The Buffett Rule-- Do Democrats Really Care?

Republicans, as Chris Hayes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse discuss in the MSNBC clip above, had several reasons-- none of them good-- to fly in the face of public opinion and filibuster the Buffett Rule to death on Monday. As Miss McConnell lisped menacingly right after President Obama was elected, the number one job of Republicans would be the make him a one term president. They have done this by betraying the interests of their own constituents, by obstructing every effort the president has made, no matter how conservative those efforts-- and almost everything Obama has tried since being elected has been based on traditional mainstream Republican policies-- to rescue the American economy from the morass created by Bush and the Republicans in Congress... like Miss McConnell. But forget these foul, treasonous Republicans for a moment. There was one Democrat who crossed the aisle to vote with them Monday afternoon.

You may remember the hapless idiot from Arkansas who had a shocking and disgraceful cameo in Bill Maher's film Religulous. No, not Blanche Lincoln-- another senatorial jerk cut from the exact same WalMart cloth though: Mark Pryor, who inherited his (much more worthy) father's Senate seat. As he giggled, on camera, for all the world to hear, "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate." Apparently not-- and certainly not from Arkansas. Tom Coburn (R-OK) may be one of the Senate's most closed-minded morons but in his just released book, The Debt Bomb he was certainly correct when he said that the Senate is “heavily sedated” and that "Congress today is a stagnant pond that needs to be drained and refilled with a steady stream of new public servants." He said 90% should be fired. And I doubt there is anyone in the Senate or anyone who observes the Senate who would exclude Mark Pryor.

Apparently Pryor didn't learn any lessons when Arkansas Democrats abandoned Blanche Lincoln last cycle for the same kind of perfidy he regularly engages in. Right after the vote, Guy Cecil of the DSCC sent out a fundraising letter excoriating the Republicans for filibustering the Buffett Rule. Maybe he should have included a paragraph about how no contributions would be used to save Mark Pryor's worthless neck. But that would have been a lie because a huge part of the DSCC budget will be used for exactly that purpose. So... contribute to the DSCC to punish Republicans who voted against the Buffett Rule so they can save the seta of a right-wing Democrat who voted against the Buffett Rule. I might add that, according to ProgressivePunch, in the 2011-12 session, Pryor has voted with the GOP about a third of the time on crucial roll calls, like the one Monday-- worse than Lieberman. The only Democrats who have voted more frequently with Miss McConnell are Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin and, of course, Ben Nelson.

Let me skip away from the Senate now and get to a feature in yesterday's Scranton Times-Tribune by my old friend Borys Krawczeniuk about a very different kind of Democrat than Mark Pryor. Matt Cartwright is six days away from possibly doing something that is almost never accomplished in American politics-- displacing an entrenched incumbent in a primary, in this case corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden. Polls show Cartwright with a significant and growing lead. Borys reported on his meeting with the Times-Tribune editorial board last week.

In unflinching terms, Democratic congressional candidate Matt Cartwright said tea party members serving in Congress "are hurting this country" and said he will "expose them" if elected.
Tea party members are intent only on "gumming up the works" of the federal government, Mr. Cartwright told the Times-Tribune editorial board.

"These are people who signed pledges never to do anything to enact revenue legislation no matter what," Mr. Cartwright said. "You can't compromise with people like that because all you ever end up doing is giving in to them because they refuse to give you anything. ... We have to blow the lid off these people."

Mr. Cartwright said people who send tea party members to Congress "aren't really thinking it through, because you're sending people into government who don't believe in government.

"My plan is not to go compromising with tea partiers; my plan is to go expose them for what they are, people who are hurting this country," he said.

Mr. Cartwright called for raising the income tax on the wealthiest Americans from the current 35 percent to the 39 percent level under President Bill Clinton, whose final years in office produced budget surpluses.

"Warren Buffett thinks that would be a good idea. Bill Gates thinks that would be a good idea," he said. "It's not much to them. To this nation, it's a fortune, a boatload of money that we don't need to be going into debt for to give an extra 3 percent to the wealthiest Americans."

Mr. Cartwright said Democrats have for too long allowed Republicans to win the war to "spin" the effects of legislation under President Barack Obama. "Spin" means creating perceptions-- correct or incorrect-- about a subject through a coordinated public relations campaign.

