Robert Shrum: Democrats Should Be Supporting President Obama's Budget Plan

 

 

Commentator and strategist Robert Shrum bravely advocates that it is time for Democrats to 'get real' and support President Obama's budget proposal. In a thoughtful and informative column in The Daily Beast, Shrum makes the case that President Obama's proposals are not 'draconian'.

The columnist states:

You would think President Obama was proposing to repeal the New Deal. (Well, actually, that’s Paul Ryan.)

This wasn’t the Republican reaction, of course, to a budget that was pre-dead on arrival, dismissed in advance by House Speaker John Boehner and disdained by the Tea-spooked Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who couldn’t take yes for an answer when the president called for the entitlement changes McConnell had previously promised “would get Republicans interested in new revenue.” Aside from the fiscal fallout of a failed budgetary process that could slow the economic recovery, the episode points to a likely and grim outcome of these two years—that not much will emerge living or lasting from this Congress.

And don’t just blame GOP members, largely trapped in their gerrymandered red districts, incapable of doing right even if they recognize it, as they cower before the threat of primary challenges. The Democratic base, and prominent Democrats in the Senate and House, rushed to scorn the president’s Social Security and Medicare reforms as a betrayal of progressive principle. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was “shocked,” which presumably means she hadn’t been reading the wave of advance stories on the Obama budget. Iowa’s Tom Harkin denounced “an unnecessary attack on a critical program.” And Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse insisted that Social Security “has no place in this debate over federal spending.”

That’s an amazing statement, given that Social Security and Medicare account for 35 percent of federal outlays, and the trust funds for both are in serious and not-so-long-term trouble. We are far from the bipartisan moment in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan, House Speaker Tip O’Neill, and Alan Greenspan rescued Social Security—by, yes, gradually raising the retirement age.

In the face of the Obama reforms, the instant rhetoric and reactions were purple—among many, but not all, Democratic officials and across the liberal blogosphere. But what’s the reality, not the abstract jeremiads about a sacrosanct safety net, but the specific dollars-and-cents impacts of the proposals? The president didn’t ask for any fundamental changes in either Social Security or Medicare, which the House Republican budget would voucherize.

Obama would shift the annual cost of living increases for Social Security to a new formula with the unfortunate name “chained CPI.” But the consequences for benefits are not draconian, or even substantial—and as I’ve argued before, the formula has been altered in the past. It’s not sacrosanct, a matter of basic principle, even if the program is. Chained CPI would initially yield about $2 less a month in the average Social Security check. And as its effects multiplied, in 20 years, the difference would be $126—approximately $2,100 instead of $2,200 a month.

Beyond that, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Bob Greenstein, one of the landmark defenders of the safety net and a passionate advocate but a cooler head, pointed out that Obama was offering essential offsets to chained CPI: “[His] budget includes a series of adjustments and protections for the very old and for people with low incomes... It should prevent an increase in the overall poverty rates among the very old.”

***********************************

And what’s the alternative to calibrated entitlement reforms that reform rather than gut Social Security and Medicare? Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner explains: “You squeeze early childhood programs, you squeeze Head Start, you squeeze education and veterans.” Or now, or later, Congress could lift the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 or beyond, potentially leaving millions of seniors without any coverage while saving hardly any money.

The question here, the question the president had to answer, is what’s both acceptable and attainable. Progressives, for example, favor abolishing the limit on income subject to Social Security payroll tax—currently $113,700. Everyone would pay on every dollar. Fat chance that would get through this, or perhaps any, Congress.

The Obama budget does raise taxes on the wealthy by capping their deductions—which is one reason Democrats should rally to it. And there’s another: it increases spending now, while back-loading steeper deficit reduction, to support and speed the pace of the recovery. Do Democrats really think it’s smart to go into the midterms weighed down by the vulnerability of a sluggish economy? That didn’t work out so well for them in 2010.

**********************************

Just because the GOP is unserious about government doesn’t mean Democrats should be unserious too. The president has been responsible and brave. In any event, his party could fight out 2014 on Medicare and Social Security against an opposition that has a long record, and a contemporary one, of inveterate hostility to the social safety net.

