The Lies of Barack Obama

... that is, the ones not made up out of thin air by the Republicans.

Barack Obama said he'd stop torture and hold those responsible accountable. Instead, he's fighting in the courts to continue indefinite imprisonment and protect Bush's military commissions,* while torture continues under his watch at Bagram in Afghanistan. He's also blocked any possible investigation, never mind trial, of those who committed torture or who authorized it, even while our allies are moving forward with their own trials in the face of American hostility.

Barack Obama said he'd pull us out of Iraq by 2010. In fact, even by the end of 2011 there is supposed to be a permanent 50,000 troop presence for purposes of "training."

Barack Obama said he'd put a stop to funding wars through off-budget supplemental bills. He lied about that one, too.

And, most recently, he promised a moratorium on the issuing of new permits to drill deep-ocean oil wells... and then kept right on issuing those permits, with not even so much as a slow-down.

Guantanamo is still open.

The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act are still law, and there is no bill even filed, much less likely to pass Congress, to repeal them.

And the Obama White House worked hard to water down both health care reform (making it into little more than a taxpayer hand-out to insurance corporations) and financial reform (so that no company Too Big to Fail would suffer).

I honestly cannot see any reason to support- or even TRUST- this man anymore.

* Take note: he nominated the lawyer who argued in favor of permanent imprisonment without due process of law to the Supreme Court.

More on Paul Ryan's Republican "Roadmap for America's Future"

So, a few days ago I mentioned the "shadow budget" Republican Representative Paul Ryan has crafted, which basically puts Social Security and Medicare on death row.

Christina Bellantoni of Talking Points Memo has done an in-depth analysis of that budget outline, and here's what she's found so far:

* Abolition of the capital gains tax.

* Abolition of the estate tax.

* Abolition of the corporate income tax.

* Abolition of income tax for income derived from interest on bank deposits and investments.

* Abolition of the top three income tax brackets, leaving a maximum 25% tax on households making $50,000 or higher, 10% on people making less, with a larger standardized deduction.

* Creation of a new national 8.5% sales tax, with absolutely no type of merchandise exempted- food, medicine, printed matter all included.

* And, if you've forgotten, privatization of Social Security and the replacement of Medicare with vouchers to buy private corporate-run insurance.

Two lines Talking Points Memo quotes from the original document are astonishing in their bare-faced chutzpah:

"Lower {tax} rates reduce disincentives to work and increase earnings," the roadmap proclaims.

Ryan writes in the roadmap the changes are to keep the federal tax burden at its current level.

First, lower tax rates reduce disincentives on the rich to "increase earnings"- that is, to take as much as they can grab and leave nothing for anyone else. Why on Earth do the immensely rich, or even the comfortably-well-off, need incentives to make MORE money? And why, above all, do we want corporations to make as much money as possible- and pay taxes on absolutely none of it?

Consider: under the Republican plan, corporations pay no taxes. People who earn money buying and selling corporate stock pay no taxes, because that's capital gains. People who earn dividends from preferred stock pay no taxes. The only taxes levied under this plan are on wages- the wages of the working middle-class and the poor, not the rich- and on the necessities of life, which everyone must buy but not everyone can afford.

This plan is, put bluntly, a Republican ploy to ensure that "only the little people pay taxes." This is trickle-down economics at its most extreme- and brazen.

On to the second item: "keeping the tax burden at its current level." This is, put bluntly, bullshit- but, for the Republicans to claim that it will balance the budget, it's necessary bullshit. The Republicans somehow got a fig-leaf letter from the Congressional Budget Office which says:

The Roadmap, in the form that CBO analyzed, would result in less federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax revenues . . . Federal spending for Social Security would be slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection period, but the system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline. The budget deficit would peak at 5 percent of GDP in 2034 and then decline. By 2080, the Roadmap would generate a budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP. . . . debt is projected to peak at 100 percent of GDP in 2043 and to decline thereafter, reaching zero by 2080.

