plan, Democrats poked fun at him for avoiding the term "voucher." At a hearing on the plan, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said, "My Republican colleagues don't like the sound of ‘voucher’ to describe their plan, so they've made up a new term called ‘premium support.’"
Actually, that term has been around since a 1995 paper co-authored by two health policy experts, Henry Aaron, of the Brookings Institution, and Robert Reischauer, a former Congressional Budget Office director who was then at Brookings. "Premium support" also was used in a Medicare overhaul proposed by the bipartisan Breaux-Thomas commission in 1999 and in the 2010 Rivlin-Domenici proposal from the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Each of these proposals had somewhat different details, but what they broadly shared is changing Medicare from a program in which the government pays the bills directly to one in which the government gives money to the beneficiary, who spends it on an insurance plan.
In their 1995 paper, Aaron and Reischauer proposed that Medicare "pay a defined sum toward the purchase of an insurance policy that provided a defined set of services" -- an approach they billed as a "middle ground" between a separate national health care system for the aged and a "pure voucher system" within a "lightly regulated marketplace."
Aaron -- who no longer supports the idea of premium support, saying the cost-control provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care law serve the purpose he intended -- reiterated in a blog post earlier this year that there are several key differences between a voucher program and premium support.
For a proposal to qualify as premium support, Aaron wrote, it’s crucial to peg the beneficiaries’ payment to the actual rise in health care costs so people don't end up having to pay more because of inflation. Voucher plans that don’t do this "are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate," he wrote.
So does the Ryan plan meet the definition of premium support? While his original plan was pegged to overall consumer prices, the most recent Ryan plan is pegged to the lower end of health care premiums. That’s closer to the Aaron-Reischauer definition than his first plan was, though the fact that it’s tied to the low end rather than average costs suggests that payment size could still lag typical health care prices.
The notion that there’s a substantive difference between "premium support" and "vouchers" receives some support from free-market supporters. Michael Tanner, a health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the original Ryan plan, "leaned more toward a voucher," whereas Ryan’s second plan was "clearly premium support."
Robert Moffit, a health policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees with Aaron that there’s a distinction between "voucher" and "premium support," though he draws the opposite conclusion, arguing that the Obama campaign’s use of the term "voucher" is not justified, since the Ryan plan includes more regulation than for, say, airline vouchers for food and drink.
Looking at linguistics
The differences between vouchers and premium support may matter to health-policy professionals, but not necessarily to a general audience. And while the 1995 Aaron-Reischauer paper may have offered a detailed definition for "premium support," language tends to evolve over nearly two decades.
In recent years, the definitions of "premium support" and "vouchers" have become almost indistinguishable, with plans such as Breaux-Thomas and Rivlin-Domenici using "premium support" to describe policies that weren’t identical to those from the 1995 paper. Reischauer made this argument when he told PolitiFact that he thinks the Obama campaign "is on firm ground" using the term "voucher."
Even more convincingly, the 1995 paper didn’t say that premium support wasn’t a voucher -- it said that it wasn’t a "pure" voucher. This means that "premium support" may be seen as just one type of voucher, not the opposite of a voucher.
Aaron told us he agreed with that reasoning. Take away the requirements listed in the 1995 paper, he said, "and you have a bare-bones voucher." Adhere to these requirements, he said, "and you have premium support. That means, I think, that premium support is a type of voucher."
Our ruling
We agree that in the world of policy wonks, there are distinctions between "vouchers" and "premium support," having to do with the type of inflation adjustment used and the degree of marketplace regulation imposed. Compared with his original plan, Ryan’s most recent plan does move closer to fitting the definition of pure premium support. But substantively, it’s still somewhere in between the two approaches.
But the Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures." We think that describes the general way Ryan's plan would work. For a political discussion aimed at voters rather than policy wonks, we think Obama’s use of the term "voucher" is close enough to earn it a rating of Mostly True.
Mostly True!!
In their attacks against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running mate, the Obama campaign and Democratic allies have been repeating a familiar word: vouchers.
During a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa, on Aug. 15, 2012, President Barack Obama said, "I’ve strengthened Medicare. I've made reforms that save millions of seniors with Medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs. We're closing the doughnut hole. I've proposed reforms that will save Medicare money by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health care system. Reforms that will not touch your Medicare benefits.
"And Gov. Romney and his running mate have a different plan. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher system. That means seniors would no longer have the guarantee of Medicare -- they’d get a voucher to buy private insurance. And if it doesn’t keep up with costs, well, that’s the seniors' problem. It was estimated that Gov. Romney's running mate, his original plan would force seniors to pay an extra $6,400 a year."
We wondered whether Romney and Ryan really "want to turn Medicare into a voucher system."
"Voucher" is a word Democrats have used over the years to criticize a variety of Republican privatization proposals, such as efforts to help private schools. Republicans don't like the word and try to avoid it. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant specializing in "message creation and image management," boasts on his website that he "moved the public debate from ‘school vouchers’ to ‘opportunity scholarships.’"
