Posts Tagged Republicans
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Hurricane Sandy Relief: A Flood of Hypocrisy
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Opinion, Perspective on January 7, 2013
Hurricane Sandy Relief: A Flood of Hypocrisy
If you go to the website of Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland, you’ll see a whole page devoted to Hurricane Sandy recovery. You’ll see pictures of him touring flooded coastal towns. You’ll see the number to call if you lost your power. You’ll even see a link to the website for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Chris Weyant / The Hill
What you won’t see on his Hurricane Sandy Recovery Update is an explanation for why he voted against letting the flood insurance program borrow more money to pay flood insurance claims, 800 of which are pending in Maryland. That particular bit of malarkey is on anotherpage:
“The current national flood insurance program is obviously broken and must be reformed,” stated Harris. “Unfortunately, today’s vote does nothing to ensure the long-term stability of the national flood insurance program which is important to the Eastern Shore.”
Harris wasn’t the only congressman to vote against the first chunk of Sandy relief. In all, 67 members of congress voted No—all Republicans, bless their hearts. And Harris wasn’t even the only one representing a hurricane zone to vote against funding flood relief for Sandy, so maybe he doesn’t deserve more than his share of scorn.
There’s also Steve Palazzo from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Farther down the coast you’ll find Randy Weber, who represents the area of Texas flooded by Hurricane Ike. Both voted No on Sandy relief.
Mo Brooks from Alabama offered a toxic excuse for his No vote on Sandy relief.
“People have to protect themselves from the risks of weather, particularly if they live in an area that is periodically hit by substantial storms,” said Brooks, who secured federal aid when his district that was hit by tornadoes in 2011. “They should not expect American taxpayers to subsidize a vacation home on the beach.”
It might help Brooks and his fellow Gulf Coast hypocrites sleep better if they believe that’s what congress approved, but that dog don’t hunt. People who live in coastal areas do protect themselves. It’s called buying flood insurance.
And congress wasn’t handing out money to anyone. Instead, it increased the borrowing power of the flood insurance program so it could pay claims. The program used to be self-sustained by flood insurance premiums, but the fund went deeply into debt after Hurricane Katrina.
This is where the hypocrisy of these virulent nitwits starts stinking up the fridge. Within two weeks of Katrina making landfall, congress had already passed two emergency relief packages totaling $62.3 billion, and they did it with the votes of at least 16 of those who voted against Sandy relief.
Members of the House Science Committee also show up prominently on the list of those who voted for Katrina relief but against Sandy relief, including Jim Sensenbrenner, who believes solar flares cause global warming, and Randy Neugebauer, whose response to the drought and tornadoes in 2011 was to sponsor aresolution calling on Americans to pray. Thank God. Without congress, I’m not sure Americans would remember to pray. Also on the science committee are our friends Brooks, Harris and Palazzo, so we’re in good hands there.
This is what the Party of Lincoln has come to: congressmen voting the flood insurance program into debt and then using that debt as an excuse to vote against funding flood insurance for flood victims who are only flood victims in the first place because of global warming, a problem they’re in charge of addressing but which they believe is an elaborate hoax.
“They’re a bunch of jackasses,” said former three-term Republican Sen. Al D’Amato, a resident of Long Island. “Every one of the 67 who voted no are nothing more than pawns of a philosophy that is not backed up by facts.”
A recent poll found congress was less popular than colonoscopies, used car salesmen, and Nickelback and only slightly more popular than gonorrhea. But maybe that’s not fair.
After all, you can cure gonorrhea.
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Hurricane Sandy Relief: A Flood of Hypocrisy.
