Obama is having a really good week for a lame duck President

Source: New Republic

Author: Jonathon Cohn

Emphasis Mine

The failed Obamacare presidency continued not to fail this week. Twice.

The first time it happened was on Tuesday morning, when Craig Spencer left Bellevue Hospital in New York. Spencer is the Doctors Without Borders volunteer who famously rode the subway and went bowling a day before developing Ebola symptoms. The president and his advisers, including Centers for Disease Control Director Thomas Frieden, assured the public that everything would be fine. Spencer had not been symptomatic while traveling around the city and only symptomatic people can transmit the disease (and, even then, only through bodily fluids).

Obama’s critics said that the Administration was under-reactingthat it needed to ban travel to West Africa or at least quarantine returning health workers. Obama, worried that such actions would deter health care workers from going overseas, resisted the pressure. Twenty-one days later, Spencer has recovered from Ebola, nobody else in New York has gotten the disease, and workers remain free to help fight the epidemic in Africawhere it remains a potent threat not only to locals, but also to regional and eventually global stability. New cases might yet show up in the U.S., but the public health infrastructure seems prepared to handle it. You can read more about it here.

Obama’s other non-failure came late on Tuesday night, when, while traveling in Asia, he announced that he’d secured a major agreement on climate change with the Chinese. The U.S. is the world’s second largest producer of greenhouse gases. China is the first. But Chinese officials have sometimes resisted calls for reducing carbon emissions, because they said China was still a developing nation that needed to burn carbon fuels in order to modernize its economy. Here in the U.S., conservatives cited that resistance as reason the U.S. should not act to reduce its emissions. Why bother, the argument went, when the Chinese wouldn’t agree to do something about their carbon problem?

Now the Chinese have done just that. Under the terms of the agreement, both the U.S. and China agreed to greenhouse gas targetswhich for the U.S. means continued reduction of emissions and for China means slowing the growth in emissions until they stop rising in 2030 (or maybe sooner, if China can achieve that). Those are ambitious targets that will challenge both countries, albeit for different reasons. But it’s a legitimately big deal, for reasons Rebecca Leber laid out at QED on Wednesday. Among other things, she writes, it gives other countries more incentive to set their own emissions targetsa necessary precursor for reaching an international agreement on climate at next year’s summit in Paris. 

The two milestones are a pretty good proxy for the two kinds of achievements this Administration has made. As my colleague Danny Vinik has observed, Obama catches a lot of grief for his lack of crisis management. There are times he’s deserved that. But his patient, analytic approach to situations like the influx of young Central American immigrants at the Texas border seems largely to have worked. Obama sometimes stumbles at first, which may be why critics are quick to call every new episode his Katrina. But remember this: Obama actually had a Katrina, it was called Sandy, and by all accounts the Administration handled that disaster well.

The agreement with China, meanwhile, is part of Obama’s broader strategy to reduce U.S. emissions. It’s a legacy that will last long after he leaves office, in the form of a planet that is heating more slowly. Policy success isn’t the same as political success, of course. Last week’s election showed that. And ultimately the two are related. On climate, like most issues, either Congress or Obama’s White House successors could halt or even reverse progress in the future.

But the China agreement is something history will probably remember well, just as it does the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Acteven if those two achievements, like Obama’s environmental accomplishments, get remarkably little love right now.

Jonathan Cohn

 

See:

Why Right-Wing Christians Believe GOP Lies

Wall Street and the religious right won. America lost.

Source: AlterNet

Author: Frank Schaeffer – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer

Emphasis Mine

The Republican Party base is white evangelicals. So it’s no wonder that GOP lies about the country, the economy and the president worked. The folks who base their lives on religious mythology have spent lifetimes being trained to believe lies. On Tuesday they won. Lies won.

As the New York Times noted: “Republican candidates campaigned on only one thing: what they called the failure of President Obama. In speech after speech, ad after ad, they relentlessly linked their Democratic opponent to the president and vowed that they would put an end to everything they say the public hates about his administration. On Tuesday morning, the Republican National Committee released a series of get-out-the-vote images showing Mr. Obama and Democratic Senate candidates next to this message: ‘If you’re not a voter, you can’t stop Obama.’ The most important promises that winning Republicans made were negative in nature. They will repeal health care reform. They will roll back new regulations on banks and Wall Street. They will stop the Obama administration’s plans to curb coal emissions and reform immigration and invest in education.”

Since the economy has rebounded and healthcare reform has worked, all that remained for the GOP was to lie. And since the base of the GOP is white aging southern evangelicals, the GOP was in luck. These are easy folks to lie to. That’s because they already accept an alternative version of reality. Also, of course, since the lies are about a black man, that doesn’t hurt. Yes, race is still an issue.

The midterm election boiled down to xenophobia about the “other.” Ebola was the president’s fault! ISIS is coming to get us! We aren’t safe!

None of this is true, but no matter. In fact, judging by actual facts the Obama presidency has been successful in spite of GOP obstruction. The economy is back. Jobs are up. We’ve been kept safe from terror attacks. America is strong.

What we’ll now see is a reinvigorated religious right. And since lies worked so well we’ll have more of them. anti-choice initiatives,Creationism, anti-gay initiatives,  and of course pro-Koch-brother-financed lies upon lies to bury climate change debate are on the way.

The Republican-dominated Supreme Court stands ready to back corporate- and religious right-financed attacks of the environment, pro-Wall Street laws and all the rest.

Racism won. Evangelical myth won. Wall Street won. The banks won. America lost.