In the context of Medicare, Republicans prefer to call it "premium support" -- the one Ryan himself has used from day one when talking about his own proposals. A Romney-Ryan spokesman told us the campaign considers it a "premium support" plan, not a voucher plan.
Both sides are acting in self-interest, said Ben Zimmer, executive producer of the Visual Thesaurus and Vocabulary.com and language columnist for The Boston Globe. "I can understand Republican willingness to embrace this alternative term, just as I can understand Democratic eagerness to remind voters of the dreaded ‘v-word’ at every turn," Zimmer said.
In this item, we will sort through the claims and see whether it’s reasonable for Obama to call the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare a "voucher system."
We'll start with the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines a voucher as "a written affidavit or authorization … a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures; a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a child's education in either a public or private school."
Ryan’s plans
The initial Ryan plan that used "premium supports" was released in early 2011 and was approved by the GOP-controlled House before dying in the Senate, where Democrats called it radical and argued that it shifted too much of Medicare’s financial burden to beneficiaries.
Under Ryan’s original plan, Medicare would have changed from a program that pays doctors and hospitals fees for particular services to one in which beneficiaries would be paid an amount by the government that they could use toward private insurance premiums. This would have affected people who today are under 55 only. The private plans would comply with standards set by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Ryan has since offered updated versions of the plan, the first in conjunction with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and then as part of his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Ryan’s most recent plan is similar to his original one, with one key difference. The newer version allows beneficiaries under 55 a choice -- they can use their payment to buy private insurance or for a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. The amount a beneficiary receives would be based in part on the second least-expensive plan available on the exchange.
But note that Obama said, "Gov. Romney and his running mate have a different plan." Is the most recent Ryan plan also official policy for the Romney campaign?
In an interview with a Green Bay, Wis., television station on Aug. 15, Romney said, "Paul Ryan and my plan for Medicare, I think, is the same, if not identical -- it's probably close to identical." Based on this, we’ll evaluate Obama’s claim based on the most recent Ryan plan.
A history of ‘premium support’
When Ryan unveiled his plan, Democrats poked fun at him for avoiding the term "voucher." At a hearing on the plan, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said, "My Republican colleagues don't like the sound of ‘voucher’ to describe their plan, so they've made up a new term called ‘premium support.’"
Actually, that term has been around since a 1995 paper co-authored by two health policy experts, Henry Aaron, of the Brookings Institution, and Robert Reischauer, a former Congressional Budget Office director who was then at Brookings. "Premium support" also was used in a Medicare overhaul proposed by the bipartisan Breaux-Thomas commission in 1999 and in the 2010 Rivlin-Domenici proposal from the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Each of these proposals had somewhat different details, but what they broadly shared is changing Medicare from a program in which the government pays the bills directly to one in which the government gives money to the beneficiary, who spends it on an insurance plan.
In their 1995 paper, Aaron and Reischauer proposed that Medicare "pay a defined sum toward the purchase of an insurance policy that provided a defined set of services" -- an approach they billed as a "middle ground" between a separate national health care system for the aged and a "pure voucher system" within a "lightly regulated marketplace."
Aaron -- who no longer supports the idea of premium support, saying the cost-control provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care law serve the purpose he intended -- reiterated in a blog post earlier this year that there are several key differences between a voucher program and premium support.
For a proposal to qualify as premium support, Aaron wrote, it’s crucial to peg the beneficiaries’ payment to the actual rise in health care costs so people don't end up having to pay more because of inflation. Voucher plans that don’t do this "are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate," he wrote.
So does the Ryan plan meet the definition of premium support? While his original plan was pegged to overall consumer prices, the most recent Ryan plan is pegged to the lower end of health care premiums. That’s closer to the Aaron-Reischauer definition than his first plan was, though the fact that it’s tied to the low end rather than average costs suggests that payment size could still lag typical health care prices.
The notion that there’s a substantive difference between "premium support" and "vouchers" receives some support from free-market supporters. Michael Tanner, a health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the original Ryan plan, "leaned more toward a voucher," whereas Ryan’s second plan was "clearly premium support."
Robert Moffit, a health policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees with Aaron that there’s a distinction between "voucher" and "premium support," though he draws the opposite conclusion, arguing that the Obama campaign’s use of the term "voucher" is not justified, since the Ryan plan includes more regulation than for, say, airline vouchers for food and drink.
Looking at linguistics
The differences between vouchers and premium support may matter to health-policy professionals, but not necessarily to a general audience. And while the 1995 Aaron-Reischauer paper may have offered a detailed definition for "premium support," language tends to evolve over nearly two decades.
In recent years, the definitions of "premium support" and "vouchers" have become almost indistinguishable, with plans such as Breaux-Thomas and Rivlin-Domenici using "premium support" to describe policies that weren’t identical to those from the 1995 paper. Reischauer made this argument when he told PolitiFact that he thinks the Obama campaign "is on firm ground" using the term "voucher."
Even more convincingly, the 1995 paper didn’t say that premium support wasn’t a voucher -- it said that it wasn’t a "pure" voucher. This means that "premium support" may be seen as just one type of voucher, not the opposite of a voucher.