So, best case scenario: deficit spending continues for twenty years, and doesn't end until every last one of you reading this is long dead.

Except, as TPM's Brian Beutler reports, Ryan ordered the Congressional Budget Office to cook the books for this analysis:

For their analysis Ryan provided CBO with a remarkable assumption: he asked CBO actuaries to assume that the major tax cuts he calls for won't create any change in federal revenue over the next two decades--at all.

Here's how they put it, in budget-ese: "As specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under [current fiscal policy]," the analysis reads.

. . .

In 2008, the Tax Policy Center analyzed a similar GOP plan and determined it amounted to the biggest tax cut in history.

Whether Ryan was knowingly engaging in sleight-of-hand, or whether he was using an inaccurate supply side model to correlate tax cuts with increased revenue is unclear. But what is clear is that if CBO had based its analysis on an official accounting of the ways in which his proposed policy changes would impact revenue, they would have come to a different conclusion.

So, in short, the Republican plan is the bunk. And that's being kind to it.

Now, I would prefer a flat income tax with a very high individual deductible and no complex credits or exemptions, myself. I would prefer that estate taxes apply only to liquid assets- money, bonds, and stocks. And I'd prefer a sales tax or value added tax to income taxes as a whole- provided certain necessities are exempted and/or the poor get a rebate or "pre-bate" to make up for what they can't afford.

But this package? It's bullshit. Outrageous bullshit. This is the wealthiest among us, the corporations and the mega-wealthy, trying to evade taxes altogether- and put the burden on the rest of us- while throwing the poor and needy out on the street to root, hog, or die.

And yes, it might seem like the Republicans are backing away- after all, even the author of the "Roadmap" says it's "very different from an actual budget"...

... but don't be fooled. This is the same man who calls Social Security and Medicare "collectivist."

"We have an opportunity to make a choice clearly once and for all in the next two elections, and we owe it to the American people to give them a clear choice: Do you want a collectivist welfare state or do you want to get back to being a free market? We need to make a moral, not just practical or statistical, case," he told Reason, a libertarian magazine, in December.

. . .

And despite GOP attempts to frame these entitlement reforms as something other than privatization, Ryan has been clear on the point.

"Rather than depending on government for your retirement and health security, I propose to empower people to become much more self-dependent for such things in life," he said in a speech to the Hudson Institute last June.

Or, put bluntly, you're on your own- and that's how it ought to be. Let the poor and unlucky die.

This is the Republican Party, plain and simple: more wealth and power for the rich and powerful, and nothing for anyone who can't pay for it themselves.

EDIT: Apparently Democrats are hammering Republicans on the "Roadmap"- and a few, including Arizona Rep. John Boozeman and Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, are defending it.

Boozeman: "Congressman Ryan is working to cut the deficit spending and I appreciate his commitment to putting our country on the road to fiscal responsibility. His proposal may not be perfect, but I think he is making a thoughtful and serious effort to prevent Congress from driving our country into financial ruin."

Kingston: "We need to go in, and we need to cut duplicate programs, programs that are inefficient, programs that are expanding the entitlement mentality. I think we should go back to Social Security, take it off budget, dedicate the funds, put personalized accounts on it. On Medicare, I think something like vouchers, where people actually have an incentive to save money for the government, and they're rewarded for doing so."

More details on the Republican alternative budget...

A couple days ago I mentioned how the Republicans are seeking to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

Well, Paul Ryan has delivered the detailed plan- with some additional cute little touches.

Before we get into the details here, it's important to note this point:

The official line from House Republican leadership is that Ryan's budget is not the GOP alternative. Leadership aides pointed TPMDC to last year's far less specific budget proposal and stressed their plan will be presented during floor debate that is likely to happen this spring. Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, will write that plan too.

So yes, so far the Republicans are not OFFICIALLY backing this... but Paul Ryan is their go-to guy for budget issues. They specifically chose him for this task- and therefore what he produces is definitely their responsibility, and almost certainly their actual thoughts. Quoting Josh Marshall from the front page of TPM:

Now, Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Cantor (R-VA) have been sort of dancing around the Ryan draft. They're both saying they're putting forward a detailed budget plan and then simultaneously refusing to say Ryan's plan is endorsed by the conference. But Ryan's their budget writer. So this is a bit like (White House Budget Director) Peter Orszag releasing a budget document and having Obama and (WH Chief of Staff) Rahm (Emanuel) saying he's just speaking for himself.

Exactly.

So, taking it as read that this is a serious Republican proposal until and unless the Republican leadership specifically rejects it, here are the salient points:

Social Security benefits will be reduced for those younger than 55, and the retirement age will be increased.

The budget plan states, "All other workers will have a choice to stay in the current system or begin contributing to personal accounts. Those who choose the personal account option will have the opportunity to begin investing a significant portion of their payroll taxes into a series of funds managed by the U.S. government."

. . .

Another big cut is to Medicare - starting in 2021, new enrollees would be given vouchers to purchase private health insurance.

. . .

The plan . . . offers a mix of tax cuts as well as changes to Social Security and Medicare.

It also eliminates income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance starting next year.

... limiting malpractice award settlements and rescinding the unspent funds from the 2009 $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

It also includes the same discretionary spending freeze (for 10 years) that Republicans mocked President Obama for proposing last week.

And Ryan's defense:

On Social Security, the Roadmap provides seniors with the option either to stay in the traditional government-run system or to enter a system of guaranteed personal accounts. Neither option is privatized. In the personal-accounts system, the accounts are managed and overseen by a government board -- not a stockbroker or private investment firm. People choosing the reformed system select from a handful of low-risk, government-regulated options -- just as members of Congress and federal employees do.

Yeah. The problem is, under Republicans the government board would be made up entirely of stockbrokers, and the regulators would be the same people who came up with credit default swaps. And, more to the point, the investment of Social Security WOULD be in private stocks, and revenue WOULD be dependent on how those private stocks do, and there WOULD be corporate middlemen taking a cut on the transactions.

So, if not privatization, the next best thing.

And replacing Medicare with insurance vouchers? Even if you could get insurance corporations to accept senior citizens without a legal mandate (which Republicans oppose), the vouchers would be for a fixed value- which means that, as retirees age and premiums inevitably rise, the vouchers would soon fail to provide enough help for the retirees to continue buying insurance. This undermines the whole purpose of Medicare- to provide health coverage for senior citizens who can't afford it.

And, of course, when the vouchers stop being used, Republicans will pare down that part of the budget, aiming towards an eventual elimination of the program altogether- have no doubts on that score.

And the other notable points?

Lower taxes for the rich, but a tax hike on people who get insurance as part of their employment package- in other words, higher taxes for working people, and ESPECIALLY higher taxes on union members.

Limits on malpractice awards- not just pain-and-suffering limits, but OVERALL limits, so if you are permanently crippled or require lifetime medical care because of a botched operation, TOUGH.

And, of course, a spending freeze for ten years, not just three as the President proposed- and was mocked for by the Republicans.

Let's recap. Republicans attacked health care reform for proposing $500 billion in "cuts" to Medicare- cuts that would come from eliminating wasteful spending, not in actual health care provided. Yet at the same time they propose a program that would inevitably lead to Medicare's total destruction.

Republicans want to balance the budget by cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the working classes.

Republicans want to revive George W. Bush's privatization plan for Social Security- except Bush only proposed an initial 2% privatization, whereas this program goes much farther.

This proposed budget would actually eliminate the deficit... in 2060.

And yet the only way we could punish Democrats for their fecklessness on so many issues- torture, health care, financial reform, Israel, Iran, Iraq- is to replace them with the same people they keep caving in to.