 

See: http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-right-wing-christians-believe-gop-lies?akid=12450.123424.3Wx34B&rd=1&src=newsletter1026226&t=8

8 things to know about the Iraq crisis

Source: moveon.org

Author: Anna Galland

Emphasis Mine

(N.B.: The current crisis in Iraq is a not too gentle reminder of the importance of separating church and state – The aim of ISIS is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and in Syria – http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/)

U.S. bombing strikes are now well under way in Iraq in a military mission that President Obama said could go on for months.1 U.S. military planes have also been delivering vital humanitarian assistance to civilians fleeing the violence, including Yazidis who were forced onto Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by ISIS militants laying siege on the mountain.2

MoveOn members across the country have weighed in with thoughts on what’s happening in Iraq. There are varying opinions on different aspects of this crisis, but there are some common threads. Our hearts break for the people of Iraq who are living through this conflict. We know there are no simple solutions. And we’re united in our opposition to America sliding down the slippery slope to another war in Iraq.

As we all try to make sense of the events that are unfolding, here are eight things that you should know about the Iraq crisis.

Please read on and then share the list on Facebook, Twitter, or by emailing your friends. It’s vital that we engage the country in a conversation about the U.S. role in Iraq.

8 Things to Know about the Iraq Crisis

1. Right-wing war hawks are pushing for another full-blown war in Iraq.

Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, other Republicans in Congress, and right-wing figures—who blindly led America into invading and occupying Iraq—are now demanding more military action that could drag us back into full-scale war in the region.3,4,5

2. The slippery slope is real.

Mission creep can too easily occur—along with unintended consequences and new problems created by the use of U.S. military force.6,7 History shows us that many big wars start out looking small, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War.8 And we are now dealing with a prime example of unintended consequences: Bush’s war of choice and military occupation of Iraq set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today, including the rise of ISIS.9,10,11,12

3. Voters elected President Obama to end the Iraq war that George W. Bush recklessly started.

President Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war before it began and his pledge to end it—as part of the contrast between him and those who pushed for war—were key to his success in both the Democratic primary election and the general election in 2008.13 He continues to pledge that he “will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”14,15

4. Ultimately, Iraq’s problems can be solved only by an Iraqi-led political solution.

President Obama has said that there is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq and that there can only be “an Iraqi solution.”16 As this explainer lays out:

“ISIS isn’t just a terrorist group rampaging through Iraq (though they definitely are that). It’s in many ways an expression of the Sunni Muslim minority’s anger at the Shia-dominated government. . . Some Sunni grievances get to more fundamental issues within the Iraqi state itself, beyond what even a better government could easily fix.”17

These are not problems that more U.S. bombings can solve. That’s why experts are saying that “any lasting solution has to be regional in nature and must address the political interests of all the major factions in an equitable and inclusive manner.”18

5. Members of Congress, including Democratic lawmakers, are insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization.

MoveOn members have long opposed endless war in Iraq. Earlier this summer, before the current bombing strikes began, MoveOn members made more than 15,000 calls to lawmakers, urging them to oppose U.S. military intervention in Iraq. In July, the House of Representatives listened to them and the rest of the American people to require, by a bipartisan vote of 370-40, the president to seek congressional authorization before deploying or maintaining a sustained combat role in Iraq.19 Congress should continue to assert its authority under the Constitution to authorize and oversee U.S. commitments to open-ended war overseas.

6. The Middle East is a complicated place where U.S. military intervention has a troubling track record.

The Middle East has many armed actors whose motivations often compete with each other and conflict with American values, and U.S. military intervention there has a track record of often making things worse.20,21 One tragic absurdity of this moment is that the U.S. military is now using U.S. equipment to bomb U.S. weapons wielded by enemies the U.S. didn’t intend to arm against the U.S. and U.S. allies.22 That’s a good reason to be concerned about the U.S. arming rebels in nearby Syria, which experts say wouldn’t have stopped the rise of ISIS anyway.23 Experts further warn that U.S. military force in the region only tends to create more problems, including the risk of terrorist retaliation.24

7. Military action could lead to even more innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire and suffering.

The Iraq war that Bush started didn’t just cost America the lives of nearly 4,500 service members, plus $2 trillion according to modest estimates.25,26,27 Approximately 500,000 Iraqi civilians also died in the armed conflict—possibly more.28 In the current conflict, ISIS militants are persecuting various minority populations of Iraq, such as the Yazidis who had fled to Mount Sinjar.29 Escalating military action, including drone strikes, risks catching more civilians in the crossfire.30

8. Opposing endless war isn’t the same as being an isolationist. The Iraq crisis, including the humanitarian disaster, demands an international, diplomatic response.

We have options to support the people of Iraq, as well as tackle this crisis in a way that reflects America’s best interests and 21st century realities. For one, the U.S. can work through the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to support a major global diplomatic initiative.31 In the face of the current crisis, the Friends Committee on National Legislation also recommends a number of steps instead of U.S. bombings, such as working with other nations through the United Nations to organize humanitarian evacuations of stranded and trapped civilians, pressing for and upholding an arms embargo in Iraq and Syria, engaging with the UN to reinvigorate efforts for a lasting political solution for Iraq and Syria, and increasing humanitarian aid.32,33

It’s critically important that we engage the nation in conversation and debate to avoid endless war in Iraq. Can you share this “8 Things to Know about the Iraq Crisis” list with your family and friends? Use the links at the top and bottom of this page. Sources:1. “Iraq Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says,” The New York Times, August 9, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/world/middleeast/iraq.html

2. “Despite U.S. Claims, Yazidis Say Crisis Is Not Over,” The New York Times, August 14, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/world/middleeast/iraq-yazidis-obama-sinjar-crisis.html

3. “Republicans Want More US Military Action in Iraq,” Military.com, August 8, 2014

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/08/republicans-want-more-us-military-action-in-iraq.html

4. “Neocons to Obama: No half-measures,” Politico, August 8, 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/conservatives-obama-iraq-airstrikes-109861.html

5. “Where Are The Media’s Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later?,” Media Matters, March 19, 2013