Aaron told us he agreed with that reasoning. Take away the requirements listed in the 1995 paper, he said, "and you have a bare-bones voucher." Adhere to these requirements, he said, "and you have premium support. That means, I think, that premium support is a type of voucher."
Our ruling
We agree that in the world of policy wonks, there are distinctions between "vouchers" and "premium support," having to do with the type of inflation adjustment used and the degree of marketplace regulation imposed. Compared with his original plan, Ryan’s most recent plan does move closer to fitting the definition of pure premium support. But substantively, it’s still somewhere in between the two approaches.
But the Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures." We think that describes the general way Ryan's plan would work. For a political discussion aimed at voters rather than policy wonks, we think Obama’s use of the term "voucher" is close enough to earn it a rating of Mostly True.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
June Job Creation at 80,000; Rate Holds Steady at 8.2%
Published:
Friday, 6 Jul 2012 | 10:41 AM ET
Text Size 
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Senior Writer
CNBC.com Senior Writer
The
U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate
held steady at 8.2 percent, reflecting continued slow growth in the
economy with the presidential election just four months away.
 |
Stan Hoda | AFP | Getty Images
|
The
Bureau of Labor Statistics said private payrolls increased 84,000,
while the government lost 4,000 jobs. Economists expected job growth of
about 100,000 and the unemployment rate to be unchanged, though many had
increased their forecasts based on some recent indicators.
With
yet another month of weak employment growth, the second quarter marks
the worst three-month period in two years. The period averaged just
75,000 per month, against 226,000 in the first quarter, which benefited
from an unusually mild winter.
May's
weak initial 69,000 report was revised upward to 77,000, which made the
June growth essentially the same. The April number was revised lower,
from 77,000 to 68,000.
"What
a disappointing number," said Jeff Savage, regional chief investment
officer for Wells Fargo Private Bank. "This was kind of disastrous.
We're not even keeping up with demographics at this point. This is not
going to be liked in the markets."
(Catch the Twitter Buzz on this story here)
(Catch the Twitter Buzz on this story here)
The stock market,
where futures had been essentially flat before the jobs number was
released at 8:30 am ET, fell sharply, though that disappointment could
be tempered by hopes of more stimulus from Washington.
"QE3
will be back on the table," Savage said in reference to the Federal
Reserve's quantitative easing program. "It will certainly get more
serious discussion now. Those who want the Fed to get more involved will
have a lot of ammunition off this particular report."
There
were a few bright spots: The overall work week edged higher by 0.1 hour
to 34.5 hours and average hourly earnings grew 6 cents to $23.50. Also,
one of the surveys the government uses to compute the number showed
128,000 more Americans with jobs.
The birth-death model,
which approximates the amount of jobs gained through new businesses
created too recently to be counted in the formal survey, added 124,000
positions, meaning that without the estimation the total count would
have been a loss of 44,000.
"There
is little hope of an acceleration in the pace of job growth any time
soon," said Kathy Bostjancic, director of macroeconomic analysis for The
Conference Board. "These conditions are likely to persist at least
through the summer and possibly longer."
 |
Manufacturing saw 11,000 more jobs, though the bulk of gains continued to come from services, which increased by 67,000.
But
it was an otherwise dismal report that will up the stakes in the race
between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
"We now have 28 months in a row of private sector job growth," Alan Krueger, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street." "That's moving in the right direction, but we'd like to have faster job growth."
Krueger
passed blame to Congress, which he said could have helped fix the
problem by passing all the measures Obama proposed for job creation last
year.
The details drew an unflattering picture of the American economic picture.
"There's
a lot of misery in America today, and these numbers understate what
Americans are feeling — the amount of pain that is occurring in
middle-class America," Romney said during a campaign stop.
A
measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers ticked higher
to 14.9 percent, its highest level since February, while the labor
force participation rate stayed near a 30-year low at 63.8 percent.
Unemployment
for blacks surged to 14.4 percent — the highest level of 2012 and up
from 13.6 percent in May — while the 11.0 percent rate for Latinos was
unchanged over May but also at a high for the year.
Long-term
unemployment, or those without jobs for 27 or more weeks, edged lower
to 5.37 million, though the average duration of joblessness rose to 39.9
weeks, the highest since February.
Employment gains also came from professional and business services (47,000), temporary help (25,000) and health care (13,000).
The unemployment rate is the most closely watched indicator as to whether the Federal Reserve will step in with additional monetary easing.
Recent
economic indicators have painted a fairly gloomy picture, with
Institute of Supply Management numbers indicating a contraction, though
factory orders have jumped and Thursday's ADP private payrolls report
was better than expected.
Last
month's anemic jobs growth and the rise of the unemployment rate to 8.2
percent sent off a wave of speculation that the central bank would
initiate a third round of quantitative easing
![[cnbc explains]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u4joha7tyAbbA8aiS4mjPLPZRAAJkxM9pd3bphZZDHWye_nhYXQsxOwV7bmJH1m4sxbkNddeK_xsN-7U3na0UImAA_vsmP7dYe0d69e-pp6WpueJPOmJK6KAATe0zfWlZT-5qrRwfumJotx3sH9-ImY9i6XLtJh-LXoML78nAGsNEI_wHqhtfVidFeMmF3ag=s0-d)
.