He said Republicans won the "spin" war over health care reform by calling it "Obamacare" at a time when many Americans were still suspicious of the new president.

"So let's call it Obamacare because that makes it scary," Mr. Cartwright said. "And then let's have people like Sarah Palin talk about death panels. Death panels. Nonsense. And that's all spin. We Democrats ... have to do a better job of spinning the message. We've been getting beaten in the court of public opinion."

Mr. Cartwright, 50, of Moosic, is seeking his party's nomination for the 17th Congressional District against U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, who holds the seat now. The district will begin to include Scranton and surrounding parts of Lackawanna County next January.

Mr. Cartwright ripped Mr. Holden for voting against the health care reform bill, which allows children to remain on their parents' insurance policies until age 26 and outlaws discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions; for voting for a watered-down bankruptcy reform bill that hurts consumers; and an energy act that forbids regulation of pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing used in natural gas drilling.

Mr. Holden is "not a fighter" and has passed just two bills-- both naming post offices-- in his 10 terms in office, Mr. Cartwright said.

Good government isn't going to fall out of the sky and land on our heads. We-- the people-- have to make it happen or the corporations will continue buying off corrupt whores like Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer to enact legislation that oppresses the 99% on behalf of the 1%. So far no one has emerged to challenge Mark Pryor in Arkansas in 2014. We have time to work on that. But next Tuesday, Democratic voters in northeast Pennsylvania have an opportunity to make history by replacing a corrupt and reactionary Blue Dog careerist with a progressive public servant. It's not too late to help Matt win this one.

This Is Not Class Warfare-- It's Math

Good line (that title up there from Obama's speech yesterday), ostensibly aimed right at Wall Street darling Paul Ryan (not at Krugman, thankfully); everyone I know tweeted it. But the devil's the details and the math, alas, isn't as soaring as the rhetoric. Above is the video of President Obama's speech. Listen carefully. It sure sounds good, doesn't it... even like almost, if I dare say, semi/quasi/kinda populist. And two of the most trustworthy Members of Congress, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued a statement of support as soon as Obama had delivered it:

“As co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we congratulate President Obama on many of his proposals to cut our deficits and balance our national budget. The president’s determination to reduce the large national debt that he inherited after years of costly wars, unchecked defense spending, corporate welfare and giveaways to the wealthy few is admirable. We stand with the President in his efforts to end these costly wars and tax breaks while protecting working and middle class Americans. We will continue to stand with the President against failed Republican tax and domestic policies, which have led to nearly one in five Americans living in poverty while the rich get richer.
 
"While we support cutting waste, fraud and abuse, we reject any proposal that cuts benefits in Medicare or Medicaid. We reject false Republican assertions that the solution to our deficit is deep cuts to programs that millions of Americans rely on, and we would hope President Obama would as well. We have fought tirelessly to stop Republican efforts to sell off and privatize our nation’s retirement security. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid represent a serious threat to our society and are highly unpopular with the American people. Every dime taken away from beneficiaries in these programs is a dime the recipients don’t have to spend in our economy. 
 
"If we let wealthy Americans and corporations pay taxes at the rate they used to and focus our attentions to put Americans back to work, we will solve our deficit crisis. Now is not the time to cut Medicare and Medicaid.”

Well... it was supportive, even if a little wary about the Medicare cuts implicit in the "bargain" Obama was offering. Similarly, progressive organizations like MoveOn.org (video) and the Campaign for Community Change were out fast with supporting statements. Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Campaign for Community Change:

“The President’s decision to push millionaires, Wall Street firms and big corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, could bring in billions in revenue, and his jobs plan will jump start the economy and start the ball rolling to create good jobs. Our ‘Change Nation’ campaign is dedicated to rebuilding the economy and that can’t happen if Washington is focused on failed austerity measures. We need a conversation that focuses on raising revenue and implementing smart investments that lead to shared prosperity.

“We call on Republicans to cease being the mouthpiece for the 400 richest people in America who have more wealth than 50 percent of the population and start paying attention to everyone they are supposed to be serving. Some billionaires have said publicly they are paying a lower rate in taxes than they should, and want that corrected. I hope that Washington sees fit to lift the burden of reducing the deficit off the backs of the middle class.

"We are pleased that the President's plan does not propose to seek an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, or cuts to Social Security.