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/19/where-are-the-medias-iraq-war-boosters-10-years/193117

6. “Intentions and Opposite Results in Iraq,” The New York Times, December 4, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/books/05book.html

7. “The Slippery Slope of U.S. Intervention,” Foreign Policy, August 11, 2014

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/11/the_slippery_slope_of_us_intervention_iraq_islamic_state_humanitarian_intervention

8. “Can Obama avoid mission creep in Iraq?,” CNN, June 19, 2014

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/opinion/zelizer-mission-creep/

9. “U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel,” The New York Times, August 10, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html

10. “Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush,” Washington Post, June 12, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

11. “Iraq’s crisis: Don’t forget the 2003 U.S. invasion,” Washington Post, June 16, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/iraqs-crisis-dont-forget-the-2003-u-s-invasion/

12. “ISIS Atrocities in Iraq Represent the Catastrophic Failure of Bush Doctrine and Neoconservative Foreign Policy,” Huffington Post, August 8, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/isis-atrocities-in-iraq-r_b_5661346.html

13. “Five Reasons Why Obama Won the ’08 Election,” About News, accessed August 13, 2014

http://usliberals.about.com/od/obamavsmccainin08/a/ObamaWin_4.htm

14. “Obama: US won’t get dragged into war,” The Hill, June 13, 2014

http://thehill.com/policy/international/209305-obama-insists-us-wont-get-dragged-back-into-iraq

15. “Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq,” The New York Times, August 7, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/a-return-to-action.html

16. “Obama: ‘There Is No American Military Solution To The Larger Crisis In Iraq’,” Huffington Post, August 11, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/obama-iraq_n_5669474.html

17. “The chaos in Baghdad explains why Obama isn’t trying to destroy ISIS,” Vox, August 10, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/9/5983249/iraq-obama-isis-strategy

18. “Diplomacy Not More Arms Needed in Iraq and Syria,” Win Without War, June 19, 2014

http://winwithoutwar.org/cortright-iraq/

19. “House Votes For Checks On Obama’s Iraq War Powers,” Huffington Post, July 25, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/house-iraq-resolution_n_5621060.html

20. “The Middle East Friendship Chart,” Slate, July 17, 2014

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/17/the_middle_east_friendship_chart.html

21. “Failed Interventions and What They Teach,” Speech by Former Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., USFS (Ret.), October 21, 2010

http://chasfreeman.net/failed-interventions-and-what-they-teach/

22. “The US bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America’s total failure in Iraq,” Vox, August 8, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5982501/the-us-is-now-bombing-its-own-military-equipment-in-iraq

23. “Why arming Syria’s rebels wouldn’t have stopped ISIS,” Vox, August 13, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5995793/arming-rebels-isis-political-science

24. “Experts Warn of Terrorism Blowback From Iraq Air Strikes,” Time Magazine, August 10, 2014

http://time.com/3096348/isis-iraq-barack-obama-blowback/

25. “Casualties in Iraq,” Antiwar.com, accessed August 13, 2014

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

26. “Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study,” Reuters, March 14, 2013

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

27. “The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion,” Business Insider, March 14, 2013

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-iraq-war-cost-2-trillion-2013-3

28. “Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says,” Huffington Post, October 15, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

29. “Islamic State Killed 500 Yazidis, Buried Some Victims Alive,” Huffington Post, August 10, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/10/yazidis-islamic-state-massacre_n_5665655.html

30. “The Case Against Drone Strikes on People Who Only ‘Act’ Like Terrorists,” The Atlantic, August 19, 2013

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-case-against-drone-strikes-on-people-who-only-act-like-terrorists/278744/

31. “Diplomacy Not More Arms Needed in Iraq and Syria,” Win Without War, June 19, 2014

http://winwithoutwar.org/cortright-iraq/

32. “Five Ways the U.S. Can Help Stop the Killing in Iraq,” Friends Committee on National Legislation, accessed August 13, 2014

http://fcnl.org/issues/iraq/crisis_in_iraq/

33. “Responding to the Crisis in Iraq — Without Bombs,” Friends Committee on National Legislation, August 13, 2014

http://fcnl.org/issues/iraq/responding_to_the_crisis_in_iraq_without_bombs/

Republicans deliver another self-inflicted wound

Source: Washington Post

Author: Dan Balz

Republicans may yet win the elections in November. They may end up in control of both houses of Congress come January. But in the final week before a lengthy August recess, they have shown a remarkable capacity to complicate their path to victory.

The latest blow came Thursday in what has become predictable fashion: chaos in the House. Amid fractious infighting, House leaders abruptly pulled their alternative to President Obama’s bill to deal with the influx of Central American children crossing the border. What was said to be a national crisis turned into one more problem facing deferral.

But there was more over the week that could contribute to the deteriorated brand called the Republican Party. On Wednesday, the House voted to sue Obama, an action that may cheer the party’s conservative wing but that also may appear to other voters to be a distraction at a time of major domestic and international problems.

In the background this week was talk of impeachment. Republicans rightly suggest that the White House and Democrats are doing all they can to stoke discussion of the topic as a way to raise money and motivate their base. But it is a subject that has bubbled up from the conservative grass roots of the GOP and that now bedevils Republican leaders.

Fundamentals in this election year continue to favor the Republicans. Obama’s approval rating is low and stagnant. Not much on the immediate horizon is likely to change that, given the state of the world. The economy is getting better, but many voters aren’t convinced of that. The Senate map favors Republicans, who need a net of six seats to gain control of the chamber.

This isn’t 2010 all over again by any means: The unrest is more muted. But looking toward November, it’s better to be in the Republicans’ position now than the Democrats’. Standing in the GOP’s path to victory, however, are perceptions of the party itself, nationally and in some of the states. How much self-inflicted damage is too much?

