WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED
ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR THREE
|
Name
|
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 14
|
Dec
18, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 15
|
Jan. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 16
|
Jan. 08, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART
16 EXTRA
|
Jan. 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 17
|
Jan. 15, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 18
|
Jan. 22, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 19
|
Jan. 29, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 20
|
Feb. 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 21
|
Feb. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 22
|
Feb. 20, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 23
|
Feb. 27, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 SPECIAL
|
Mar. 06, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 24
|
Mar. 07, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 25
|
Mar. 12, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 25-EXTRA
|
Mar. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 26
|
Mar. 19, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 27
|
Mar. 26, 2013
|
IN THIS
ISSUE
1. The Sequester is beginning to be felt.
2. Senate opposes SS "Chained CPI."
3. Why Democrats should not put SS &
Medicare on the table.
4. Call it what it is.
THE
SEQUESTER IS BEGINNING
TO BE FELT
By Floyd Bowman
Publisher
"Opinions Based On Facts"
The Sequester is
starting to be felt all over. I have
learned today, March 20th, 2013, that we have already had large layoffs here in
Oklahoma
Senator Rand Paul and
the Tea Party Republicans are elated over this.
They have gotten a really big spending deficit stopped and they are not
at all interested in stopping this sequester as it is exactly what they want to
be done.
The best part, from
their standpoint, is that it now is beginning to look like President Obama is
the one that is going to get the blame.
Up until now, the White House has thought that the Republicans would,
for sure, get the blame for all the problems.
It isn't working out that way right now.
They actually should
get the blame, as President Obama has put forth a, more than reasonable, plan. In fact, he is giving too much in accepting
cuts in the big three entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Republicans simply do not want things to
go good. They act as though nothing
happened last November, when President Obama was re-elected. Their unethical actions, unfortunately, are
working for their benefit. We have to
get the truth out as to why the Sequester has not been corrected.
3-21-13
Republicans are
throwing out the most ridiculous trivial things attacking the President. They can't attack his policies because they
are right, but look at this. They are trying to make a big issue of the fact that the
President took time to fill out his bracket choices for the NCAA basketball tournament,
instead of getting his budget done.
I guess they feel that because he is President he is not suppose to have
any personal time anymore as long as he is in office. Just check out the personal time G. W. Bush
had. You'll find out that President
Obama has taken about one half as much.
~~~
Senate Opposes ‘Chained CPI’ Cuts to
Social Security, Veterans’ Benefits
|
|
March 22, 2013
The amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put the Senate on record
against changing how cost-of-living increases are calculated in a way that
would result in significant cuts.
“The time has come for the Senate to send a very loud and clear message to
the American people: We will not balance the budget on the backs of disabled
veterans who have lost their arms, their legs and their eyesight defending our
country. We will not balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who
have already sacrificed for us in Iraq
and Afghanistan , nor on the
widows who have lost their husbands in Iraq
and Afghanistan
The amendment opposed switching from the current method of measuring
inflation to a so-called chained consumer price index. President Barack Obama
favors a chained CPI as part of what the White House calls a “grand bargain” that
Obama hopes to reach with congressional Republicans.
The proposed change would affect more than 3.2 million disabled veterans
receiving disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would
have their benefits reduced by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at
age 65. Benefits for more than 350,000 surviving spouses and children who
have lost a loved one in battle also would be cut. Dependency Indemnity Compensation
benefits already average less than $17,000 a year.
More than 55 million retirees, widows, orphans and disabled Americans
receiving Social Security also would be affected by the switch to a chained
CPI. That figure includes 9 million veterans with an average yearly benefit of
about $15,500. A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get
nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75 and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when
Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face
a cut of $1,400 – a reduction of 9.2 percent.
A chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits for average senior
citizens who are 65 by more than $650 a year by the time they are 75 years old,
and by more than $1,000 once they reach 85.
Groups supporting Sanders include AARP, the AFL-CIO, National Organization
for Women, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American
Veterans, AMVETS and others.
Sanders is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the
founder of the Defending Social Security Caucu
~~~
Selling the Store: Why Democrats
Shouldn’t Put Social Security and Medicare on the Table
Robert Reich
NationofChange
/ Op-Ed
Published: Friday 22 March 2013
"The
richest nation in the history of the world
should be able to respond to
the legitimate needs of all its citizens."
Prominent Democrats — including the President and House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — are openly suggesting that Medicare be
means-tested and Social Security payments be reduced by applying a lower
adjustment for inflation.
This is even before they’ve started budget negotiations
with Republicans — who still refuse to raise taxes on the rich, close tax
loopholes the rich depend on (such as hedge-fund and private-equity managers’
“carried interest”), increase capital gains taxes on the wealthy, cap their tax
deductions, or tax financial transactions.