Democrats could prove willing, as they showed during the battle at the fiscal cliff, to compromise—and settle for the Obama budget. They should. But what then would happen in the Republican House of hard-core reactionaries, where all good ideas seem to go to die? The columnist Jonathan Alter makes the case that Congress conceivably may agree on a “B.I.G.” agenda—that with a “cracking of gridlock,” a decent budget, real immigration reform, and some gun-control could pass. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m convinced we’re doomed to see a season full of sound and fury, legislating nothing big.

READ THE ENTIRE COLUMN BY CLICKING HERE

So Much For The 'New Republican Party'......

 

 

 

Over the last weeks we have heard about the 'New Republican Party' that is going to make outreach to new constituencies, avoid divisive issues and focus more on traditional conservative issues like the economy. Well, you can hang that fantasy up.

The National Republican Party at a three day meeting in Los Angeles made one of its first actions to pass a resolution against marriage equality. Very little debate took place and there was not one dissenting vote on the resolution. So the message is very clear to LGBT Americans. The Democrats support marriage equality and the Republicans will continue to fight it tooth and nail. The choice could not be any clearer.

Shame on them for rushing in to oppose marriage equality when a vast majority of Americans now support it. Even the young members of their Party support it. The pandering to the religious right and Tea Party must stop or it will soon see a new party of emerge from the ashes of this one.

Here Comes The Young Republicans For Marriage Equality

 

 

Dan Meyers wrote for Politico an opinion piece about the generational shift in the Republican Party. He urges the Party to be remember that a new generation of millennials are rising through the ranks of the Party. Meyers reminds us that this means changes and that marriage equality is one of those issues.

He writes:

"Some Republicans are surprised by the sudden increase in discussions over the issue of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry. This debate comes as no surprise to the generation of millennials who, like me, were born between the early 1980s and early 2000s. The debate over same-sex marriage has shined a light on the need for the Republican Party to be mindful of the rise of these Republican millennials.

Support levels for the freedom to marry are at commanding new highs in public opinion, and the shift is accelerating. While I don’t predict a near-term shift in the official Republican platform, the tide has clearly turned. The rise of a new generation of millennial Republicans is, of course, inevitable, and with it come their attitudes on these issues. From those running for office in local and state legislative races to those crunching polling numbers for presidential candidates, younger Republicans are an important part of a generation that is largely supportive of equal rights for all.

Moreover, this shift is more natural and less surprising than one might first think. After all, Republicans believe in limited government, believe in freedom and believe in marriage. Why should it be any different for gays and lesbians? Why should the government intrude here or marriage be limited or freedom abridged — ever? Holding true to millennial attributes of exuding confidence and questioning outdated assumptions, these Americans believe that freedom means freedom for everyone. These individuals have friends and family members who are gay and simply don’t understand a government-sanctioned classification that treats them differently.

READ THE ENTIRE COLUMN HERE.....

Dan Meyers is a vice president at DCI Group, a Washington-based public affairs firm, and a board member of Project Right Side. He previously worked in numerous campaigns, including the presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and in the political division at the Republican National Committee.

Immigration Reform: 'No Gays Need Apply'

 

 

 

There has been an appalling development in the drive for desperately needed immigration reform. Apparently, the legislation that will be reported to Congress will exclude LGBT Americans from reform. Democrats will support this legislation in the name of a 'greater good' in ensuring that millions of other immigrants are protected and given the path to citizenship.

Evidently, LGBT Americans are the kiss of death for Republicans in the House and they won't support any legislation which includes LGBT Americans.

If LGBT leaders blast too hard that our bi-national couples are not included we then are cast as the 'bad people' who will jeopardize reforms for others. If remain silent, then we accept our second class citizenship, hammer at our own self-esteem and condemn bi-national couples to years of pain and suffering simply because who they love on a daily basis.