The tea party movement gives the Republicans energy, but it continues to push the party further to the right than some strategists believe is safe ground. In a number of states, strategists for the GOP say tea party positions are outside the mainstream, even the conservative mainstream.

Republicans are asking for the right to govern, to control the legislative machinery starting in 2015. But they continue to struggle with that very responsibility in the one chamber they control. How many times have Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his top lieutenants suffered similar embarrassments as support for leadership measures suddenly eroded in the face of a conservative revolt?

Republicans have been repeatedly criticized for not offering a governing agenda if they take power. What happened Thursday underscores why that has been so difficult. Getting the party’s factions on the same page has proved more than difficult. In some states where Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, there has been a backlash to their governing agenda. Kansas and North Carolina are two prime examples.

In Congress, Republicans have spent four years attacking the Affordable Care Act with a series of votes to repeal or defund it. But is there a Republican alternative they are collectively promoting this fall? No. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) told reporters at a breakfast held by the Christian Science Monitor on Thursday that he is working on one — but that it is just one of several GOP ideas on health care.

House Republican leaders say Democrats are hypocritical to blame them for the gridlock and chaos. They point to a series of bills approved with Democratic support that are parked in the Senate with no action. They say Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) should let senators vote on them. But by their own high-voltage missteps, they draw attention away from that and to themselves. They reinforce a narrative that remains not in their favor.

The immigration issue offered a fresh example of the conundrum for Republicans. The border crisis presented Obama with a serious problem — substantively and politically. He offered his own plan for $3.7 billion in spending, which was too high-priced for the GOP. Their alternative called for $659 million in spending.

 But at the center was an issue of power. Republicans view Obama as an out-of-control executive who has exceeded his constitutional authority and they want to take him to court (although ironically for doing something with the Affordable Care Act, delaying the employer mandate, a move they favor).

The issue of executive power extends to immigration. With comprehensive immigration reform locked down in the House and heading nowhere this year, Obama’s administration is exploring what he can do through his executive powers to accomplish some of what immigration reform legislation would do, including possibly allowing some of the adults here illegally not to face deportation.

Many House Republicans want to stop him. Some also wanted to force him to roll back what he did in 2012, when he allowed children who came into the United States illegally with their parents to stay without an immediate threat of deportation. All of that contributed to the collapse of the border bill.

It also prompted a call from at least one powerful Republican for Obama to act on his own.

“I think this will put a lot more pressure on the president to act,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “In many ways, it was his actions and inactions that caused the crisis on the border, and we attempted in this bill to help remedy this crisis. He has the authority and power to solve the problem forthwith.”

Obama ridiculed the House for wanting to sue him. “They’re mad because I’m doing my job,” he told an audience in Kansas City, Mo., on Wednesday.

That’s a large overstatement by the president, but Republicans have handed him the argument to make through their actions and inactions.

Republicans will have five weeks outside of Washington to let things settle after Thursday’s breakdown. They will have time  to regroup and try to put this moment behind them. Obama and the Democrats are still on the defensive in the battle for control in these midterm elections. But Republicans would do better if they found a way to stop hurting themselves.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-deliver-another-self-inflicted-wound/2014/07/31/d78f131a-18e5-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

Paul Krugman on the Real Reason Behind the Deficit Panic and the Terrible Damage It Has Wrought

The debt apocalypse has been called off.’

Source: AlterNet

Author: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman attacks the recent, years-long panic over the national debt and deficits in today’s column reminding readers that this once relentless topic in the news has pretty much disappeared from view. And for good reason, Krugman says, “The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.”

There was a time not so long ago when it was all you could read or hear about. The media and politicians of both stripes kept sounding the alarm over budget deficits and rising debts. Very serious people said the U.S. would soon turn into Greece unless something was done. Obama tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Congress for a balanced budget. But, of course, this Congress does not bargain—refuses to raise taxes—and no deal was struck.

Writes Krugman:

I’m not sure whether most readers realize just how thoroughly the great fiscal panic has fizzled — and the deficit scolds are, of course, still scolding. They’re even trying to spin the latest long-term projections from the Congressional Budget Office — which are distinctly non-alarming — as somehow a confirmation of their earlier scare tactics. So this seems like a good time to offer an update on the debt disaster that wasn’t.

About those projections: The budget office predicts that this year’s federal deficit will be just 2.8 percent of G.D.P., down from 9.8 percent in 2009. It’s true that the fact that we’re still running a deficit means federal debt in dollar terms continues to grow — but the economy is growing too, so the budget office expects the crucial ratio of debt to G.D.P. to remain more or less flat for the next decade.

Krugman goes on to responsibly inform readers that things will get more complicated after about a decade as an aging population makes increasing demands on Medicare and Social Security. But, on the plus side, healthcare costs have dramatically slowed down, which none of the doomsday prognosticators saw coming. Krugman writes:

As a result, despite aging, debt in 2039 — a quarter-century from now! — is projected to be no higher, as a percentage of G.D.P., than the debt America had at the end of World War II, or that Britain had for much of the 20th century. Oh, and the budget office now expects interest rates to remain fairly low, not much higher than the economy’s rate of growth. This in turn weakens, indeed almost eliminates, the risk of a debt spiral, in which the cost of servicing debt drives debt even higher.

OK, but still, Krugman allows, rising debt is not good. He also points out that it would take “surprisingly little” to avoid it.

The budget office estimates that stabilizing the ratio of debt to G.D.P. at its current level would require spending cuts and/or tax hikes of 1.2 percent of G.D.P. if we started now, or 1.5 percent of G.D.P. if we waited until 2020. Politically, that would be hard given total Republican opposition to anything a Democratic president might propose, but in economic terms it would be no big deal, and wouldn’t require any fundamental change in our major social programs.

In short, the debt apocalypse has been called off.