.
The program entails the Fed
buying Treasurys and other debt in an effort to
provide liquidity, drive down interest rates and boost risk assets like
stocks. At its meeting last month, the Fed decided to extend its
Operation Twist program, in which it buys longer-dated securities and
sells an equal amount of shorter-term debt.
buying Treasurys and other debt in an effort to
provide liquidity, drive down interest rates and boost risk assets like
stocks. At its meeting last month, the Fed decided to extend its
Operation Twist program, in which it buys longer-dated securities and
sells an equal amount of shorter-term debt.
That differs from QE in that it does not expand the Fed's $2.8 trillion balance sheet.
With
economic growth mired at 1.9 percent and possibly heading lower through
the year, the pressure for more stimulus could build, despite
congressional opposition.
Washington
is under pressure to avoid the fiscal cliff — a term coined by Fed
Chairman Ben Bernanke to describe the series of tax increases and
spending cuts that will take place should Congress fail to achieve
deficit-reduction goals by the end of the year.
Among
the provisions involved are emergency unemployment benefits, which
allow the jobless to collect 99 weeks of unemployment. Those who lose
jobs in July will be covered only by state unemployment compensation,
which runs to 26 weeks.
"The
economy is stuck with slow job growth and high unemployment. It
desperately needs a boost to get out of this ditch," Christine Owens,
executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a
statement.
© 2012 CNBC.com
Trickle-Down Theory Adorably Debunked In 2 Minutes
The trickle-down theory has had a long run to show us that it doesn't work. Could the answer be strengthening the group that represents the majority of the population? Give the middle class a chance.
http://www.upworthy.com/trickle-down-theory-adorably-debunked-in-2-minutes?c=bl3
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Henry Rollins – Dear Ann Coulter
Henry
Rollins is an American spoken word artist, writer, journalist,
publisher, actor, radio DJ, activist and former singer-songwriter. Many
of you may remember him as the front man for the California punk rock
band Black Flag, or from his television series The Henry Rollins Show.Rollins has also hosted MTV’s 120 Minutes, and Jackass, enjoyed a recurring dramatic role in the second season of Sons of Anarchy and has also had roles in several films. Rollins has also campaigned for various political causes in the United States, including promoting LGBT rights, World Hunger Relief, an end to war and has toured overseas with the USO (United Service Organizations) to entertain American troops.
A few years ago, as part of his Henry Rollins Show project he created a series of letters to include the one below to ultra right-wing conservative author, journalist and pundit Ann Coulter.
You can check out his current projects on the Henry Rollins website and you can enjoy the ‘Letter to Ann Couter’ video below (and the transcript follows).
“Dear Ann:
You used to be fun; at least funny. At least gently and amusingly insane, but girlfriend, you’ve changed! The thousand-yard stare you’ve acquired in the last couple of years says lonely nights, too much wine and insecurity about the future of your career. Where to now, my sweet fascist? Another one of your silly books? More hilarious appearances on Hannity & Colmes? Bill Maher has to be tired of you by now.
You’re anything but stupid and by now , you must see the writing on the wall. You’ll never have a real place with the Beltway in crowd, as they see you as a northeastern, hickoid, pro wrestler, Nascar type with a degree from Cornell. I mean, really, Ann; where can it go from here? Ann, I think I have the answer, in fact, I know I do.
I want to hire you, Ann. I want you to come and work for me. I want you to be my “Ann Friday,” my housekeeper, beekeeper, floor, chimney and minesweeper, my window-washing, grocery-buying, dinner-cooking, obsequious, submissive concubine-domestic.
You will laugh at my jokes, celebrate my victories and lament my failures. You will praise my friends and vow great harm upon all who oppose me. You will treat me like a god, a guru, a mentor – and the best night in the sack you’ve ever had. You will carry my bags, wash my cars, walk my dogs and turn your savings over to me. You will massage Susan Sarandon’s aching shoulders, whip up vegan delights for Hanoi Jane Fonda, and loofah Barbra Streisand’s stretch marks.
But most of all, Ann, you will just shut the fuck up.
I can offer you a life of obedient servitude on my compound; in your time with me, you will learn much. You will learn that America is made up of people from all races, walks of life and sexual orientation and that it’s all OK. You will learn to be patient and kind. You will learn the meaning of the word “respect” and memorize every line of Caddyshack. You will listen to The Ramones, Black Sabbath and the Brides of Funkenstein. You’re a figure of fun and I plan on having fun with that figure. You will learn who your daddy is, that’s for sure.
But mostly, Ann, you will just the fuck up.
Come on, Anne, ya fuckin’ psycho; let’s do this!