Related articles
- Sen. Harry Reid: Hurricane Katrina ‘was nothing in comparison’ to Sandy (video) (al.com)
- FEMA’s Flood Insurance Program Needs Bailout (sweetness-light.com)
- Right Wing Group Will Punish Republicans Voting for Sandy Flood Aid (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Sen. Vitter calls Reid ‘idiot’ for comparing Hurricane Sandy to Hurricane Katrina (thehill.com)
- Congress to vote on Superstorm Sandy flood aid (kansascity.com)
- Flood insurance faces new stress (victoriasluxuryestates.wordpress.com)
- Government Is Worse Than Sandy (lewrockwell.com)
- Congress to vote on Superstorm Sandy flood aid (newsobserver.com)
- Congress to vote on Sandy flood aid (kypost.com)
- Superstorm Sandy relief measure to be considered in Congress (wjla.com)
Why Closing Tax Loopholes Isn’t Enough – NYTimes.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Taxes on December 28, 2012
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
Closing Loopholes Isn’t Enough
By LEONARD E. BURMAN and JOEL B. SLEMROD
Published: December 27, 2012
REPUBLICANS in Congress say they will do anything rather than raise tax rates. Apparently, that includes rushing headlong over the fiscal cliff and throwing the economy into a possible recession.

Walter Green
When, in an effort to avert the now infamous tax increases and spending cuts to take effect on Tuesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner proposed his so-called Plan B — which would have nudged up tax rates only for those earning over $1 million a year — rank-and-file Republicans promptly rebelled, storming their party caucus with the rhetorical equivalents of pitchforks.
One can’t argue with religion — and for some, the unwillingness to bend on marginal rates is just that. But for many politicians, the refusal to raise tax rates rests on a faulty premise.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the United States follows a likely scenario in terms of demographic changes, spending and economic growth through 2035, America’s coffers may fall short by as much as $2 trillion a year in current dollars. With a predicted gap so large, any deal to restore the country’s fiscal balance must include at least some new revenue.
But even those Republicans who acknowledge that additional tax dollars will be necessary say we can get what we need without increasing a single tax rate. All we have to do is close up some “loopholes” and “broaden the base”! We can keep in place the Bush-era tax cuts, they say, and make up any lost revenue simply by eliminating various deductions, exclusions and credits.
At first glance, the idea seems great. Who wouldn’t want to root out the tax evaders and finaglers who are shirking the shared burden? And the idea of a broader base of taxpayers paying lower rates across the board sounds so much simpler and fairer for every citizen.
But closing loopholes is neither sufficient to do the job nor as “fair” to everyone as it might seem.
There is no painless way to raise revenue, as past attempts have shown. Increased levies on corporations are ultimately passed along to shareholders, workers or customers. Raising taxes on foreign companies increases the cost of capital as businesses keep their cash overseas. Even a fix as “obvious” as doubling down on audits to catch tax cheaters ends up creating a burden for honest citizens caught in the snare.
Closing loopholes and purging deductions are no more exempt from the laws of tax physics than any of the above.
Both Democrats and Republicans have considered phasing out the mortgage interest deduction, and there are good economic arguments for doing that. But it might depress an already weak housing market and hit some middle-class homeowners hard.
Eliminating the charitable deduction could devastate many philanthropic organizations and the people they serve. You can go down the line with many exemptions, deductions and credits and find an unintended, and unfortunate, consequence.
Likewise, more sweeping attempts to broaden the base can end up doing more harm than good.
Most states tax only retail sales to consumers — but some, for example, also tax sales to other businesses. This tax, called a gross receipts tax, certainly has a larger base than a retail sales tax since businesses at each stage of manufacturing, distribution and marketing end up being taxed.
Supporters of the idea say this cascading tax can be assessed at a much lower rate and still collect the same revenue over all, spreading out the pain. But it is a poorly designed tax, because it taxes products that involve many stages of production more than those produced in only one or two steps. That, in turn, encourages companies to merge to avoid paying multiple layers of tax — whether or not that makes any business sense.
To be sure, there are constructive ways to broaden the base. There are few compelling reasons, for example, that employer-provided health insurance, which is part of compensation, should be exempt from income tax. This tax break costs around $250 billion a year and makes gold-plated health insurance more attractive to workers, which drives up health costs. Eliminating it would be a good first step in shoring up the federal budget.
We could also turn the mortgage interest deduction into a flat 15 percent tax credit and cut the maximum deductible mortgage to $500,000, which would help many homeowners who do not itemize deductions, while curtailing subsidies for high-income people who don’t need help. This would raise about $40 billion in 2014, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And we could allow a deduction for charitable contributions over 2 percent of adjusted gross income, which would save $20 billion in 2014 without discouraging most donations.
But in the end, none of these fixes will be enough to raise the revenue we need to balance the budget, begin to pay off America’s debt and avoid the fiscal cliff. Nor can we cut spending enough to achieve those goals. An aging population expects the government to make good on promises for retirement support and increasingly expensive health care — so cuts in popular programs big enough to avoid higher taxes are simply not in the cards.
That leaves us with one choice: do all of the above. Let’s trim spending where we can, broaden the base where it makes the most sense and, yes, raise marginal tax rates as well. Returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels for married filers making over $250,000 a year and singles making $200,000 or more, as President Obama has proposed, would be a good start, and might provide the impetus for more serious discussions of tax and entitlement reform.
The only thing we shouldn’t do is pretend any of these fixes will be painless or easy for everyone. They won’t. Even in a happy, thriving democracy, someone ends up holding the bag.
Why Closing Tax Loopholes Isn’t Enough – NYTimes.com.
Related articles
- Republican Tax Nonsense (desertdogmeh.wordpress.com)
- The Working Poor Pay High Taxes, Too – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- Fiscal Cliff: Flexibility in Tax Rates Debate? (newsy.com)
- Obama to Republicans: Raise taxes on rich or no fiscal cliff deal (rawstory.com)
- The plain truth about top marginal tax rates that shocked US Senators (qz.com)
- The Obamney tax plan (economist.com)
- Obama: No deal on ‘fiscal cliff’ without higher tax rates for the wealthy (newsday.com)
- Obama Runs Rings Around the Republicans on Tax “Cuts” and “Loopholes” (rushlimbaugh.com)
- Tax Arithmetic Shows Top Rate Is Just a Starter in Talks (nytimes.com)
- Big Business vs. Small at Edge of Fiscal Cliff (hispanicbusiness.com)
Hey, liberals: Ignore the NRA for now
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on December 24, 2012
Hey, liberals: Ignore the NRA for now
Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on December 21, 2012
Greg Sargent really nailed it today with respect to today’s NRA press statement:
Keep in mind that all of this is deliberately designed to serve an overarching strategic goal — distraction. The NRA absolutely must keep the focus off of the problem of easy gun availability, and what can be done about it, for as long as possible.
The media narrative the NRA hopes for out of this presser is twofold: NRA criticizes media for maligning gun owners; and NRA calls for armed security guards in schools. This is standard obfuscation from the NRA, which always tries to distract from the discussion about the need for reform by characterizing the push for it as driven by elite cultural disdain for gun culture and ordinary gun owners. And focusing only on schools is about diverting the conversation away from the broader epidemic of gun violence.
That’s exactly right. And the best response from those who want new restrictions on guns isn’t to fight back against the NRA “proposal” for cops in schools; it’s to ignore it, and keep the focus on developing serious legislation.
The other thing to remember about the NRA and its president, Wayne LaPierre, is that (as David S. Bernstein has pointed out) they’re not only advocates for the gun industry but also competitors in the conservative marketplace. In that respect, saying outrageous things and getting a reaction from liberals helps them generate revenue, whether or not it helps their legislative strategy. It’s not exactly the case that liberals could make the NRA a fringe group by treating it as one, but it’s probably true that treating it as a major factor helps make it more so.
Besides that: If any bill is going to pass, it’s going to need House Republicans. It’s possible, if unlikely, that enough constituent pressure could push them to choose modest new measures over not passing that legislation.But if the Republicans are forced to choose between liberal Democrats and the NRA, they’re going to choose the NRA, no matter what the public opinion polls say.
Of course, those who favor new measures against guns and gun violence will have to engage other arguments at times. But Greg’s right — it’s one thing to engage serious arguments and another to fall for bait just meant to distract everyone. The best strategy for liberals — and anyone else who wants to get something signed into law — is to just ignore the NRA for now.