So, having cleared up the economics, Krugman turns to the real reasons behind the fiscal panic. It is, as you might have imagined, politically and ideologically motivated. So much so that conservative thinkers like Alan Greenspan have expressed disappointment that the Greece-style crisis never arrived. Even in Europe, the crisis was dealt with rather quickly, in fact, “once the European Central Bank began doing its job, making it clear it would do ‘whatever it takes’ to avoid cash crises in nations that have given up their own currencies and adopted the euro,” Krugman illuminates. “Did you know that Italy, which remains deep in debt and suffers much more from the burden of an aging population than we do, can now borrow long term at an interest rate of only 2.78 percent? Did you know that France, which is the subject of constant negative reporting, pays only 1.57 percent?”
No, that story is not told here. Nor is the simple fact that we do not have a debt crisis. Why is that? Krugman suspects that it has served a political purpose, namely  it suited those powerful conservative interests that want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. That desire in itself is cruel and irresponsible enough, but these deficit hawks also did a lot of collateral damage along the way, distracting all of us from real problems like unemployment and decaying infractructure and climate change for far too many years.
And who is going to pay for that?

Emphasis Mine

See:http://www.alternet.org/economy/paul-krugman-real-reason-behind-deficit-panic-and-terrible-damage-it-has-wrought?akid=12038.123424.JK4ohx&rd=1&src=newsletter1012195&t=5&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Independence Day Special: Thirteen Facts About America Conservatives Would Like You to Forget

Source: Daily Kos

Author Richard Riis

1. Conservatives opposed the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution and a lot of other righteous stuff as well.

By definition a conservative is one who wishes to preserve and/or restore traditional values and institutions, i.e. to “conserve” the established order. No surprise then that 18th century American conservatives wanted no part of breaking away from the British Empire and the comforting bonds of monarchical government. Those anti-revolutionary conservatives were called Tories, the name still used for the conservative party in England. The Founding Fathers? As radically left-wing as they came in the 1770s. The Boston Tea Party? The “Occupy Wall Street” of its day.

Some of the other “traditional” values supported by conservatives over the course of American history have included slavery (remember that the Republican Party was on the liberal fringe in 1860), religious persecution, the subjugation of women and minorities, obstacles to immigration, voter suppression, prohibition and segregation.  Conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that’s where they’ve been ever since.

2. The United States is not a Christian nation, and the Bible is not the cornerstone of our law.

Don’t take my word for it. Let these Founding Fathers speak for themselves:

John Adams: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797)

Thomas Jefferson:Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” (Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814)

James Madison: “The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.” (Writings, 8:432, 1819)

George Washington: “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” (Letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789)

You can find a multitude of similar quotes from these men and most others who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or formulated the United States Constitution. These are hardly the words of men who believed that America should be a Christian nation governed by the Bible, as a disturbing fundamentalist trend today would have it be.

3. Long before the United States even existed, it was drawing “problem” immigrants.

After being pretty much run out of England as anti-government radicals, the religious dissidents we know today as the Pilgrims settled in Leiden, Holland, where they set about making themselves that nation’s immigrant problem. Sticking to themselves and refusing to “blend in” with their new homeland, the Pilgrims grew alarmed by the unpalatable ideas to which their children were being exposed, such as religious tolerance (good for the Pilgrims, bad for everyone else) and national service (like all Dutch residents, the Pilgrims were eligible for the draft). When their children began picking up the Dutch language, the Pilgrims had had enough. By then the Dutch had, too. Next stop: Plymouth Rock.

4. Those Pilgrims were commies… and it saved their lives.

Governor William Bradford’s memoirs confirm that the first thing the settlers did upon arrival in the Plymouth Colony was to set up a textbook communist system of production and distribution. Every resident of the colony was expected to share, to the extent of his or her ability, the chores of hunting, farming, cooking, building, making clothing, etc., and, in exchange, everyone shared the products of that communal labor.

That commie-pinko economy sustained the Pilgrims through their first brutal year in the New World, after which it was decided that the colony was sufficiently stable to allow householders their own plot of land on which to grow crops they were free to keep for themselves. The fact that the colonists’ productivity increased exponentially with their own land begs the question: were the Pilgrims working harder now that they got to keep the product of their own labor or, conversely, were they prone to slacking off when the goods came whether they worked hard or not?

I guess you could say the Pilgrims were the kind of lazy, shiftless “takers” that conservatives are always railing against.

5. One of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, hated Thanksgiving.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once called a national day of Thanksgiving “the most ridiculous idea” he’d ever heard of.

Despite being first proclaimed by George Washington in 1789, Jefferson believed a national day of thanksgiving was not consistent with the principle of separation of church and state and refused to recognize the holiday in any of the eight years in which he was president of the United States. “Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason,” Jefferson once wrote, “and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”

For the record, Presidents Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor refused to issue Thanksgiving Day proclamations during their administrations, too. Can you imagine what Fox News Channel would have made of these administrations’ “War on Thanksgiving”?

6. The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

The Pledge was written in 1892 for public school celebrations of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas. Its author was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, Christian socialist and cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy. Christian socialism maintains, among other ideas, that capitalism is idolatrous and rooted in greed, and the underlying cause of much of the world’s social inequity. Kinda puts the red in the ol’ red, white and blue, doesn’t it?

7. Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan decision made by a predominantly Republican-appointed Supreme Court.

Technically, Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal in the United States, the Supreme Court merely found that the state of Texas’ prohibition on abortion violated the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and that states could exercise varying degrees of discretion in regulating abortion, depending upon the stage of pregnancy. The Court also held the law violated the right to privacy under substantive due process.
That being said, the landmark 1973 ruling that conservatives love to hate, was decided on a 7-2 vote that broke down like this:

Majority (for Roe): Chief Justice Warren Burger (conservative, appointed by Nixon), William O. Douglas (liberal, appointed by FDR), William J. Brennan (liberal, appointed by Eisenhower), Potter Stewart (moderate, appointed by Eisenhower), Thurgood Marshall (liberal, appointed by LBJ), Harry Blackmun (author of the majority opinion and a conservative who eventually turned liberal, appointed by Nixon), Lewis Powell (moderate, appointed by Nixon). Summary: 3 liberals, 2 conservatives, 2 moderates.