Henry”
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
In context: Obama's ‘you didn't build that' comment
By Louis Jacobson
Published on Wednesday, July 18th, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Mitt Romney and other Republicans have pounced on a line from
President Barack Obama that they say denigrates people who create and
build businesses.
As Romney put it in a July 17, 2012, speech in Irwin, Pa., Obama "said this; ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’"
Here are the relevant excerpts of the speech Obama gave in Roanoke, Va.:
***
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Published on Wednesday, July 18th, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
As Romney put it in a July 17, 2012, speech in Irwin, Pa., Obama "said this; ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’"
Here are the relevant excerpts of the speech Obama gave in Roanoke, Va.:
***
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
8 Right Wing Obama Myths Debunked
Written by Samuel Warde
Right wingers would like to make us believe that Obama is Un-American, Anti-Christian and worse. Those of us who know the facts, understand otherwise. Below, we have exposed 8 right-wing myths attacking Obama for what they are – complete falsehoods.
Myth 1: The Obamas demanded and spent more money than any first family to move into the White House.
Fact: The Obamas paid for the renovations of the private living quarters in the White House with their own money rather than using the funds provided to all new first families.
Myth 2: The Obamas are Muslims (or atheists) who do not allow Christmas to be celebrated in the White House.
Fact: The Obamas are Christian and celebrate Christmas in a very traditional way during each holiday season at the White House. They also recognized celebrations and customs from other religions. What was different about the Christmas celebration was that the Obamas reused many Christmas ornaments from previous White House trees rather than buy new ones and used LED energy-saving lights.
Myth 3: Obama received extra money as part of his Nobel Peace award and he pocketed it all.
Fact: Obama received the same award as other Nobel laureates, but donated the award money for the prize to several charities.
Myth 4: Obama has been secretive and unwilling to allow public or media access.
Fact: In only his first year in office, Obama held 23 town hall meetings, gave 158 interviews, and held 42 press/news conferences, as well as 411 speeches, comments, and remarks. * Note: Official numbers are not available on such things, but this seems to be a new record high in the White House.
Myth 5: Obama vacations more than any president.
Fact: In his first year in office, Obama took only 26 days of vacation (2009) * Note: Official numbers are not readily available on such things, but this seems to be a new record low and far lower than Bush
Myth 6: Obama was not born in America and is some sort of international “Manchurian” plant who supports other countries over America.
Fact: Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He has been an internationalist president insofar as he took 10 foreign trips to 21 nations and met with 74 foreign leaders in only his first year in office (he also took 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities and 30 states his first year in office).
Myth 7: Obama has not kept any of his campaign promises.
Fact: Official numbers are not kept on such things historically, but it appears Obama made more promises and discussed more policy issues during his campaign than any other presidential candidate. But, it also appears he has kept more promises than perhaps any other president. (As of 10/4/11) Obama has kept 147 of his campaign promises and another 197 of them are currently in progress; but he has broken 49 of them and compromised with Republicans on 44 of them; another 69 of his campaign promises have been stalled by Republicans. (Source: PolitiFact)
Myth 8: Obama is Anti-Reagan.
Fact: Obama promoted the celebration of the Reagan Centennial and established the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission (June 2, 2009)
Popularity: 6% [?]
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Under Obama’s Tax Plan “just 3.5 percent of small business tax filers would pay a higher rate”
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/under-obamas-tax-plan-just-3-5-percent-of-small-business-tax-filers-would-pay-a-higher-rate/
As the Economist wrote HERE – lobbying politicians by corporations brings an investment on return “comparable to the returns of the most blistering hedge fund.” In other words – you scratch my back … I’ll scratch yours. You get on your knees … I’ll give you some cash.
And you’ll often hear this laughable claim that American corporations have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world!!! Oh my god – run for cover and vote Republican. But what does reality look like? The only thing that matters when it comes to taxes is the EFFECTIVE tax rate – not the marginal tax rate. America has a MARGINAL tax rate that is 2nd highest in the world … but after corporations take advantage of deductions etc – this is how America’s ACTUAL tax rates i.e. effective tax rates stack up against other major countries (source):
Here are a few facts you may want to familiarize yourself with:
Source: Ezra Klein
I want you to read this quote from Mitt Romney:
“What the President is proposing is therefore a massive tax increase on job creators and on small business. Small businesses are overwhelmingly being taxed not at a corporate rate, but at the individual tax rate. So successful small businesses will see their taxes go up dramatically and that will kill jobs.”
And I want you to square that with REALITY.
President Obama’s tax plan will raise taxes on 3.5% of small business
tax filers. Now … you may ask yourself … if only 3.5% of small
businesses were impacted by the plan – why would Republicans be so up in
arms about it? It’s because of LARGE CORPORATIONS and billionaires
that want to avoid being taxed what is already a small rate relative to
the average American.
Most people do not understand that the
average worker pays 50% more in taxes than someone making $200 million a
year. Don’t believe me – read THIS.
Republicans have perfected this little
bait and switch approach for YEARS. They tout their commitment to
“protecting small business” and then what they actually do … is pass
large tax cuts for corporations and really rich people. THAT is the
deal. After all – it’s those corporations and billionaires that are
helping fund those 3rd party attack ads … it’s those corporations who
are donating hundreds of millions to defeat political opponents.