"We commend the President for pledging that he will veto any bill that takes one dime from programs like Medicare that are a critical lifeline to American families if the wealthiest of Americans and the biggest corporations are not asked to pay their fair share in taxes."

Now we need to dig a little deeper and ask ourselves what a center-right president is really asking for in the fine print. Here's the example, is a depressing list of the benefit cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would have had Grijalva, Ellison, MoveOn and everyone else screaming bloody murder had they been put forward by Bush-- or Boehner:

Modify Part B deductible for new beneficiaries. Beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Part B are required to pay an annual deductible. This deductible helps to share responsibility for payment of Medicare services between Medicare and beneficiaries. To strengthen program financing and encourage beneficiaries to seek high-value health care services, the Administration proposes to apply a $25 increase in the Part B deductible in 2017, 2019, and 2021 for new beneficiaries Current beneficiaries or near retirees would not be subject to the revised deductible. This proposal will save approximately $1 billion over 10 years.

Introduce home health co-payments for new beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries currently do not make co-payments for Medicarehomehealthservices. This proposal would create a home health copayment of $100 per home health episode, applicable for episodes with five or more visits not preceded by a hospital or other inpatient post-acute care stay. This would apply to new beneficiaries beginning in 2017. This proposal is consistent with a MedPAC recommendation to establish a per episode copayment MedPAC noted that “beneficiaries without a prior hospitalization account for a rising share of episodes” and that “adding beneficiary cost sharing for home health care could be an additional measure to encourage appropriate use of home health services.” This proposal will save approximately $400 million over 10 years.

Introduce a Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries that purchase near first-dollar Medigap coverage. Medigap policies sold by private insurance companies provide beneficiaries additional support for covering healthcare costs by covering most or all of the cost sharing Medicare requires. This protection, however, gives individuals less incentive to consider the costs of health care services and thus raises Medicare costs and Part B premiums. Of particular concern are Medigap plans that cover substantially all Medicare copayments, including even the modest co-payments for routine care that most beneficiaries can afford to pay out of pocket. To encourage more efficient health care choices, the Administration proposes a Part B premium surcharge equivalent to about 15 percent of the average Medigap premium (or about 30 percent of the Part B premium) for new beneficiaries that purchase Medigap policies with particularly low cost-sharing requirements, starting in 2017. Current beneficiaries and near-retirees would not be subject to the surcharge. Other Medigap plans would be exempt from this requirement while still providing beneficiaries options for protection against high out-of-pocket costs. This proposal will save approximately $25 billion over 10 years.

Apply a single blended matching rate to MedicaidandCHIPstartingin2017. Under current law, States face a patchwork of different Federal payment contributions for individuals eligible for Medicaid and CHIP Specifically,
State Medicaid expenditures are generally matched by the Federal Government using the Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP); CHIP expenditures are matched with enhanced FMAP (eFMAP); and the Affordable Care Act provides increased match for newly- eligible individuals and certain childless adults beginning in 2014. Beginning in 2017 this proposal would replace these complicated formulas with a single matching rate specific to each State thatautomatically increases if a recession forces enrollment and State costs to rise. This proposal is projected to save $149 billion over 10 years.

Amend modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for health insurance assistance programs to include Social Security benefits. Starting in 2014, eligibility for Exchange tax credits and cost sharing reductions, Medicaid, and CHIP will be determined based on an individual’s or families’ MAGI, as defined under the Affordable Care Act. Similar to legislation currently under consideration by the Congress, the Administration proposes to amend that definition to include the total amount of Social Security benefits in the calculation of MAGI, rather than just the taxable portion, when determining eligibility for these programs to better target those in need. This proposal is projected to save $146 billion over 10 years.

Jonathan Cohn took a the New Republic and finds them "less severe, and less worrisome, than some of the proposals Obama indicated he was willing to support over the summer, while he was negotiating with House Speaker John Boehner. In particular, Obama did not call for increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, as folks like me feared he would." He calls the cuts "a reasonable set of changes to government health care programs. In the long run we'll have to reduce Medicare spending more aggressively, unless we're willing to pay a great deal more for the program." One of my sharpest Washington friends, a former Senate staffer with a keener sense of reality, is less sanguine.

"It doesn't matter whether these proposals are reasonable or not," he told me after reading Cohn's defense. "He is failing to take into account that we are operating against a Republican party and a set of operatives who will have no problem lying with a straight face, pouring in millions (if not a billion) into neutralizing the advantage Democrats have built up on issues related protecting social safety nets.