Dissenting (for Wade): Byron White (generally liberal/sometimes conservative, appointed by JFK), William Rehnquist (conservative, appointed by Nixon). Summary: 1 liberal, 1 conservative.

By ideological orientation, it was an across-the-board decision for Roe: conservatives 2-1, liberals 3-1, moderates 2-0; by party of presidential appointment: Republicans 5-1, Democrats 2-1. No one can rightly say that this was a leftist court forcing its liberal beliefs on America.

8. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan once signed a bill legalizing abortion.

The Ronald Reagan conservatives worship today is more myth than reality. Reagan was a conservative for sure, but also a practical politician who understood the necessities of compromise. In the spring of 1967, four months into his first term as governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that, among other provisions, legalized abortion for the vaguely-defined “well being” of the mother. Reagan may have been personally pro-life, but in this instance he was willing to compromise in order to achieve other ends he considered more important. That he claimed later to regret signing the bill doesn’t change the fact that he did. As Casey Stengel liked to say, “You could look it up.”

9. Reagan also raised federal taxes eleven times.

Okay, Ronald Reagan cut tax rates more than any other president – with a big asterisk. Sure, the top rate was reduced from 70% in 1980 all the way down to 28% in 1988, but while Republicans typically point to Reagan’s tax-cutting as the right approach to improving the economy, Reagan himself realized the resulting national debt from his revenue slashing was untenable, so he quietly raised other taxes on income – primarily Social Security and payroll taxes – no less than eleven times. Most of Reagan’s highly publicized tax cuts went to the usual handout-takers in the top income brackets, while his stealth tax increases had their biggest impact on the middle class. These increases were well hidden inside such innocuous-sounding packages as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. Leave it to a seasoned actor to pull off such a masterful charade.

10. Barry Goldwater was pro-choice, supported gay rights, deeply despised the Religious Right, and – gasp! – liked Hillary Clinton.

It’s a measure of just how much farther right contemporary conservatism has shifted in just a generation or two that Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater, the Republican standard-bearer in 1964, couldn’t buy a ticket into a GOP convention in 2014.

There’s no debating Goldwater’s deeply conservative bona fides, but check these pronouncements from the man himself:

“I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state.  The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.” (Interview, Washington Post, July 28, 1994)

A woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.” (Interview, Los Angeles Times, 1994)

“The big thing is to make this country… quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. … They’re American citizens.” (Interview, Washington Post, July 28, 1994)

“Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know; I’ve tried to deal with them. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’” (Congressional Record, September 16, 1981)

“If [Bill Clinton] let his wife run business, I think he’d be better off. … I just like the way she acts. I’ve never met her, but I sent her a bag of chili, and she invited me to come to the White House some night and said she’d cook chili for me.” (Interview, Washington Post, July 28, 1994)

11. The first president to propose national health insurance was a Republican.

He was also a trust-busting, pro-labor, Nobel Peace Prize-winning environmentalist. Is there any wonder why Theodore Roosevelt, who first proposed a system of national health insurance during his unsuccessful Progressive Party campaign to retake the White House from William Howard Taft in 1912, gets scarce mention at Republican National Conventions these days?

12. Those “job-killing” environmental regulations? Republican things.

Sometimes being conservative can be a good thing, like when it applies to conserving America’s clean air and water, endangered wildlife and awesome natural beauty. Many of Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest accomplishments as president were in the area of conserving America’s natural environment. In 1905, Roosevelt formed the United States Forestry Service. Under his presidential authority, vast expanses of American real estate were declared off limits for private development and reserved for public use. During Roosevelt’s time as president, forest reserves in the United States went from approximately 43 million acres to about 194 million acres. Talk about big government land grabs!

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, arch-enemy of polluters in particular and government regulation haters in general, was created by that other well-known GOP tree hugger, Richard Nixon. In his 1970 State of the Union Address, Nixon proclaimed the new decade a period of environmental transformation. Shortly thereafter he presented Congress an unprecedented 37-point message on the environment, requesting billions for the improvement of water treatment facilities, asking for national air quality standards and stringent guidelines to lower motor vehicle emissions, and launching federally-funded research to reduce automobile pollution. Nixon also ordered a clean-up of air- and water-polluting federal facilities, sought legislation to end the dumping of wastes into the Great Lakes, proposed a tax on lead additives in gasoline, and approved a National Contingency Plan for the treatment of petroleum spills. In July 1970 Nixon declared his intention to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, and that December the EPA opened for business. Hard to believe, but had it not been for Watergate, we might remember Richard Nixon today as the “environmental president”.

Oh, yes – conservatives would rather forget that Nixon was an advocate of national health insurance, too.

13. President Obama was not only born in the United States, his roots run deeper in American history than most conservatives’ – and most other Americans’ – do.

The argument that Barack Obama was born anywhere but at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, is not worth addressing; the evidence is indisputable by any rational human being. But not even irrational “birthers” can dispute Obama’s well-documented family tree on his mother’s side. By way of his Dunham lineage, President Obama has at least 11 direct ancestors who took up arms and fought for American independence in the Revolutionary War and two others cited as patriots by the Daughters of the American Revolution for furnishing supplies to the colonial army. This star-spangled heritage makes Obama eligible to join the Sons of the American Revolution, and his daughters the Daughters of the American Revolution. Not bad for someone some conservatives on the lunatic fringe still insist is a foreigner bent on destroying the United States of America.