It’s not the first time Democrats have led with a
compromise, but these particular pre-concessions are especially unwise.
For more than 30 years, Republicans have pitted the
middle class against the poor, preying on the frustrations and racial biases of
average working people who can’t get ahead no matter how hard they try. In the Republican narrative, government takes
from the hard-working middle and gives to the undeserving and dependent needy.
In reality, average working people have been stymied
because almost all the economic gains of the last three decades have gone to
the very top. The middle has lost
bargaining power as unions have shriveled. American politics has been flooded
with campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy, which have used
their clout to reduce marginal tax rates, widen loopholes, loosen regulations,
gain subsidies, and obtain government bailouts when their bets turn sour.
Now five years after the worst downturn since the Great
Depression and the biggest bailout in history, the stock market has recouped
its losses and corporate profits constitute the largest share of the economy
since 1929. Yet the real median wage
continues to fall — wages now claim the lowest share of the economy on record —
and inequality is still widening. All
the economic gains since the trough of the recession have gone to the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans; the bottom 90 percent continue to lose
ground.
What looks like the start of a more buoyant recovery is a
sham because the vast majority of Americans have neither the pay nor access to
credit that allows them to buy enough to boost the economy. Housing prices and starts are being fueled by
investors with easy money rather than would-be home buyers with mortgages. The Fed’s low interest rates have pushed other
investors into stocks by default, creating an artificial bull market.
If there was ever a time for the Democratic Party to
champion working Americans and reverse these troubling trends, it is now —
forging an alliance between the frustrated middle and the working poor. This need not be “class warfare” because a
healthy economy is in everyone’s interest.
The rich would do far better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing
economy than a ballooning share of one that’s growing at a snail’s pace and a
stock market that’s turning into a bubble.
But the modern Democratic
Party can’t bring itself to do this. It’s too dependent on the short-term,
insular demands of Wall Street, corporate executives, and the wealthy.
It was Bill Clinton, after all, who pushed for repeal of
Glass-Steagall, championed the North American Free Trade Act and the World
Trade Organization without adequate safeguards for American jobs, and rented
out the Lincoln Bedroom to a steady stream of rich executives.
And it was Barack Obama who continued George W. Bush’s
Wall Street bailout with no strings attached; pushed a watered-down “Volcker
Rule” (still delayed) rather than renew Glass-Steagall; failed to prosecute a
single Wall Street executive or bank because, according to his Attorney
General, Wall Street is just too big to jail; (I have never understood this. Why
are they to big to jail? What would
happen if it were done? - by Floyd) and permanently
enshrined the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent.
Meanwhile, over the last several decades, Democrats have
allowed Social Security taxes to grow and its revenue stream to become almost
as important a source of overall government funding as income taxes; (This is referring to the $2.7 trillion that has simply been stolen from
the SS Trust Fund by every President and Congress since, and including, Reagan.
- by Floyd) turned their backs on organized labor and
labor-law reforms that would have made it easier to form unions; and then, even
as they bailed out Wall Street, neglected the burdens of middle-class
homeowners who found themselves underwater and their homes worth less than what
they paid for them because of the Street’s excesses.
In fairness, it could have
been worse. Clinton
And, now come their pre-concessions on Social
Security and Medicare.
Technically, a “chained CPI” might be justifiable if
seniors routinely substitute lower-cost alternatives as prices rise, as most
other Americans do. But in reality,
seniors pay 20 to 40 percent of their incomes for healthcare, including
pharmaceuticals — the prices of which are rising much faster than inflation. So, there’s no practical justification for
reducing Social Security benefits on the assumption inflation isn’t really
eating away at those benefits as much as the current cost-of-living adjustment
allows.
Likewise, although a case can be made for reducing the
Medicare benefits of higher-income beneficiaries, as a practical matter their
savings are almost as vulnerable to rising healthcare costs as are the more
modest savings of middle-income retirees. “Means-testing” Medicare also runs the risk of
transforming it into a program for the “less fortunate,” which can undermine
its political support.
In short, Medicare isn’t the problem. The underlying problem is the sky-rocketing
costs of health care. Because Medicare’s
administrative costs are a fraction of those of private health insurance,
Medicare might be part of the solution. Medicare for all, or even a public option for
Medicare, would give the program enough clout to demand health providers move
from a fee-for-service system to one that paid instead for healthy
outcomes.
With healthcare costs under better control, retirees
wouldn’t be paying a large and growing portion of their incomes for healthcare
— which would alleviate pressure on Social Security. I’m still not convinced a
“chained CPI” is necessary, though. A
preferable alternative would be to raise the ceiling on the portion of income
subject to Social Security taxes (now $113,600).