In other words – what Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican party is parroting a lie to protect their wealthy donors.
Jared Bernstein – chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes HERE:
“The upper-income cuts return $850 billion over 10 years to the Treasury, simply by reverting to the top rates under Clinton, when the wealthy fared perfectly well, the budget balanced, and growth was much stronger and more broadly shared than in the Bush years. The fact that these upper-income increases hit only the top 2% — and that’s considering both households and small businesses — is also important. They won’t hurt the wobbly recovery, as these folks are not income constrained in the first place.”
As Talking Points Memo writes HERE:
In its latest estimate last month, Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that in 2013, just 3.5 percent of small business tax filers would pay a higher rate — about 940,000 individuals, many of whom are lawyers and doctors in partnerships. But those few percent account for 53 percent of all small business income.As we’ve shown HERE – corporate profits are at an all time high:
GOP aides accept those facts but they say those few small businesses are the ones overseeing growing companies whom the nation is counting on to hire. According to a variety of analyses, the lion’s share of the tax hike would be absorbed by Americans earning well over $1 million.
Late in 2010, when the same debate played out, William Gale, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, called it a “myth” to suggest that ending the tax cut on top marginal rates would hurt small businesses.
As the Economist wrote HERE – lobbying politicians by corporations brings an investment on return “comparable to the returns of the most blistering hedge fund.” In other words – you scratch my back … I’ll scratch yours. You get on your knees … I’ll give you some cash.
And you’ll often hear this laughable claim that American corporations have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world!!! Oh my god – run for cover and vote Republican. But what does reality look like? The only thing that matters when it comes to taxes is the EFFECTIVE tax rate – not the marginal tax rate. America has a MARGINAL tax rate that is 2nd highest in the world … but after corporations take advantage of deductions etc – this is how America’s ACTUAL tax rates i.e. effective tax rates stack up against other major countries (source):
And over time – this is what how much corporations are paying year to year. Notice – the burden on corporations keeps going DOWN. Remember – every $$$ a corporation doesn’t pay because of a special loophole equals a $$$ that you have to pay or a pot hole we can’t fix or a water line that doesn’t get repaired or a free lunch that we don’t give some kid at school. Every $$$ a corporation doesn’t have to pay in taxes is a $$$ that goes directly to a shareholder and we know that 57% of all capital gains go to the 1%. (source)American corporations do not have high tax rates – bottom line. End of story. I’m Done.
Here are a few facts you may want to familiarize yourself with:
- Corporate tax rates are at a 10 year low (source)
- 26 corporations had tax REFUNDS over 4 years (2008 – 2011). Americans PAID taxes so these corporations could continue to make billions in profits. (source)
- The U.S. spends double on it’s military what we tax corporations (source)
But the basic takeaway is that there are plenty of industries that are benefiting from the current corporate tax code, and are likely to fight like hell to preserve the breaks they’re currently getting. Moreover, as Appelbaum notes, a lot of these industries are the sympathetic ones: “High-tech industries pay relatively little in taxes. Utilities and other infrastructure providers pay some of the highest rates.
Source: Ezra Klein
Monday, July 9, 2012
How the 1 Percent and Transnational Corporations Hijacked Our Political System and What to Do About It
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9721-how-the-1-percent-and-transnational-corporations-hijacked-our-political-system-and-what-to-do-about-it
A major political realignment is the only way plutocratic control over our current elected officials in DC will change, according to Chuck Collins in his new book, "99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do about It." Truthout recently interviewed Collins. You can receive his book with a minimum contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
Mark Karlin: Given the frustration at impacting the grip of the plutocracy on the US and our government, let's start off with the subtitle of your book: "Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It." What are some of the activities individuals can do to create change, because the oligarchs have control of Congress, for the most part, and the backing of a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court?
Chuck Collins: We need to recognize that the 1 percent and a few thousand transnational corporations currently have captured and hijacked our political system in Washington DC. Over 238 members of the US House of Representatives and 41 Senators have taken a pledge never to vote for a tax increase under any circumstances. Very little meaningful change will happen without a major political realignment.
To shift this, we need to work to eliminate legalized bribery through our current political campaign system. But we must also organize for bold proposals to reduce concentrated wealth and power. These include: taxing the 1 percent, inheritance taxation, shutting down the "off shore system" that enables corporations to dodge taxes, break up the megabanks, and establish federal charters for large corporations that require greater accountability and transparency.
MK: Who are the 1 percent? What characterizes them?
CC: To join the 1 percent, you have income over $500,000 and/or wealth over $5 million. Within the 1 percent there are good people who have devoted their lives and money to a fair economy. They are part of networks like Wealth for the Common Good and the Patriotic Millionaires.
But there are also "rule riggers" and "game fixers," the greedy people who use their wealth and power to rig the rules of the economy in their favor. These are the people, like the billionaire Koch brothers, that we must defend our communities from. They use their power in the form of campaign contributions, charitable foundations, and organizing their peers,
MK: You have a chapter, "How Inequality Wrecks Everything We Care About." You discuss how it disrupts our sense of community. Would you expand upon that?