"As soon as the Democrats get to the point they have to explain away how these cuts are reasonable, they will lose in the public arena when the Republicans launch their predictable attacks on Medicare.

"It's also not reasonable to assume many of the Democrats who are rushing out today to defend these Medicare cuts, would have been blitzing from all angles if these proposal were presented by a Republican administration to address 'deficit'."

I guess it's about as good as we can hope for from Obama and, obviously, a lot better than we can hope for from anyone further right on the political spectrum. So... what can I say? Let's build up the progressive bench inside the political system so we don't wind up with this kind of choice in the future. Anyone on this list is much, much, much better than... you know who-- or a Republican or Blue Dog. And who doesn't think the GOP will soon be accusing Obama and the Democrats of trying to destroy Medicare? And as if Obama didn't have enough sniping from Republicans, last week Ben Nelson, the Senate's most Republican Democrat, told reporters that "he's put off by all the talk about increasing taxes when he believes the primary and only goal of the deficit super committee should be finding cuts to hack away at the deficit. 'Tax increases have to come second to cutting,' he said. 'I was just home over the weekend and that's what [my constituents] we're all talking about'." I wonder how many middle class constituents he talked to as opposed to how many fellow millionaires. (Nelson is one of the richest men in the Senate and always votes to bolster his economic class against ordinary Nebraska working families. The report went on to discuss another arch conservative, corporate shill inside the Democratic Senate caucus, Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who has always represented her Big Oil campaign donors. Last week said the offset for Obama's new spending plans, which includes the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, "was not going to fly."

Can Powerful, Avaricious Multimillionaires & Billionaires Be Forced To Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes Again?

The White House has been releasing a series of ghastly trial balloons about what el presidente plans to say today. From cutting back on COLAs to raising the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, they've been shot down one by one by panic-stricken Democrats who have to face the voters in 2012 and by Democratic support groups... not to mention the increasingly angry folks in the video above.

Then, on Saturday, there was-- seemingly out of nowhere-- a good trial balloon. Though it's not a renewed push for Medicare-for-all or even a public option, it's still a trial balloon worthy of someone who did, after all, get elected as Democrat, promising Hope and Change. Republicans are already aiming every bit of artillery they possess skyward but apparently the president intends to announce a minimum tax on people making over a million dollars a year, as part of a $3 trillion deficit reduction package.

Mr. Obama will call for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age.

Senior administration officials who briefed reporters on some of the details of Mr. Obama’s proposal said that the plan also counts a savings of $1.1 trillion from the ending of the American combat mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

In laying out his proposal, aides said, Mr. Obama will expressly promise to veto any legislation that seeks to cut the deficit through spending cuts alone and does not include revenue increases in the form of tax increases on the wealthy.

Allow me a tangent. I grew up in a family with modest means. I got through a subsidized state university with loans, by working and by living close to the bone. I never really had any idea I was poor, although by the time I was in college I started to notice that some of my schoolmates were rich. Eventually I built a small business, but I never actually connected it to getting rich... just to building a business and succeeding at the task at hand. The task at hand was never really self-enrichment... it was breaking records and developing artists. CBS bought the company. I put my share of the money in the bank and it didn't alter my lifestyle in the slightest. I lived in a "dangerous ghetto" and drove an ancient Mercury Comet. Then I wound up at Warner Bros, as an executive. My starting salary was $90,000 (+ perks). It was more money than I had ever made and more money than my father had ever made. I felt rich.

My two best friends at the company had been there much longer and one was making over a million a year and the other around a quarter million. Million dollar man was my direct supervisor and he was one miserable, dissatisfied multimillionaire, who felt he had been dealt a bad hand. I don't know exactly what he was worth at the time-- $30 million, $50 million?-- but he had worked hard for it and he was lucky and he "deserved" what he had. He always compared himself to much richer colleagues, like David Geffen, and was always unhappy and over-spending and broke and cheating. He used to borrow money from me. Quarter million dollar man, who was closer in age to me and less out of his mind, said to me, "One day we're going to break out of this cycle of poverty." I realized that by moving down to Los Angeles, or at least into "The Business" in Los Angeles, I had entered a mad house and had to be very careful or I'd catch what was afflicting so many of them.