Tags

Emphasis Mine

See:

Will-obama-finally-get-some-credit-for-the-improving-economy?

Source:  WashPo

Author: Paul Waldman

Today’s jobs report was a very good one: 288,000 new jobs were created in June, and the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, the lowest it has been since September 2008, just before the crash. Furthermore, we’ve now had five consecutive months with more than 200,000 jobs added, which hasn’t happened since 1999-2000. So will Barack Obama get the credit?

Probably not. First of all, we shouldn’t get too excited; there are still a lot of people looking for work, there are a lot who have gotten discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, and there are a lot working part time when they’d rather have full-time jobs. But even if everyone is in agreement that things are looking up, the president can expect to get partial credit, at best.

Obama’s economic ratings have never been very high, at least since the initial honeymoon of his election wore off. In fact, they’ve hovered around 40 percent for most of his presidency, as this chart aggregating results from a variety of surveys (courtesy of Huffpost Pollster) shows:

The most important reason for this is, of course, the simple reality that the economy hasn’t been that great in the past six years; even when there have been a couple of good months in a row, the hole the country has been trying to climb out of was so deep that no one could honestly say things were going splendidly. But there’s a partisan element too, in that ratings of the president have become much more clearly predictable by party in the last decade or so. If you look at the polarization of Gallup approval ratings — the difference between how Democrats rate the president and how Republicans rate him — you see that 10 of the 12 most polarized years ever came in the presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

That means that no matter how good the economy gets, only a tiny number of Republicans will ever say that Obama is doing a good job on the economy. Just as Democrats tend to do under a Republican president, if things go badly they’ll say it was his fault, but if things go well they’ll say he had nothing to do with it. That will put a ceiling on how high his economic ratings can rise.

Even with five months of good job growth, Americans aren’t yet convinced that the economy is humming. But what if four months from now — just before the midterm election — we’ve had nine months of solid growth? If that were to happen, it would almost certainly show up in President Obama’s approval ratings, as the good news disseminates through the media and people see the effects in their own lives and communities. But it might not make much of a difference in the midterm elections, which are far less affected by the economy than presidential elections.

In other words, President Obama and Democrats can take heart in the economic news — but not too much.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/03/will-obama-finally-get-some-credit-for-the-improving-economy/

New Polls Show Democrats Are Doing Better In Races Across The Country, Including The South

Source: Addicting info

Author: Alan J. Mostravick

“Even just a couple of months ago, the word around the campfire was that this November was going to suck and suck hard for Democrats. Polls showed them hobbling into election season with poor jobs numbers, a flawed and failing Obamacare and a congressional delegation unable to draw their Republican counterparts into any type of consensus.

When, on May 2, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their report that the unemployment rate had fallen another .4 points to a 6 year low 6.3 percent, the argument that Obama and the Democrats were bad for the economy began to ring hollow. Just imagine how much better that figure could have been and sooner had it not been for the completely obstructionist Boehner-led House of Representatives.

For months after the botched website launch, conservative pundits and lawmakers reveled in what they predicted would be the abject failure of the President’s signature healthcare reform law. First, there was no way the program was going to reach it’s necessary 7 million enrollees. But the chorus of criticism didn’t stop when Obamcare managed to sign up an estimated 10 million individuals through the program and expanded state medicaid programs. With a creative bit of goalpost movement, they then gleefully doubted those who signed up would actually pay their premiums. The insurance companies have debunked that silliness by reporting upwards of 85-90 percent of premiums. Another conservative talking point hoisted by its own petard.

As far as working with the ‘Party of No’? The Republicans have shown absolutely no proof that they intend to play nice across the aisle and work for the good of the country. So, perhaps what needs to happen is a big win for Democrats in the upcoming elections. And now we have several polls (even by notoriously conservative-leaning firms) that show this could no be a distinct possibility.

Both Fox News and the Rasmussen Reports have many Democrats in a statistical dead heat or even leading in their mid-term races, even in the rabidly Republican south. This is good news for many candidates but it is particularly good for southern Democratic Senate candidates Mark Pryor (AR), Allison Lundergan-Grimes (KY) and Michelle Nunn (GA), whose eventual victories will keep the Democratic majority in the Senate and will, in one instance, unseat a particularly vitriolic minority leader.

Many Democratic consultants are urging candidates to run on, (rather than run away from), issues like Obamacare and the economy. With the recent and continual good news on those fronts, that is cogent advice that should be heeded. With a big enough win in the elections, perhaps the Republicans in the House will understand that the country is tired of the petty politics of #Bengazi, Repeal and Replace, and the other obstructionist tactics currently being employed by that party.”

Emphasis Mine

See:http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/16/democrats-polling-well/

Ukraine Crisis — What You Need to Know

Source: the New Republic

Author:

1 Crimea, Ukraine or Crimea, Russia?

Putin and Obama had what sounds like a tense and unproductive phone conversation Thursday evening. Compare the Kremlin’s and White House’s statements on the exchange.

Both houses of the Russian parliament will support the annexation of Crimea and the decision “will be legitimate,” Federation Council Chair Valentina Matviyenko said Friday. On Thursday, the Supreme Council of Crimea unanimously voted to join Russia and moved up the date of the schedule referendum on Russian annexation up to March 16. The Crimean capital city of Sevastopol announced it would also participate in the scheduled referendum. Russian lawmakers are already working on making annexation go as smoothly as possible.

Ukrainian Interim President Oleksander Turchynov issued a statement declaring the illegitimacy of the referendum vote. Turchynov said the Crimean Supreme Council is being “totally controlled by servicemen of the Russian Armed Forces” and explained that the vote violates the constitution of Ukraine. “This will be a farce, this will be falsity and this will be a crime against the state organized by servicemen of the Russian Federation,” Turchynov said.