Besides, Social Security and Medicare are the most
popular programs ever devised by the federal government, which is why
Republicans hate them so much. If
average Americans have trusted the Democratic Party to do one thing it has been
to guard these programs from the depredations of the GOP.
Putting these two programs “on the table” is also,
tantamount to accepting the most insidious and dishonest of all Republican
claims: That for too long, most Americans have been living beyond their means;
that we are rapidly approaching a day of reckoning when we can no longer afford
these generous “entitlements;” and that prudence and responsibility dictate
that we must now begin to live within our means and cut back these projected
expenditures, particularly if we are to have any money left to invest in the
young and the disadvantaged.
The truth is the opposite: That for three decades, the
means of most Americans have been stagnant, even though the overall economy has
more than doubled in size; that because, almost all the gains from growth have
gone to the top, most Americans haven’t been able to save enough for retirement,
or the rising costs of healthcare; and that because of this, Social Security
and Medicare are barely adequate as is.
Paul Ryan’s House Republican budget, takes on Medicare,
but leaves Social Security alone. Why
should Democrats lead the charge on either?
The Republicans are already slashing help for the young and
the disadvantaged. Democrats shouldn’t
succumb the lie that the elderly and young are in competition for a portion of
a shrinking pie, when in fact the pie is larger than ever. It’s just that those who have the largest and
fastest-growing portions refuse to share it.
We are the richest nation in the history of the world —
richer now than we’ve ever been. But an
increasing share of that wealth is held by a smaller and smaller share of the
population, who have, in effect, bribed legislators to reduce their taxes and
provide loopholes so they pay even less.
The budget deficit “crisis” has been manufactured by them
to distract our attention from this overriding fact, and to pit the rest of us
against each other for a smaller and smaller share of what remains. Democrats should not conspire.
Needy children should be getting far more help, better
pre-school care, better nutrition. Seniors need better healthcare coverage and
more Social Security. All Americans need
better schools and improved infrastructure.
The richest nation in the history of the world should be
able to respond to the legitimate needs of all its citizens.
~~~
CALL IT WHAT IT IS:
"A
Class War"
David Sirota
NationofChange
/ Op-Ed
Published: Friday 22 March 2013
Supercharged
as it is, that phrase—
"class
war"—
is
appropriate and accurate.
When it comes to the Republican budget proposal that
passed the U.S.
However, all of that doesn't mean the proposal Ryan spearheaded
is unimportant, nor does it mean that there are no worthwhile analyses to
explain that significance. On the contrary, the proposal is quite important
because it endorses an economic war waged by the upper class against
everyone else. Two simple studies make this war painfully obvious.
To properly contextualize those studies, first keep in
mind three facts:
1) According to Nobel
Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, "The upper 1 percent of Americans
are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year" and
control 40 percent of the nation's total wealth, 2) The bottom 80 percent
of Americans own just 7 percent of the nation's wealth, and 3) Stiglitz
notes that "while the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18
percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their
incomes fall."
Considering this, it is no
surprise that the United
States United States
That brings us to the first report on Ryan's budget,
courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
As that watchdog group shows, the allegedly
"pro-growth" GOP proposes no big cuts to corporate welfare or other
subsidies that enrich the already rich. Instead, the party proposes that 66
percent of the cuts come from "programs that serve people of limited
means." Yes, that's right — the "pro-growth" GOP is proposing to
primarily cut the programs that reduce economic inequality and, thus, spur
economic growth.
Where do much of the savings generated from those cuts
go? That gets us to a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. The nonpartisan group
discovered that after a decade of trickle-down tax cuts delivered more
economic inequality and historically weak macroeconomic growth, the GOP is now
proposing a budget whose centerpiece is a proposal to give those with an
"income exceeding $1 million (an) average net tax decrease of over
$200,000."
Taken together, these two analyses spotlight the
self-evident moral argument against such a budget. With all those
aforementioned facts showing the rich getting richer and everyone else getting
hit so hard, how heartless does a political party have to be to propose this
kind of budget blueprint?
That however, is the wrong question, because this isn't
about morality; it is about ideology and more specifically, an ideological
commitment to a class war.
Supercharged as it is, that phrase — "class
war" — is appropriate and accurate. As the data prove, the GOP and its
financiers are so committed to a class war that the party is willing to put
forward a budget proposal that quite clearly preferences fighting that war over
doing what's actually necessary (read: addressing inequality) to fix the
economy.
That may not make for a proposal that is a serious
attempt to address America
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you
again next Tuesday April 2, 2013.
God Bless You All
&
God Bless the United States of America
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment