White House ~ 7 Things To Know about the Tax Deal

From the White House ~ a list of 7 important facts about the Fiscal Cliff tax deal:

More on the Fiscal Cliff, Medicare and Retirement Age

Over the weekend, Progressives were trying to come to terms with rumors reported by Ezra Klein and others of a deal involving raising retirement and therefore Medicare eligibility to age 67.

Here's my previous post for background:
Snark Lane: To President Obama and All the Smarmy Wonks in Washington

And here is my collection of quotes to give you an idea of the backlash towards Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait over the weekend on Twitter and elsewhere:
Snark Amendment: Dems Pop Trial Balloon on Raising Retirement Age

I think my title on the second one is probably wishful thinking, since we don't really know whether this monstrosity is a fake trial balloon floated to make the "real" changes seem better to the base, or if it is nearly a done deal, as Klein and others seem to think. The course of action outlined by Jonathan Chait would be to raise the age, then move those under 67 to Obamacare to bolster the program. But why? To most people, Obamacare just took effect and isn't a tried and true program like Medicare. Life is confusing enough for the elderly new retirees without even more stress heaped on them by bureaucrats in Washington, and done just to make political points with a party that basically doesn't care . . . sorry, I seem to be ranting again - I'll stop.

There is some reason this bad idea keeps getting floated around. Most Democrats just hate the idea that we have to capitulate to the demands of the Republicans and the Tea Party after such a hard-fought campaign, especially to give them something they seem to desperately want in a sadistic way - to punish the elderly and the poor and the sick who need government assistance. *stops ranting again*

Here is a petition you can sign, if nothing else, to make you feel better:
Tell President Obama and Congressional Leadership: Don't accept any deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age or cuts benefits.

Joan Walsh has a great column summing up the whole mess:

Salon: Fiscal Cliff Cruelty

. . . it’s not just Chait who believes the deal is possible. Obama-doubting progressives like my friend Glenn Greenwald point to multiple reports that the president was willing to raise the Medicare eligibility age in order to reach a debt-ceiling “grand bargain” in 2011. And facing suggestions on Twitter (including from me) that the supposed Medicare proposal wasn’t genuine, Ezra Klein tweeted at me and Greenwald: “yes, given how widely reported that was, I’m baffled by the disbelief that age is in the negotiations.” He followed up, when people blamed the messenger (him) for the bad idea, by saying: “I don’t want to raise the Medicare age. I’m reporting that it may happen.”

There are so many things wrong with raising the eligibility age that I still can’t believe it’s under consideration. That’s not doubting Klein; it’s just a failure on my part to imagine that data-driven leaders — Republican or Democrat — would propose it. It doesn’t save money; it’s a shell game that just pushes costs around.

. . . Post-election polls find that two thirds of voters oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age. Should this deal become reality, it would reinforce the cynicism Americans harbor about government – and about Democrats. Deservedly.
The truth is, Obama should be pushing to lower the Medicare eligibility age, to let those 55 and over opt to buy into the program with their own money. The premiums paid by a younger, healthier cohort would help stabilize the program, while the benefits of getting that population insured earlier would keep costs down later. That’ll never happen, you say? Well, we can make sure it’ll never happen if progressives never ask for it.
Honestly, the only real reason to throw seniors into the Obamacare pool is to put more people at the mercy of private insurance, and weaken both the economic and political basis for Medicare.

To President Obama and all the Smarmy Wonks in D.C.: No Grand Deal, Period

Some disturbing ideas are trickling out of Washington about Obama making a deal with Boehner to only tax the rich at 37%, while raising the retirement age to 67, with cuts to so-called "entitlements" still on the table. In other words, Obama and Pelosi are close to caving in negotiations instead of simply letting us go over the cliff in January.

I can't even express how made of fail this is. Please: Just. Don't. Do. It.

Ezra Klein writes on the Washington Post writes as if this is a done deal:

Talk to smart folks in Washington, and here’s what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That won’t raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.

The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even that’s not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.

That’s not a policy I like much, but New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait accurately conveys the White House thinking here: They see it as having “weirdly disproportionate symbolic power,” as it’s not a huge (or smart) cut to Medicare benefits, and most of the pain will be blunted by the Affordable Care Act.

Ezra Klein surely considers himself one of the "smart people" in Washington, and when in doubt, Rachel Maddow swoons in to tell him just how cute and nerdy he is. But the rest of us out in the real world don't have such a glowing opinion.

There's smart, then there's smart. I know Klein says he doesn't like the deal as he lays it out, but then he turns around and agrees with this hideous article by his fellow wonk Jonathan Chait which again takes the nerdy approach that all of this would somehow be "good" for the elderly and the Dems. Honestly?

Jonathan Chait in NYMag: Go Ahead, Raise the Medicare Retirement Age

Many of my liberal wonk friends have been making the case against raising the Medicare retirement age — see Sarah Kliff, Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Cohn. Their basic case is that raising the Medicare retirement age is a really stupid way to save money because it just forces people to stop buying health care through Medicare, which is relatively cheap, and start buying it through private insurance, which costs way more.

They’re all totally right about this. Still, when the question comes to what concessions the Democrats are going to have to accept, rather than what policy makes the most sense, raising the Medicare age seems like a sensible bone to throw the right.

. . . raising the Medicare retirement age would help strengthen the fight to preserve the Affordable Care Act.
. . . a side effect of raising the Medicare retirement age would be that a large cohort of 65- and 66-year-olds would suddenly find themselves needing the Affordable Care Act to buy their health insurance. Which is to say, Republicans attacking the Affordable Care Act would no longer be attacking the usual band of very poor or desperate people they can afford to ignore but a significant chunk of middle-class voters who have grown accustomed to the assumption that they will be able to afford health care.

Huh? Is Jonathan Chait serious? Turning Medicare into Obamacare for two years would be better somehow and would "prove" something to the Right, and then all will be well? Dream on, brother.

it strikes me as completely delusional, and almost evil, to imply that seniors should throw themselves on the sword so Obama can strike a Grand Bargain with Boehner, who after all belongs to a party who thinks the elderly (except their own mothers) are a bunch of takers and moochers. And Chait really expects this plan to win over Republicans? I just don't get the logic of any of this.

Save us from the "smart people," or as Paul Krugman calls them, the "Very Serious People."

Last night, Chait was getting plenty of flack for what he wrote:

FireDogLake: Jon Chait's Miserable Endorsement of Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age

David Dayen makes me wonder why someone as smart as Jon Chait would write such an idiotic column bit.ly/SLmIcm

— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) December 7, 2012

I lack the words to describe how democratically perverse a deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age would be.

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 7, 2012

Ezra Klein using Maddow guest host platform to blatantly shill for Chait "surrender on Medicare age" plan. Unbelievable. Wow, wow, wow.

— Ryan (@RTMcNeely) December 8, 2012

In my opinion, if this is a trial balloon, it's already lost altitude, crashed and deflated into an impotent pile, like Mitt Romney's Limp Blimp in Florida just before the election.

How many times do we have to reject an idea before Washington gets it?

Paul Krugman writes there is going to be a day of reckoning and hell to pay if Obama makes this deal.

Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age.
I’m going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it’s a VSP fantasy about how we’re going to resolve this in a bipartisan way. Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.
. . . this looks crazy to me; it looks like a deal that makes no sense either substantively or in terms of the actual bargaining strength of the parties. And if it does happen, the disillusionment on the Democratic side would be huge. All that effort to reelect Obama, and the first thing he does is give away two years of Medicare? How’s that going to play in future attempts to get out the vote?
If anyone in the White House is seriously thinking along these lines, please stop it right now.

Indeed, Mr. Krugman. This way lies insanity for the Dems. We would rather go off the flippin' cliff any day than capitulate to Boehner and the GOP.

I also saw a rather unbelievable twitter conversation in which someone wrote that Medicaid was more important than Medicare because one affects "poor children" while the other affects the "rich older people." What does that even mean? That the elderly have no value? Let's recall once again that in the population known as the 99% out here, or the 47% or whatever, most of us AREN'T Rich! Therefore, it is a myth that the elderly are rich people living on the backs of the young.

There are millions of lower middle class seniors dragging themselves to crap jobs for years, standing on legs with varicose veins, putting off procedures due to bad healthcare programs, putting off dental work, sacrificing everything BECAUSE they care so much for young people - their children and grandchildren. They have to keep going for them, not for some cushy retirement. With the state of 401K's these days, real retirement isn't even an option if you aren't Mitt Romney.

AARP know this - that's the same group that boo'd Paul Ryan off the stage just a few months ago. Do you folks in Washington think we are going to stay quiet now? God help you if you believe that.

To hear this damned message about a Machiavellian deal being blurped out by a bunch of smarmy wonks is an insult to all Democratic voters. It's even an insult to all Republican seniors because they are just as poor as anyone else! Red states are poor states, so this is a stupid deal for Boehner as well.

In fact, I keep trying to calm myself down with the idea that this trial balloon is floating in order to turn seniors against Boehner, but I'm not sure. We've seen Obama try to make friends with Boehner before,to win over the Republicans in an almost cringeworthy way, like casting pearls before swine. Jon Stewart told him "they will never be your friends, so stop trying so hard." And yet, President Obama is idealistic enough to think he can still do it.

But at what cost, Mr. President? How many times are you going to alienate the base and give the Republicans another victory they can chortle about in their all-white all-men meetings to which you will never be invited? And meanwhile, the base is up in arms over another bad deal in which we get the shaft and learn to like it.

No more. No more. No more. NO MORE.

This thing is no better than the Ryan plan to throw the working poor under the bus to protect the tax base of the young.

You know - it's like the Ayn Rand thing - Atlas Shrugged - Atlas didn't care - Atlas went home and had a martini and forgot all about the old lady in the checkout line and the man working the jackhammer and the nurse at the hospital and the guy washing dishes in the restaurant. Obama loves to tell these All-American stories on the campaign trail, so why not remember them while dealing with Boehner?

Voters rejected Ryan and his Randian ideas on November 6. If Washington has forgotten that, the voters are going to remind them soon big time, to the point that you'll never forget it again! I promise you. No more. No more.

Paul Ryan's Speech Boo'd by AARP Crowd

The seniors at the AARP conference in New Orleans certainly had Paul Ryan's number and let him know his "message" wasn't welcome. They weren't born yesterday, after all, and while Ryan may think he can appease the elderly with promises not to cut their benefits "for this generation," everyone in the AARP has children, grandchildren, or other dependents who may be right on the edge of disaster without Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or Obamacare. These are necessary programs to keep our society from falling into chaos.

So they pretty much told Ryan to take a flying flop to Fluckistan:


From Raw Story

“The first step to a stronger Medicare is to repeal Obamacare,” Ryan said, pausing as the audience in New Orleans booed and shouted, “No!”

“I had a feeling there would be mixed reaction,” the candidate said, but the booing continued. “It weakens Medicare for today’s seniors and puts it at risk for the next generation.”

That, too, was met with audible groans and jeers.

“It funnels $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for a new entitlement that we didn’t even ask for,” Ryan insisted.

“No!” people shouted.

Although Ryan seemed to be unfazed by the heckling, his explanations and assurances never convinced the AARP audience, who continued booing him throughout the remainder of his speech.

Snark in Pictures

Paul Ryan Gave Us a Pack of Lies

Journalists and pundits across political lines agree that Paul Ryan was lying to the American People last night.

Transcript of Paul Ryan's Speech

Even Fox News Admitted:

. . . to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

For all their smarmy kissing-up to the Romney/Ryan camp that CNN has done this week, such as the icky-sweet interview Wolf Blitzer had with the five strapping Romney sons - ack - last night even the CNN team had to admit Ryan was Lyin' - although they explained it as "motivation."

Via Talking Points Memo

Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. As far as mitt romney’s campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered.

Burnett: That’s right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He’s a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.

Yes, Erin, sometimes liars are "passionate" about their lying so they can "motivate" people. Think Richard Nixon or Bernie Madoff or Ted Bundy or Dick Cheney or Jerry Sandusky.

The bottom line is, we shouldn't elect a liar and possible sociopath to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency. We need people who will tell us the truth, and not a pack of lies so they can fool us into submission with all their plans.

The Six Worst Lies in Paul Ryan's Speech
~ Think Progress

Pants on Fire: The The False Truths Paul Ryan Told During The RNC (LIST)
~ Global Grind

The Lies People Are Willing to Accept From VP Nominee Paul Ryan
~ Hyper Vocal

Paul Ryan's speech: a round-up of his most audacious untruths
~ Guardian UK



As for Ryan, it’s scary that he could lie so brazenly to the millions of people around the country who tuned in to watch the Republican National Convention. But what’s scarier? That quite a few of those millions will have hung on to and believed every word he said.
~ Tracy Bloom on Truth Dig

The sanctimonious V.P. nominee seems to have forgotten the Fourth Commandment: “Thou shalt not lie.” Ryan believes he can say anything and get away with it.
~ Joan Walsh on Salon

But really, the proper response to a speech like [Paul Ryan’s] isn’t to carefully analyze the logic, or to find instances of hypocrisy; it’s to call the speaker out for telling flat-out lies to the American people. Paul Ryan has had what I’ve long thought was an undeserved good reputation among many in the press and in Washington. It shouldn’t survive tonight’s speech.
~ Jonathan Bernstein in Washington Post

Ryan talked about moral creed, but his budget slashes programs aimed at protecting those that he said we have an obligation to protect. If that is the Romney/Ryan American dream, then voters -- young, old, middle class, African-American, Latinos and women -- would do well to say thanks, but we'll keep our hope and change even if it takes four more years to get there.
~ CNN

Ryan actually pushed the envelope, peddling new fantasies, like the spin that says: “Obamacare comes to more than 2,000 pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country."
This will come to news as news to Britain, Canada, Germany and other American allies that somehow keep the light of liberty shining even as they guarantee all citizens access to quality healthcare.
~ John Nichols on The Nation

So the Democrats have to raise their game. They’ve never had to encounter this kind of buttery demagoguery before. Their campaign is going to have to be almost as much against Ryan as against Romney. (Does anyone think Romney’s speech is going to be more effective to the intended audience? I’d be awfully surprised if it is.) They have to rebut his lies, and they have to do it without sounding bitter or afraid or superior or haughty. That’s not easy to do. But it’s the challenge of this campaign. If they can’t win the Ryan war, they’re done.
~ Michael Tomasky on Daily Beast

But here's the thing: Most of the millions of people who watched the speech on television tonight do not read fact-checks or obsessively consume news 15 hours a day, and will never know how much Ryan's case against Obama relied on lies and deception. Ryan's pants are on fire, but all America saw was a barn-burner.
~ Dan Amira on New York Magazine

Romney Tries to Hide from Akin

Mitt can run but he can't really hid from todd Akin.

Some people on Twitter call the Repub ticket Romney-Akin-Ryan, and they have a point. Akin and Ryan are pretty much identical in their ideology, and they are in tune with the abortion plank of the official Party Platform. Avoiding questions from the media is not going

TPM: Romney Forbids Questions About Akin

Denver TV reporter Shaun Boyd wanted to ask Mitt Romney about Todd Akin and the abortion controversy roiling the GOP Thursday. But the Romney campaign refused.
In a broadcast on Thursday, Boyd revealed the Romney campaign’s demand that she not ask about Akin. The Obama campaign quickly posted the video online and sent it to reporters.
. . . “I wanted to get the interview with him because I have other issues I want to talk to him about,” she said. “So the fact that he doesn’t want to talk about this says something in and of itself. In some ways this speaks for itself even without asking the question.”

The Romney campaign told TPM that asking for stipulations for interviews is not standard practice.
“This is not how we operate,” a campaign official said. “The matter is being addressed.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Shocking Poll for Republicans

Look at the latest ststs targeting the presidential election. Romney isn't doing that well, especially with African American voters - ZERO percent!

I am always surprised that any women would vote Republican, and after the Todd Akin fiasco, I think Romney's percentage of women will fall below 41%.

The NBC/WSJ Poll of Registered Voters
Complete PDF Here

Registered Voters:
Obama/Biden 48%
Romney/Ryan 44%

In Swing States:
Obama/Biden 49%
Romney/Ryan 46%

African Americans:
Obama/Biden 94%
Romney/Ryan 0%

Latinos:
Obama/Biden 60%
Romney/Ryan 30%

Women:
Obama/Biden 51%
Romney/Ryan 41%

On Medicare:
Obama - No Change to system  50%
Romney - Vouchers/RyanPlan   34%
 

Snark in Pictures

Ryan's Plan ~ Screw Everyone Under 55

Since I just turned 52 a few weeks ago and my husband is 49, Paul Ryan makes my blood run cold. He wants to keep Medicare for his Mom's generation, but destroy it for the late baby boomers who were born after 1959. How conveeenient!

Here it is from his own Twitter account:

Medicare should not be used as a piggy bank for Obamacare. Medicare should be the promise that is kept to current seniors. Period.
— Paul Ryan (@PaulRyanVP) August 18, 2012

Get that? Current Seniors, not Future Seniors. Appeal to the safety of those currently receiving Medicare, since they are more likely to vote Republican, but throw the rest of uf under the bus.

This way our children will always be poor because they have to take care of us, our grandchildren won't thrive because all family money will go to hospitals and big pharma and nursing homes, and the only people who have a chance in the future are those like himself and Mitt with inherited wealth and no need for Medicare. The rich get richer and more powerful on tax cuts, and the middle class ceases to exist.

Ryan couldn't have been more honest and yet more repugnant today, using his mother as a prop for the sympathy vote, promising to save Medicare for his Mama and her friends - wealthy people who don't need help - but cutting the rest of us off with only "vouchers" that we can't afford on Social Security. Oh yeah - he wants to cut that, too.


Candidate Paul Ryan's Florida Speech, via MSNBC

Like a lot of Americans, when I think about Medicare it's not just a program, it's not just a bunch of numbers, it's what my mom relies on, it's what my grandma had. Medicare was there for our family, for my grandma, when we needed it then; and Medicare is there for my mom while she needs it now, and we have to keep that guarantee.

Our solution to preserve, protect, and save Medicare does not affect your benefits. Let me repeat that. Our plan does not affect the benefits for people who are in or near retirement.

. . . bureaucrats will not mess with my mom’s healthcare or your mom’s healthcare.

It’s a promise that was made and it’s a promise that must be kept. To save it for this generation, you have to reform it for my generation so it doesn’t go bankrupt when we retire.

Save Medicare for this generation - not the next generation. You got that, folks??? He truly couldn't give a flying flip about the rest of us.

From the Tampa Bay Times

Behind him hung a big sign: "Protect & Strengthen MEDICARE."

Above him circled a single-engine plane with a banner: "Paul Ryan keep your hands off our Medicare."

The Villages is a massive retirement community about 50 miles northwest of Orlando, and one of the biggest Republican strongholds in Florida.

A fire marshal estimated 10,000 people attended the event, though the crowd appeared smaller. Four years ago, newly minted vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin came to The Villages after the Republican National Convention, drawing a crowd estimated at 25,000 to 60,000.

The seniors holding anti-Obamacare signs and sipping breakfast-hour cocktails Saturday morning in the village square consistently said they applauded Ryan's talk about entitlement reform, and noted that it did not affect anyone 55 or over.

Wow - that's just great. Turn the seniors against the next generation, their younger brothers and sisters and cousins, Obama's generation. Put us in poverty forever.

But we will not thank you.

After today, there is no doubt that Ryan really is a follower of Ayn Rand making an appeal to selfishness. It makes him happy to have Medicare take care of his Grandma and his Mom, but screw everyone else. The 99% are just parasites who deserve to die off anyway.

"Let Them Eat Cat Food"

It's a Darwinian approach that even Sarah Palin would say is right up there with "Death Panels."

Of course, an optimist would say that such speeches may be the death knell of the Romney/Ryan ticket, too, because he isn't mincing words about what he wants to do. He's not as good a liar as Mitt, and that may be his downfall. Hope springs eternal that people hear this stuff and begin to have doubts.

Will the seniors buy what he is selling? Seniors are usually more conservative nationally and locally. They are famous for voting against raising taxes for schools because their own kids are grown and their grandchildren go to private schools. Not one dime for anyone else, they will say, especially for anyone of color.

Sadly, yes, it might work. But we can still fight back while we can.

This guy is the coldest fish to come along in a while. Anyone who is still on the fence after that speech just isn't paying attention.

Mitt and his Lying Whiteboard

You'd think Romney would have learned not to put things in writing by now. /snark


The Official Obama Response:

Ryan's First Week a "Disaster"

Great recap of the past week of "disaster" for the Romney/Ryan ticket via  MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.  The honeymoon was over really fast, LOL.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Sununu Loses it with CNN's Soledad O'Brien

Why is it that Republicans can't go on national TV without trying to out-shout someone? It's either just a macho thing, or they are running scared. I'll take the latter.

Because let's face it, no surrogate can prove that Romney isn't being influenced by Paul Ryan now. There's just no distance between them, as presidents and veeps are mostly one unit. But Sununu sounds in denial about that.

In this clip, Romney surrogate John Sununu erupts at Soledad O'Brien on CNN over whether Romney is embracing the Ryan Budget view on Medicare. Sununu gets so flustered he tells O'Brien to "put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead." OMG At the end he gives a non-apology apology, and Soledad calls him out on that, too! Good for her!



CNN Transcript August 14, 2012

SUNUNU: It is. The nominee is Mitt Romney. Paul Ryan joins Mitt Romney. The budget plan, the approach on Medicare and all of that is going to be the Romney plan. What he has is a man as his number two who understands the details of budgets who has demonstrated a willingness to take on tough issues and who knows how to communicate with the public --

O'BRIEN: Isn't the Ryan plan the Romney plan --

SUNUNU: No, it isn't.

O'BRIEN: Let me read you a quote.

SUNUNU: It isn't. You keep wanting to say it and I'm telling you, it's not.

O'BRIEN: Then let me read you a quote from Mitt Romney. This is from Ryan Lizza's article. On March 20th in Chicago, "I'm very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. He said, I think it would be marvelous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan's budget and adopt it and pass it along to the president." That sounds like a lot of support. Am I wrong?

SUNUNU: It's support for the concepts that are in the Ryan plan. But Mitt Romney for six months has had on the table his package, his plan and his approach for dealing with Medicare. If all you want to do is keep repeating the garbage that comes out of the White House, then you've got a problem. The American public is going to see that the plan that is being put forward is the plan Mitt Romney has put forward.

O'BRIEN: Let's read then what comes out of MittRomney.com, which I have right here. Key elements of mitt's plan, nothing changes for current seniors, Medicaid is reformed as a premium support system, repackaged as a fixed amount benefit they can use to purchase an insurance plan. All insurance plans must offer what Medicare provides today. This is from MittRomeny.com It sounds awfully like the Paul Ryan Medicare plan.

SUNUNU: But it's very different. For example, when Obama gutted Medicare by taking $717 billion out of it, the Romney plan does not do that. The Ryan plan mimicked part of the Obama package there. The Romney plan does not. That's a big difference.

O'BRIEN: But you know, and I understand that this is a Republican talking point because I've heard it repeated over and over again. And these numbers have been debunked as you know by congressional --

SUNUNU: No, they haven't.

O'BRIEN: Yes they have.

SUNUNU: I have the Congressional Budget Office right here dated July 24th from Doug Elmandorf. Read page 13 and 14 --

O'BRIEN: I can tell you what it says. It cuts a reduction in the expected rate of growth, which you know, not cutting budgets to the elderly, benefits will be improved, the focus is on hospitals and focus is on health insurance.

SUNUNU: He gutted the program by $711 million.

O'BRIEN: The expected rate of growth is being cut.

SUNUNU: It reduces services to Medicare beneficiaries currently on the package. What the difference is, is that Romney says no impact to anybody 55 or over. The -- it is clear in here that the reduction in services starts on January 1st, 2013. And Obama stole that money to put it in the --

O'BRIEN: The hospitals agreed to that and drug providers agreed to that because their theory is they will make up by the number of people that come into the system. It doesn't reduce or cut the benefits. The older people who --

SUNUNU: It does --

(CROSSTALK) SUNUNU: Soledad, stop this. All you're doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blog boards out there. If you're going to mouth garbage that comes out of the White House.

O'BRIEN: I'm telling you what FactCheck.com tells you. I'm telling what the CBO and CNN's independent analysis does.

SUNUNU: I have the CBO report right here.

O'BRIEN: And I'm telling you what it says. I've read it several times.

SUNUNU: Put a Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this.

O'BRIEN: You know, let me tell you something, there is independent analysis that details what this is about.

SUNUNU: No, there isn't.

O'BRIEN: Yes, there is.

SUNUNU: (CROSSTALK)

O'BRIEN: Sir, let me finish. There's independent analysis, fact check.com, the CBO and CNN has already done its own independent analysis, and name calling to me and somehow acting as if by repeating a number of $716 billion that you can make that stick when that figure is being stolen from Medicare, that's not true. You can't just repeat it and make it true, sir.

SUNUNU: Reduction in services and reduction --

O'BRIEN: A reduction in the expected rate of growth, a reduction in the expected rate of growth.

SUNUNU: And reduction in services and reduction in support for Medicare advantage. That is taking money from the program.

O'BRIEN: Which by the way, Paul Ryan, right, has in his budget, which by the way -- SUNUNU: Mitt Romney does not.

O'BRIEN: Which Romney has said in the quote I just read to you, he thinks it's brilliant.

SUNUNU: But he likes the Ryan plan for its guts, but he has his own plan out there, which is carefully crafted to protect the seniors from 55 and up and does not take the $700 billion that Obama took.

O'BRIEN: John Sununu, always nice having you, pleasure.

SUNUNU: Yes.

O'BRIEN: It doesn't sound like he means it.

BERMAN: I just wish John Sununu would come out of his shell a little bit. He's very timid in the morning.

Snark in Pictures ~ Romney and Ryan

...

Joe Walsh and Other Loud-Mouth Louts

Sometimes idealogy has less to do with politics than the fact that someone is just basically an insensitive loud-mouth lout. It's as if these people grew up watching Archie Bunker and thought he was the perfect role model. What they seem to have missed is that Archie was never a lovable guy, but a caricature of an all-American bigot and the essence of loutishness.

Did I mention he was also written as a stupid character with little understanding of other peoples' lives and experiences? I think some of these politicians should realize that.

Here's Congressman Bill Young of Florida insulting a constituent who is asking a perfectly legitimate question about raising the minimum wage:

Constituent: Jesse Jackson Jr.'s passing around a bill around to increase the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. Do you support that?
Young: Probably not.
Constituent: Ten bucks and hour to give us a living wage?
Young: How 'bout gettin' a job?
Constituent: I do have one.
Young: Then why do you want that benefit? Get a job!
Constituent: I have a job!

Uh, Congressman Young? The point isn't the job, it's making enough money. You fail at logic. I'm surprised you didn't just call this guy "Meathead." And why shouldn't we all care about the minimum wage? You fail at sympathy for the American people, too.



Or how about Chris Collins, running for Congress in New York District 27? He obviously lives in a world of his own where it's okay to oppose health care because he thinks no one dies from cancer anymore. How con-veeeen-ient! Now he can hate Obamacare without feeling guilty.

Story from Think Progress

"People now don’t die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things,” Collins said.
. . . In fact, over 28,000 men will die of prostate cancer this year. According to the American Cancer Society, “Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. About 1 man in 36 will die of prostate cancer.”
Approximately 40,000 women will die from breast cancer in 2012. The American Cancer Society says it’s the “second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer.

Hey, get educated, bro.

The flip-side of that remark comes from the head of the New Hampshire Tea Party, who seems to understand that cancer kills, but he wants it to kill some specific people: the Supreme Court Justices who wrote the majority opinion ruling that gave the green light to Obama's Health Care program.

Via Raw Story

Merrimack, New Hampshire libertarian and Tea Party president Mike Malzone has gone further than others in his outrage, declaring in a Facebook post on the Merrimack Tea Party page, “I hope the (5 supremes) get colon cancer.”
When the post was met with outrage, Malzone backtracked a day later, while waxing lachrymose.
“I didn’t wish for anyone to die, but I said I do wish for them to feel our pain,” he said. “No one cares about me, they all make their promises and then go do what they g**damn feel.”

Boo-hoo. Call a Wahhhmbulance! Another narcissistic insensitive lout whining because the Supreme Court upheld the law of the land. But he also manages to remind us that there are terrible illnesses like colon cancer, which does kill if untreated, and that's why we need health care for everyone. So thanks for reminding us.

Finally for your inspection, we have Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) who said his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, was not a "true hero" even though she is a double-amputee veteran of the War in Iraq. He compared her to John McCain, whom he says never talks about his military service, which just isn't true! Everyone knows all about John McCain's service in Vietnam and his time as a prisoner of war. McCain wrote a book about it, and talked about it the whole time he was running for president in 2008.

Huff Post Story

Duckworth lost both her legs after Iraqi insurgents hit her helicopter with a rocket propelled grenade in 2004. She is now challenging incumbent Walsh in Illinois' re-drawn 8th Congressional district.
"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about," said Walsh, a Tea Party freshman. "Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about."

Angry Veterans responded on Walsh's Facebook, damning him and telling him to resign, some of them dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who thought he was completely out of line.

Did that stop him? Of course not - louts will never shut up. Here merely repeated himself:
Story Here

“Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero. I have called her a hero hundreds of times in the past four months. Just like every man and woman who has worn the uniform, her service demands -- demands -- our utmost respect. That’s why I recognize our veterans at the beginning of every one of my public town halls. However, unlike most veterans I have had the honor to meet since my election to Congress, who rarely if ever talk about their service or the combat they’ve seen, that is darn near all of what Tammy Duckworth talks about.

Duckworth responded on the Martin Bashir show:

Yet another irresponsible comment from someone who's supposed to be a sitting Congressman. He's irresponsible in his words and he's irresponsible in his votes. Time and time again he votes against the people of this district, and he really disrespected 23 million veterans across this nation with those comments....
. . . He's lived up to his words that his district is not going to get squat from him, and he's in Washington to be a poster child for the Tea Party. He's lived up to that. I hope to win in November and I will be a servant to the people of the district. I've served this nation my entire life, lived up to my responsibilities, and I hope that I'll get the chance to continue to serve.

Later on Duckworth told Ed Schultz:

He's just trying to shift the focus away from the fact that he's done nothing in his two years in Congress other than be an extremist loud-mouth for the Tea Party....

Indeed!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Ryan Plan

At last ~ some good news to report, and it comes from the Republican side of the aisle! I saw this mentioned on Talking Points Memo but it's being widely reported that several Republicans are finding fault with the Ryan Budget and openly running against it!

First TPM reporting on David McKinley, (R) West Virginia:

In mailers to constituents, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) echoes Democrats’ concerns about the House GOP budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

“Congressman McKinley recently voted against the 2012 budget passed by the House because of the plan’s negative impact on northern West Virginia seniors,” the mailers read. “The plan would privatize Medicare for future retirees, raise the retirement age and keep in place the Medicare cuts included in last year’s healthcare bill. The Congressional Budget Office determined the plan would nearly double out-of-pocket healthcare costs for future retirees.”

Washington Post: Repubs (except Romney) Running from the Plan including Denny Rehberg (R) Montana:

Rehberg is campaigning against the House Republican budget, specifically over its threat to Medicare. Rehberg is one of a relatively small group of House Republicans who opposed the Ryan budget. The big question in House races, of course, is what price all of those Members who voted with Ryan will pay, if any.

The very fact that Rehberg is running against his national party in mildly Republican Montana is interesting enough. But it’s also fascinating that in addition to the House budget (and TARP, which is getting a bit old by now), Rehberg’s other big issue where he highlights breaking from his party is trade. Rehberg brags about voting against CAFTA, the Central American trade accord.

This, even as Mitt Romney is very much running as a free trader; one of his most repeated charges against Barack Obama is that Obama hasn’t negotiated new trade deals (a charge which, as it happens, is entirely false).