At least the Democrats could have put us in the Senate legislation and forced the Republicans in the House to vote us out. Really, did they have to compromise our freedom and rights in back room negotiations?

Senator Schumer and other Democrats have some explaining to do.

Republicans Are Tanking The Economy So This Man Doesn't Have To Pay More Taxes

 

 

The impact of Sequester is beginning to be felt with layoffs, programs being scrapped, unemployment benefits being cut and our national security be placed at risk. Why? Republicans are willing to tank the slowly recovering economy so that people like Hedge Fund CEO Steven A Cohen doesn't have to pay more taxes.

After all, it is people like Cohen that the Republicans will put America back to work right? Right?

Not exactly.

His SAC Capital Advisors has been under investigation and some of the employees already have been indicted for their financial dealings at the company. The company itself faces a fine that the New York Times estimates could be over a half billion dollars.

Fear not.

Cohen is worth over $10 billion and on a big shopping spree. He just paid $150 million dollars for a Picasso. Let's not forget he just spent $60 billion for an ocean front home in the Hamptons. He has another home just down the street in the Hamptons but he needed an ocean front view. In addition, he owns a house in Greenwich , Connecticut. Oh, almost forgot, he has a fourth apartment in Bloomberg Tower worth $115 million.

Now explain to me exactly how the painting, the houses and the fine for corruption totaling over one billion dollars have created jobs? Wonder how many Head Start Centers could have been saved with this money?

Maybe he has some cake we can all eat.....

A Conservative Case For Marriage Equality

 

 

 

Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal builds a conservative case for full marriage equality. He tackles all the issues such as down-low marriages, civil unions, dignity and equality.

Stephens is Deputy Editor of the editorial page for the Journal and highly regarded in the Conservative community.

Here is an excerpt:

I have a crazy theory; see if you agree. It's that gay people generally want to lead lives of conventional respectability. So much so, in fact, that many are prepared to suppress their sexual nature to lead such lives. The desire for respectability is commendable; the deception it involves is not. To avoid deception, you can try to change the person's nature. Good luck with that. Or you can modify a social institution so that gay people can have what the rest of us take for granted: The chance to find love and respectability in the same person.

But wait, don't civil unions provide all of that? And if gay marriage, why not polygamous marriage? Where does it all end?

To the first question: How odd that the same people who argue that the distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions" has no practical difference should also insist on maintaining the distinction. If all they are doing is taking a bold stand on behalf of semantic purity, what's the point? And if they are trying to preserve a privileged status for traditional marriage, won't that encourage gay people to continue to seek straight marriages?

Is the triumph of an invidious distinction worth the price in unfulfilled or misdirected lives?

Now we get to the après gay marriage, le déluge argument. It's true that to tinker with tradition is to risk destroying it. But what tradition? Old-fashioned marriage—the kind that usually lasted a lifetime; the kind that didn't come with a pre-nup—has spent the past 50 years being shredded by a culture of Las Vegas marriages, Murphy Brown households, Deadbeat Dads and No-Fault divorces. If straight America wants more traditional marriage, it should practice more traditional marriage. As for that allegedly looming threat of polygamy, you may as well argue that hunting should be forbidden because it could lead to gun violence. The slippery slope argument usually winds up being on the side of mindless repression.

American conservatives should understand this better than anyone. Unlike European conservatives, we have always believed that it is better to channel passions than to dam them, better to have them disinfected by sunlight than to let them fester in shade. That's true of the lust for wealth, the lust for power, and for lust itself. The American bias has always favored openness, pragmatism, and the acknowledgment of reality as we find it.

On the matter of gay marriage, the reality we find is millions of Americans who want to participate in all the institutions of American life, from politics to the military to marriage. What is there not to like? Conservatives spent the 90s worrying about the Balkanization of U.S. politics by every group that wanted to emphasize its differences. Here you have exactly the opposite trend.

READ THE ENTIRE COLUMN BY CLICKING HERE.....