President Obama said yesterday that the referendum vote could not take place without the “legitimate” Ukrainian government. “In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders,” Obama said. The E.U., Baltics, and Scandinavian countries also do not recognize the referendum.

Kiev announced its terms for negotiations with Moscow regarding Crimea on Friday. Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk said Ukraine will negotiate with the Kremlin if Russia first removes its occupying troops, honors previous agreements with Ukraine, and stops supporting separatists, the Kyiv Post reports“We are ready to build relations with Russia,” the prime minister said. “But Ukraine will never be a subordinate or branch of Russia,” said Yatseniuk. 

UN Secretary General Ivan Simonovic will visit Ukraine, just two days after UN peace envoy Robert Serry was forced out of Crimea.

2 On The Ground, Conflict Continues

There are now 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea according to the Ukrainian border serviceRIA Novosti reports that Russia has begun large-scale air defense drills at a base 280 miles from the Ukrainian border. Dmitry Timchuk, a soldier in the Ukrainian army, explained the conditions on the ground in a Facebook post: “The situation is not getting better…From multiple sources we received information about the expected night assaults of our military units…tension is high.” He also wrote that Russian riot police had entered Crimea. In Kerch, where Russia will soon build a bridge between Russia and Crimea, Ukrainian Marines have refused to surrender.

Pro-Ukraine demonstrations in Kharkov continued with protesters holding signs reading “Kharkov loves Crimea” and “Today is the seventh day of Russian occupation.”

3 What Does This Mean for The Economy?

Gazprom says it might shut off gas pipelines through Ukraine. “Either Ukraine repays its debt and pays for current deliveries or the risk of returning to the situation at the beginning of 2009 will appear,” Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said, according to the Kyiv Post. Gazprom cut oil deliveries to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009 after Ukraine failed to repay debt to the company, and Europe. Ukraine now owes Gazprom almost $2 billion.

Danny Vinik explains what the U.S.’s sanctions will mean for Russia and why European sanctions are a much bigger threat.

The E.U. will send $15 billion in aid to Ukraine and continues to withhold sanctions. There will also be a political element to Ukraine’s agreement with the E.U., which is still being negotiated. The E.U Ambassador to Russia said it is “waiting for Moscow to start negotiations with Ukraine,” Lenta.ru reports. If that does not happen in the next few days, the E.U. will consider imposing travel bans and freezing the assets of certain individuals. In the meantime, the E.U. halted talks with Russia over visas and trade

On Thursday, the House approved a $1 billion loan to the interim Ukrainian governmentRepublicans are threatening Ukrainian financial solvency and American credibility by refusing reforms to the IMF, Vinik explains. “Republicans are tripping over themselves to propose ideas to hit Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But at the same time, they are limiting Ukraine’s ability to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund.” That will make it much harder for Ukraine to pay back $16 billion of national debt. Think Progress explains how debt is driving the crisis.

Ukrainians are choosing to boycott Russian commercial goods.

Crimea will suffer from the crisis’s impact on its $5 billion tourism industry, the Kyiv Post reports.

4 Media Wars

Crimea has stopped broadcasting the Ukrainian TV channel “Inter” and replaced it with Russian national channel NTV, Ukrayinska Pravda reports.

Citing concerns that the “media war” over public opinion of Russia’s invasion of Crimea is threatening national security, the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council has asked for a review of the licensing rights of Russian broadcasters in Ukraine. Ukraine’s largest internet and television provider already suspended three major Russian news channels from broadcasting in the country because they are “aggressive propaganda,” Echo Moscow reports.

5 Reading The American Press

Why does Obama believe that Putin is not willing to endure economic punishments for his military provocations?” Leon Wieseltier asks in The New Republic. “Putin is acting on the basis of a belief system.”

Forbes is tied up in a corruption scandal linked to fugitive Ukrainian politician Sergey Kurchenko. Buzzfeed’s Max Seddon has the story.

Thomas de Waal argues that one novel explains the Crimean situation in Politico Magazine.

The New York Times reports on the relative shortage of American Russia experts: “There is a belief that a dearth of talent in the field and ineffectual management from the White House have combined to create an unsophisticated and cartoonish view of a former superpower, and potential threat, that refuses to be relegated to the ash heap of history.”

6 Sochi’s Paralympic Games Begin

The XI Paralympic games in Sochi are now underway. Putin toured the Olympic Village yesterday, and the Ukrainian delegation said it was prepared to pull out if the situation escalates.

Emphasis Mine

 

Republicans Are Officially Out Of Obamacare Attacks

Source: National memo

Author: @LOLGOP

It may take a few more elections for Republicans to figure this out, but health care just isn’t a good issue for them.

You can understand why they’re confused.

In 2010, their histrionic “OMG! Death panels!” Obamacare attacks were a small part of a massive landslide victory that owed more to the economy cratering than anything else. And the most successful tactic was going after Democrats for “cutting” Medicare by reducing overpayments in the Medicare Advantage program, reversing a strategy that the left employed successfully for decades.

Four years later, Republicans have two huge problems: They can’t say how they’d replace Obamacare, but they have said how they would ruin Medicare.

After taking the House in 2011, Republicans elected with a mandate to protect Medicare passed a budget from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that would gut the program and pass massive costs on to seniors by turning the program into mostly privatized “voucher” system. In 2013, Ryan proposed similar cuts that would remake America’s health care system for seniors, along with the same reforms of Medicare Advantage that they ran against in 2010, in an effort to endorse a plan that would balance the budget in 10 years.

So what are Republicans doing in 2014, as they’re supposed to be laser-focused on what a disaster Obamacare is?

A new memo from House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) says the GOP will focus on cuts to Medicare Advantage.

The only problem?

Emphasis Mine

see: http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-officially-obamacare-attacks/