CC: Extreme inequalities of wealth tear our communities apart. A growing body of research shows too much inequality undermines public health, happiness and social mobility. At the root of this, extreme inequality leads to a breakdown of social solidarity and a sense that "we are all in the same boat." Extremely unequal societies stop making investments in education, infrastructure, public health and public programs that create opportunity and sustain the common good.
MK: How are the rules rigged for the 1 percent?
CC: A segment of the 1 percent uses its wealth and power to tip the rules of the economy in their favor. These rules include tax policy, trade policy, and corporate regulation. Rule changes such as whether the minimum wage goes up or workers have the right to organize.
For the last 30 years, the rules of the economy have favored the wealth holders at the expense of wage earners, favor global corporations at the expense of small business. Taxes on rich have gone down since the mid-1950s.
MK: You have a chapter that claims "the sleeping 99 percent giant wakes up." There is no question, as Truthout daily covers this, that there is an increase in public protest movements and even corporate media coverage of income inequality (limited, but still more than in the past). Yet, many citizens of the US who are in the 99 percent support politicians who vote on behalf of the 1 percent. To what is the gap here due?
CC: Yes, its true. Right-wing organizations - and the media that they control - does a bang up job distracting people and deflecting anger that should be directed at the greedy 1 percent and the "built to loot" transnational corporations. But some of this is cracking - with the further erosion of the middle-class - has increased the percentage of the population that understand that shrink government, pro-rich policies aren't going to improve their economic security.
MK: Given the license to buy elections granted under the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, what makes you hopeful that the super-rich can be removed from pulling the strings in DC?
CC: First, there is a huge awakening in a lot of different sectors about corporate domination and wealth inequality. Fewer people in the 99 percent are swallowing the snake oil - and recognize that "we the people" and representative government is the only countervailing power to runaway corporate power. Secondly, there are allies in the 1 percent like the Patriotic Millionaires. Third, people aren't waiting for President Obama to lead - they are taking action and pressing for what they believe - evidence of the "move our money movement" or "move to amend" resolutions at the local level to reverse Citizen United.
MK: Don't the ultrawealthy have more in common with their global equals in assets rather than with their own nations?
CC: Yes, the wealthy 1 percent in different nations have more in come as a global elite than they do with their own country-women and men. Their wealth is mobile and they are huge users of the "offshore tax haven system" - that give global capital the ability to avoid taxes, regulation and accountability.
MK: How does our current time period compare with the Gilded Age of the robber barons?
CC: There are amazing similarities. One hundred years ago was the last time the richest 1 percent had over 40 percent of all private wealth. Corporations dominated and corrupted our political system. Similar to 2008, extreme inequalities in 1929 contributed to economic instability and depression.
It's important to remember that we reversed these extreme inequalities of wealth between 1929 and 1940. We taxed concentrated wealth and made investments in education, like the GI bill, to expand education and housing opportunity.
MK: Advocates for the wealthy keep touting small businesses as the backbone of America. Yet, global corporate giants are in the business of putting small businesses out of business. Isn't that the case?
CC: The vast majority of small businesses are rooted in localities and are "built to last," as business journalist Jim Collins calls them. They won't stay in business for long if they mistreat their customers, employees and communities.
In my book I describe the couple thousand big global corporations that are wrecking the world as "built to loot" companies. Their business model is all about shifting their costs off their own balance sheet - shedding jobs, dodging taxes and trashing the environment - and leaving the rest of us to pick up after them. They are not "job creators," they are job destroyers.
MK: How did Wall Street and the emergence of financial firms that engage in everything from banking to hedge funds nearly bring down the Us economy with their manipulation of "funny money": financial manipulation of trillions of dollars that they basically xeroxed and have no relation to actual assets?
CC: Over the last 40 years, the financial sector gained more political clout - and they used that power to ward off regulation and oversight. Even today, Bank of America and the 5 other mega financial institutions have gained market share and power. We have to advocate for breaking up the megabanks, allocating their assets to community-based financial institutions that are meeting the real credit needs of our communities - not speculating in finance.
You can receive this book with a minimum contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
A major political realignment is the only way plutocratic control over our current elected officials in DC will change, according to Chuck Collins in his new book, "99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do about It." Truthout recently interviewed Collins. You can receive his book with a minimum contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
Mark Karlin: Given the frustration at impacting the grip of the plutocracy on the US and our government, let's start off with the subtitle of your book: "Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It." What are some of the activities individuals can do to create change, because the oligarchs have control of Congress, for the most part, and the backing of a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court?
Chuck Collins: We need to recognize that the 1 percent and a few thousand transnational corporations currently have captured and hijacked our political system in Washington DC. Over 238 members of the US House of Representatives and 41 Senators have taken a pledge never to vote for a tax increase under any circumstances. Very little meaningful change will happen without a major political realignment.
To shift this, we need to work to eliminate legalized bribery through our current political campaign system. But we must also organize for bold proposals to reduce concentrated wealth and power. These include: taxing the 1 percent, inheritance taxation, shutting down the "off shore system" that enables corporations to dodge taxes, break up the megabanks, and establish federal charters for large corporations that require greater accountability and transparency.
MK: Who are the 1 percent? What characterizes them?
CC: To join the 1 percent, you have income over $500,000 and/or wealth over $5 million. Within the 1 percent there are good people who have devoted their lives and money to a fair economy. They are part of networks like Wealth for the Common Good and the Patriotic Millionaires.
But there are also "rule riggers" and "game fixers," the greedy people who use their wealth and power to rig the rules of the economy in their favor. These are the people, like the billionaire Koch brothers, that we must defend our communities from. They use their power in the form of campaign contributions, charitable foundations, and organizing their peers,
MK: You have a chapter, "How Inequality Wrecks Everything We Care About." You discuss how it disrupts our sense of community. Would you expand upon that?
CC: Extreme inequalities of wealth tear our communities apart. A growing body of research shows too much inequality undermines public health, happiness and social mobility. At the root of this, extreme inequality leads to a breakdown of social solidarity and a sense that "we are all in the same boat." Extremely unequal societies stop making investments in education, infrastructure, public health and public programs that create opportunity and sustain the common good.
MK: How are the rules rigged for the 1 percent?
CC: A segment of the 1 percent uses its wealth and power to tip the rules of the economy in their favor. These rules include tax policy, trade policy, and corporate regulation. Rule changes such as whether the minimum wage goes up or workers have the right to organize.
For the last 30 years, the rules of the economy have favored the wealth holders at the expense of wage earners, favor global corporations at the expense of small business. Taxes on rich have gone down since the mid-1950s.
MK: You have a chapter that claims "the sleeping 99 percent giant wakes up." There is no question, as Truthout daily covers this, that there is an increase in public protest movements and even corporate media coverage of income inequality (limited, but still more than in the past). Yet, many citizens of the US who are in the 99 percent support politicians who vote on behalf of the 1 percent. To what is the gap here due?
CC: Yes, its true. Right-wing organizations - and the media that they control - does a bang up job distracting people and deflecting anger that should be directed at the greedy 1 percent and the "built to loot" transnational corporations. But some of this is cracking - with the further erosion of the middle-class - has increased the percentage of the population that understand that shrink government, pro-rich policies aren't going to improve their economic security.
MK: Given the license to buy elections granted under the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, what makes you hopeful that the super-rich can be removed from pulling the strings in DC?
CC: First, there is a huge awakening in a lot of different sectors about corporate domination and wealth inequality. Fewer people in the 99 percent are swallowing the snake oil - and recognize that "we the people" and representative government is the only countervailing power to runaway corporate power. Secondly, there are allies in the 1 percent like the Patriotic Millionaires. Third, people aren't waiting for President Obama to lead - they are taking action and pressing for what they believe - evidence of the "move our money movement" or "move to amend" resolutions at the local level to reverse Citizen United.
MK: Don't the ultrawealthy have more in common with their global equals in assets rather than with their own nations?
CC: Yes, the wealthy 1 percent in different nations have more in come as a global elite than they do with their own country-women and men. Their wealth is mobile and they are huge users of the "offshore tax haven system" - that give global capital the ability to avoid taxes, regulation and accountability.
MK: How does our current time period compare with the Gilded Age of the robber barons?
CC: There are amazing similarities. One hundred years ago was the last time the richest 1 percent had over 40 percent of all private wealth. Corporations dominated and corrupted our political system. Similar to 2008, extreme inequalities in 1929 contributed to economic instability and depression.
It's important to remember that we reversed these extreme inequalities of wealth between 1929 and 1940. We taxed concentrated wealth and made investments in education, like the GI bill, to expand education and housing opportunity.
MK: Advocates for the wealthy keep touting small businesses as the backbone of America. Yet, global corporate giants are in the business of putting small businesses out of business. Isn't that the case?
CC: The vast majority of small businesses are rooted in localities and are "built to last," as business journalist Jim Collins calls them. They won't stay in business for long if they mistreat their customers, employees and communities.
In my book I describe the couple thousand big global corporations that are wrecking the world as "built to loot" companies. Their business model is all about shifting their costs off their own balance sheet - shedding jobs, dodging taxes and trashing the environment - and leaving the rest of us to pick up after them. They are not "job creators," they are job destroyers.
MK: How did Wall Street and the emergence of financial firms that engage in everything from banking to hedge funds nearly bring down the Us economy with their manipulation of "funny money": financial manipulation of trillions of dollars that they basically xeroxed and have no relation to actual assets?
CC: Over the last 40 years, the financial sector gained more political clout - and they used that power to ward off regulation and oversight. Even today, Bank of America and the 5 other mega financial institutions have gained market share and power. We have to advocate for breaking up the megabanks, allocating their assets to community-based financial institutions that are meeting the real credit needs of our communities - not speculating in finance.
You can receive this book with a minimum contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