"Robert Shrum: GOP Should Be Afraid (Very Afraid!) Of Clinton Run In 2016"

 

 

 

Commentator Robert Shrum in his column for The Daily Beast says that Republicans should be deeply concerned about the potential Hillary Clinton run for President in 2016. Why? Because she will knock their socks off and win the election. In the column, Shrum answers his friend David Frum who argues that a Clinton nomination would not be good for the Democrats.

Here are excerpts from Shrum's column:

She's back. And it seems like she never left at all.

After a pause to rest and recharge—and she apparently recharges swiftly—Hillary Clinton reemerged to a rapturous welcome at the Vital Voices Global Leadership Awards last night, to be followed on Friday by a keynote speech at the Women in the World Summit sponsored by Newsweek and The Daily Beast. She came to the first event to pay tribute to Melanne Verveer, her former chief of staff, assistant secretary of State, and a pioneer of women's rights across the world—or as Clinton put it, one of "those amazing women who could not be denied."

The phrase aptly applies to her own prospects for 2016 as the amazing candidate who, if she chooses to run, almost certainly cannot be denied: the nomination or the presidency itself. Outside the Kennedy Center in Washington, the site of the Vital Voices event, a sign-waving crowd chanted: "Ready for Hillary." Almost simultaneously, a new political action committee was launched to promote her next race for the White House—and it promptly attracted 60,000 Twitter and Facebook followers.

She is far ahead in polls of Democratic primary voters. Remarkably, in a general election match-up, she leads Jeb Bush by 9 percent and Marco Rubio by 11 in their home state of Florida—and perhaps most stunningly, a PPP survey finds her ahead of Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the incarnadined Lone Star State.

All this sets the stage for extended kabuki theater about Hillary's intentions. She has no reason to rush in from the wings early on: her financial backers and fervent partisans will wait; her strength among women, who think it's time to elect one of their own, won't wane but intensify. She doesn't need an all-out, three-year long march to the Iowa caucuses. Now we have heard something like this before. But there's no Barack Obama out there to challenge her. And she won't make the decisive mistake she did in 2008, when her campaign misread the primary electorate and malpositioned her as a candidate of restoration in a year of change.

And all of this does something else: it sends the chill wind of a potential 16 years of Democrats in the White House, along with a Supreme Court where the justices actually do justice, through the fevered right-wing swamps of the Clinton-haters and the Obama-abominators who see the white-male dominated America of their imagining fading away. My colleague, friend, and podcast sparring partner David Frum is certainly not among them—instead he's offered the GOP perceptive counsel, fortunately spurned so far and perhaps indefinitely, about how to remake the party in substance as well as style. Now, however, on CNN and in The Daily Beast, he has weighed in with advice for Democrats and Clinton herself: She would be "a mistake for 2016." It is a provocative, fresh, and seemingly well-argued piece—but it's just plain wrong.

*****************************

Finally, my friend and this would-be Democratic strategist writes that a Hillary abdication would open the way to a Democratic "renewal"—a debate between the defenders of the Obama legacy and candidates who believe in Bill Clinton's more moderate approach. Inside the party, no major presidential possibility would focus on that disjunction, let alone accept it. Every one of them, Hillary included, will look to the future—not to repudiate the president, but to build on what he has achieved. To do otherwise would be political suicide in the primaries. It's the other party that needs to renew himself, to find a path out of a fundamentalist wilderness on social issues, to reach the young, women, minorities, and Hispanics—and above all, stop looking and acting as if favors government of the privileged, by the privileged, and for the privileged.

The GOP may not transform itself until it's beaten again and again—for example, by Hillary Clinton in two successive presidential races. And if she walks away from 2016, Democrats will not rend themselves ideologically. Indeed, the odds-on choice then and the probable nominee will be Joe Biden. He's hardly in a position, or hardly disposed, to run against the Obama-Biden administration—and anyone who does will lose to him early on.

I can hear Frum's rejoinder: Biden will be 73. But what will count is vigor, not age. And Biden's performance in 2012, in the debate with Paul Ryan and in the critical swing states—and then in the fiscal cliff negotiations—robustly validates Robert Kennedy's observation that “youth is not a time of life, but a state of mind."

Biden appeared at the Vital Voices event too, where he told the cheering crowd: "There's no woman like Hillary Clinton." He's right, and I more than doubt he'll run if she does. Others may, but he's too astute a politician to take the plunge.

So David, Hillary Clinton won't "inherit the Democratic nomination and the presidency as an estate in reversion." She's earned it on her own. I'm convinced she will do it. And then she'll win it.

Yes, she's back—and Republicans should be very, very afraid.

Read the entire column here....

New National Poll Released Showing Republicans Choice For 2016!

 

 

 

Public Policy Polling has released a new poll showing who are the Republican voters favorites for President in 2016. The big news is that Senator Rand Paul has jumped from sixth place in previous polls to a strong second place. The leader in the poll, Senator Marco Rubio, numbers have hardly changed at all.

Here is the ranking for the contenders:

Marco Rubio: 21%
Rand Paul: 17%
Chris Christie: 15%
Jeb Bush: 12%
Paul Ryan: 12%
Rick Santorum: 5%
Bobby Jindal: 4%
Rick Perry: 2%
Susana Martinez: 1%

In the same poll, Democrats by huge margins lined up behind Hillary Clinton. What happens if she doesn't run? Here are the results:

Joe Biden: 49%
Elizabeth Warren: 11%
Andrew Cuomo: 10%
Kirsten Gillibrand: 7%

The big news on the Democratic side is the emergence of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as a contender if Hillary doesn't run. 

Time For Democrats To Find A Great Candidate To Run Against Congressman Peter King (R-NY)

 

 

 

The time has come for New York Democrats to launch a credible and well-financed campaign against Republican Congressman Peter King. In a state where well over 60% of the voters support marriage equality, the Congressman still is opposed to marriage equality and other progressive issues. He is anachronism and it is time for him to go.

King represents Central Long Island and his district includes parts of Suffolk and Nassau counties. There is no question that his constituents now support marriage equality. However, for fear of a primary from his Tea Party compatriots, he is in hiding on the issue.

He has increasingly become an embarrassment to New Yorkers with his anti-marriage equality, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric.. King was a strong supporter of the Iraq War where near 5,000 American soldiers died. The Congressman has been a huge supporter of diminishing the privacy and civil liberates of Americans in the name of national security.

Let's hope the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Governor Cuomo get on the case and send this relic into retirement.

Here is the Congressman on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" from Sunday talking about marriage equality.

Watch More News Videos at ABC | Technology News | Celebrity News

The Battle For The United States Senate In 2014

 

 

 

Lighter shades of blue and red indicate open seats

The Republicans feel that 2014 is there year to pick up control of the United States Senate. Not only are 21 of the seats up are currently held by Democratic but there has been a number of Democratic retirements in difficult states. Distinguished and liberal Senators like Jay Rockefeller (WVA), Carl Levin (MI), Tim Johnson (SD) and Tom Harkin (IA) have hung up their spurs.

Republicans have only two retiring Senators in Saxby Chambliss (GA) and Mike Johanns (NB)

Adding to the Democrats uphill battle to maintain control are Democratic Senators who are running for re-election in traditional strong red states such as Louisiana, Arkansas. Alaska, North Carolina and Montana.

If you look at how bad President Obama lost in Republican states, you understand the difficulty of keeping them in the 'red column' for the U.S. Senate. Here is by how much our President lost each of those states:

Alaska (Begich): -14%

Arkansas (Pryor): -24%

Louisiana (Landrieu): -17%

Montana (Baucus): -13%

North Carolina(Hagan): -2%

South Dakota(Open): -18%

West Virginia (Open): -27%

Democrats do have some hope if they find good candidates in Senate seats held by Republicans in South Carolina (Graham), Kentucky (Mitch McConnell) and Georgia (Open).

Plus the selection of some very poor candidates in such places as Georgia, Iowa and South Dakota should be helpful to the Dems.