I was lucky too and I was made president of the company one day. And that brings us to President Obama's proposal for those making over a million dollars a year. I was and I never begrudged paying my taxes, which, unlike the 1,400 millionaires last year who paid zero income taxes, were hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. My attitude was always, "Wow, I'm so blessed to be making so much money, I'm lucky to be paying this much in taxes." It's certainly not a Republican perspective.

Co-opting the rhetoric of the labor movement to describe America's corporations-- which are currently experiencing record profits-- Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) accused US government policies of forcing "job creators" to go "on strike."

Striking, meaning to refuse to work, is a tool used by labor activists in fights with business owners, and sometimes exercised across whole industries or even nationally, to coerce concessions from capitalists and the governments which support them.

A "strike by capital" was also how Republicans and their Big Business allies greeted President Roosevelt's New Deal-- that and the attempted coup financed by the DuPonts and some of the biggest names in American plutocracy. This weekend Boehner, Ryan and Romney were already running hither and thither claiming the wealthy already pay too much. I can't wait to see if Obama actually goes through with it today and what hideous caveats and loopholes we find in it if he does.

With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday.

...The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for re-election in 2012.

It could also reassure Democrats who have feared that Mr. Obama would agree to changes in programs like Medicare without forcing Republicans to compromise on taxes.

The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class. Mr. Obama has said that many average Americans could see a tax cut if the system is overhauled, since ending many tax breaks would allow for lower rates while raising more revenues from the wealthiest.

The millionaires’ tax is among several changes Mr. Obama will propose in urging Congress to overhaul the federal income tax code next year, both to raise revenues for reducing deficits and to make the tax system simpler and fairer, said the administration officials, who agreed to speak in advance of the president’s announcement on the condition of anonymity.

The millionaires’ rate would affect only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, they said. That would be fewer than 450,000; 144 million returns were filed for 2010.

Mr. Obama’s proposal comes a month after Mr. Buffett began reviving his longstanding objection that he and “my megarich friends” pay a significantly lower percentage of their income in federal taxes-- income and payroll taxes-- than everyone else, thanks to the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich, and especially toward investors like him.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” he wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times, a complaint he has repeated in talks and media interviews since. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”

Mr. Obama has been citing Mr. Buffett as he promotes his $447 billion job-creation plan. He proposes to offset the cost of that plan and reduce future budget deficits through higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations after 2013, when the economy will presumably be healthier.

Mr. Obama’s proposed Buffett Rule puts a new spin on that pitch, as he tries to put Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race on the defensive for their rigid stand against higher taxes.

And speaking of the Buffett rule, this video ad from Patriotic Millionaires just came in as we were about the publish this morning. It singles out a handful of reactionary millionaires in Congress who are die-hard fanatics against raising taxes on millionaires-- Paul Ryan (R-WI), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ), Ron Paul (R-TX)... “Millionaire Politicians who want to GIVE THEMSELVES A TAX CUT are hardly trust-worthy stewards of our country’s future. Their continued support of policies that advance their own economic self-interests is un-American,” said Erica Payne, spokesman for the Patriotic Millionaires and founder of the Agenda Project.

“Republicans call this modest proposal "class warfare"? It's never been more clear that they are in thrall to their wealthy patrons and have sold working people down the river," said David DesJardins, former Google engineer and Patriotic Millionaire.

“The Republican Party's absolute refusal to raise taxes is, in effect, a refusal to govern. Taxation has been a fundamental instrument of government virtually from the beginning of history, and to say you can't or won't use it is like refusing to use the army. It disqualifies you from holding high office,” Henry Bean, Producer and Patriotic Millionaire.

“It's time for millionaires-- LIKE ME AND THE ONES IN CONGRESS-- to step up to the plate and start paying their fair share, " said Guy Saperstein, lawyer and Patriotic Millionaire.

“I find it immoral that we can ask our soldiers especially our national guard members to help defend our country over and over and yet the republicans refuse to believe our country can't ask our wealthiest citizens to help get people jobs and pay for these wars rather than give the bill to our grandchildren. The idea that asking our wealthiest citizens to help will negatively affect the economy is ridiculous and unfair to our brave soldiers some of whom have sacrificed their lives for this country,” says Jeff Gural, Chairman, Newmark Knight and Patriotic Millionaire.