Hey, liberals: Ignore the NRA for now.
Related articles
- Joe Scarborough, Newtown and the NRA (americantitanic.wordpress.com)
- New York City’s Tabloids Take On The NRA (buzzfeed.com)
- David Gregory Shocked By NRA’s LaPierre: You Fly In The Face Of Common Sense (thinkprogress.org)
- NRA finds few friends on Hill (politico.com)
- NRA doubles down: New gun laws won’t work (edition.cnn.com)
- NRA makes school guns call on American television (itv.com)
- Video: Gun control advocate and NRA member speaks out on defiant NRA (cbsnews.com)
- Amid calls for new restrictions on guns, NRA stands firm (kansascity.com)
- NRA’s statement on the Newtown shootings: the conservative reaction (guardian.co.uk)
- Michelle Malkin Responds to Left-Wing Gun Backlash: ‘NRA Has Been Demonized by Crazed, Anti-Gun, Liberal Media’ (foxnewsinsider.com)
4 Secrets Republicans Are Keeping About Medicare to Convince Us That $600 Billion in Cuts Are Necessary | Alternet
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Government, Humanitarian, Social on December 11, 2012
4 Secrets Republicans Are Keeping About Medicare to Convince Us That $600 Billion in Cuts Are Necessary
This entire Medicare debate’s being held under false pretenses.
December 10, 2012
The Republicans are demanding $600 billion in Medicare cuts over the next ten years. Their only concrete proposal is to deny Medicare coverage to Americans during what is now their first two years of eligibility, at ages 65 and 66. But their official offer isn’t even that specific. It just throws out that figure: $600 billion. But you can’t get there from here.
At least you can’t do it their way – not without causing enormous hardship, and not without costing the public twice as much from other sources as would be saved in government spending.
In fact, there are only two paths to $600 billion in savings. One’s macabre and morbid, and is offered here only to make as a Swiftian ”modest proposal.” The other would take a chunk out of corporate profits.
Which path do you think the GOP would prefer?
This entire Medicare debate’s being held under false pretenses. Here are four multibillion-dollar Medicare secrets they don’t want you to know – along with that funereal “modest proposal”:
1. Runaway corporate profits are squeezing medicare.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker echoed the party line today when he said that cutting “entitlements” was needed in order to “save the nation.” But benefit cuts aren’t where the money is: profits are. We did some rough calculations to show you just how much profit’s involved:
Roughly $200 billion in Medicare spending will go to drug company profits in the next 10 years. (We got that figure by averaging the profit margins for large pharmaceutical corporations by projected Medicare drug expenditures.) And yet the Republicans have blocked legislation that would allow the government to use its purchasing power to negotiate for a better deal. So the drug companies can charge us whatever they want – and we pay it.
Medicare has reportedly underpaid for hospital services at times. But for-profit hospitals have an average profit margin of 5.5 percent. What they’re not receiving from Medicare is ‘cost-shifting’ to private health insurance. We pay for that, too – in insurance premiums and tax concessions for employer-sponsored coverage. With Medicare hospital expenditures likely to approach $2.5 trillion in the next ten years, that’s costing society a fortune.
And that doesn’t include high margins in the non-profit hospital field, where CEOs frequently earn more than a million dollars as a reward for maximizing revenue. Nor do these figures include the profits received by all sorts of other for-profit health providers ranging from diagnostic centers to ambulatory surgery clinics.
2. We receive far too much unnecessary care, and are often fraudulently billed for the care that is given.
Then there’s what may be the most expensive effect that greed has on Medicare: overtreatment. A series of exposés (some of which we discussed in “Sick Money,” a review of Bain Capital’s health investments) have revealed gross patterns of fraudulent Medicare overcharging.
Even worse tis the overtreatment that’s done to boost profits. Unnecessary procedures are difficult and uncomfortable at best, and at worst they can lead to pain, disability, even death. This overtreatment’s been documented in both academic studies (John Wennberg’s Dartmouth Atlas is a great resource) and some excellent journalism.
And it’s getting worse. Now hospitals are buying physician practices and exerting financial pressure on doctors to perform more surgeries. But the truth is that doctors have always been under financial pressure to overtreat. They graduate from medical school with tons of debt and must then maintain a profitable practice, including everything from equipment to office staff.
And yet Republicans have beaten back attempts to control this overtreatment with their “death panel” hoax. That myth is only slightly less believable than “black helicopters.” There are death panels – but they’re manned by insurance executives, not bureaucrats. Republicans have fought Medicare by telling us that doctors shouldn’t be “employees” of the government. Now they’re employed by MBAs who want a fat bonus.
Does overtreatment research interfere with our right to choose our own care? I want to make an informedchoice – and I don’t want anybody cutting me open if it isn’t absolutely necessary.
3. Seniors are already being hit hard by medical costs.
People who aren’t covered by Medicare and don’t know much about it often assume it covers all, or most, medical expenses. But the average person on Medicare pays roughly $4,600 per year in out-of-pocket medical costs, and that figure can be much higher for those who are severely or chronically ill or who have suffered a serious injury.
Boehner’s figure of $600 billion over 10 years is a reduction of approximately 7.8 percent from current projections. But Medicare enrollment will increase from 49 million people to 85 million over the same period. Assuming that these Republican cuts are made permanent, that means that Medicare’s per-person budget will have been cut by more than 15 percent by the year 2022.
4. Chronic conditions and end of life illnesses are extraordinarily expensive.
They’re not proposing to do anything about Medicare’s biggest cost problem: the care that’s provided to the severely ill, especially in the final year of life. As the Dartmouth Atlas reports, “Patients with chronic illness in their last two years of life account for about 32% of total Medicare spending.” That comes to nearly 2.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years, based on current projects. And yet the GOP is proposing to slash, not increase, funding for research that might help us provide end-of-life care more effectively and humanely.
The elderly are particularly prone to other costly chronic conditions like cancer and diabetes, which can be treated much more effectively – and much less expensively – if they are caught early. Instead, their plan to deny Medicare to people aged 65 and 66 will lead to less early diagnosis and intervention, making us sicker and driving up Medicare’s costs.
It’s Your Funeral
That leads us to our “modest proposal.” Any way you look at it, we’re going to be seeing an increase in the number of funerals if Medicare benefits are cut. Research has shown that the survival for seniors in this country increased by 13 percent when Medicare was introduced in the 1960s.
It’s reasonable to assume that those survival rates will begin to fall again – and death rates will rise – if we impose mindless benefit cuts, instead of taking an intelligent cost management approach that focuses on expense drivers such as overtreatment, overbilling, and excessive profiteering.
The Republicans want drastic cost reductions without disturbing corporate profits. Using their logic, they shouldn’t take away our first two years of Medicare coverage. They should take away the last two years. That would cut Medicare expenditures by more than a third.
And what do they care about one more funeral here or there – as long as it’s not theirs?
Related articles
- 4 Secrets Republicans Are Keeping About Medicare to Convince Us That $600 Billion in Cuts Are Necessary (alternet.org)
- Richard (RJ) Eskow: Four Republican Medicare Secrets … and a $600 Billion Funeral (huffingtonpost.com)
- Four Medicare Secrets … and a $600 Billion Funeral (ourfuture.org)
- Four Medicare Secrets and a $600 Billion Funeral (nationofchange.org)
- Richard (RJ) Eskow: 4 Republican Medicare Secrets … and a $600 Billion Funeral (huffingtonpost.com)
- “The Austerity Trap”: What Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age Really Means (bell-book-candle.com)
- It’s immoral to cut Medicare to pay for George Bush’s lies (americablog.com)
- You: Q&A: What would it mean to raise Medicare’s eligibility age? (latimes.com)
- Where things really stand in the fiscal cliff negotiations (washingtonpost.com)
- Republicans Spread the Holiday Hate by Trying to Kill Medicare for Christmas (politicususa.com)





Recent Comments