We can't reward Democratic cowardice... but we can't reward Republican greed and evil, either.

We desperately need another option.

GOP: Privatize Social Security, Abolish Medicare

No, I am not making this up.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) appeared on Hardball... and advocated balancing the budget by privatizing Social Security and cutting benefits for those now under 55.

"You can get better health care and better retirement security if you go to a defined contribution plan. We had this debate in Social Security a few years ago," Hensarling said...

A "defined contribution plan" means the amount contributed to the plan on the front end is fixed. Social Security and traditional pensions are "defined benefit plans," where the amount paid out on the back-end is fixed according to a formula.

Throughout the interview, the congressman said Social Security benefits should be kept the same for those already receiving them, or those over 55.

"You mean cut Social Security benefits as a way of balancing the budget," Chris Matthews said.

Hensarling rejected Matthews' wording, but continued to call for privatization and reduced benefits for those under 55.

At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been getting a lot of attention (including shout-outs of a sort from OMB Director Peter Orszag) for his proposed budget plan. But Ryan's plan too harkens back to earlier Bush proposals, with a call for private accounts...

Yeah, I didn't trim much from that article, really. It's mostly meat.

Something needs to be laid on the table right up front: if George W. Bush had had his way in 2005, and partial privatization of Social Security- his so-called "Ownership Society"- had gone forward, then many if not most retirees today would have been utterly wiped out after the bankruptcy of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, General Motors and Chrysler- to name the major names. Even if a particular retiree had managed to steer clear from these stocks- which in 2005 looked solid as Gibraltar- the market as a whole took a 50% plunge from January 2008 to February 2009, starting at a peak near DJIA 15,000 in 2007 to a low point of just under DJIA 7,000.

And the Republican response? Well, if you were irresponsible enough to not be rich, you deserve to lose everything.

Let's not have any illusions here: the Republicans are trying to buy the Red Car so they can dismantle it privatize entitlements so they can be killed entirely. Their end goal is to relieve the corporate employers who support them (and whose stock they own in significant quantities) of employer taxes to support these entitlements. Of course, if these taxes vanished, the money would NOT go to higher wages, no matter what Republicans tell workers about "it's really your money."

And, as the article shows, this is not just one Congressman. Even if it was just Jeb Hensarling, it would be more than just a lone Congressman. Hensarling was one of the very few people chosen by the Republican leadership to ask a question of Barack Obama in that disastrous (for the GOP) televised Q&A session on Friday. (He used the opportunity to basically give a campaign speech on how the deficit is 100% Obama's fault.) He is not a flake or a lunatic by Republican standards; he's a leader.

But it's not just him. It's also Paul Ryan, who has his own plan separate of and different from Hensarling's proposal.

And when there's two Congressmen in agreement on generalities but with different ideas on the specifics, it's a safe bet there's more than two.

And they're not lunatic at all for suggesting this. Consider a comment made to the article:

The 55 cutoff is about voting demographics. The 55-and-over demo is large, votes in high numbers, and votes Republican. Any "plan" that cuts benefits to that demographic is electoral suicide. A plan that preserves benefits for that demographic might not be rejected by those who won't get hurt by it.

This is 100% true. On average, nationwide, if you're over 55, you're Republican; if you're under 55, you're Democrat. And, as we've seen with so many other issues- torture, habeas corpus, healthcare, employment, etc.- if your ox isn't the one getting gored, odds are you couldn't give a rat's ass about what Congress does about it.

Another comment is a bit over the top... but not much.

{Republicans} HATE democracy. Ask Ronald Reagan, right? He said it. "Government does not solve problems; government is the problem."

Right?

We-e-e-ell, if We the People are the government, he is saying we can not solve our own problems but rather, we are the problem. And we must be gotten out of the way.

The full comment is an attack on corporatism, and it ignores the fact that there really are some things no majority democratic vote should be allowed to do. But the core of it is quite accurate: Republicans believe the rich should have power, the poor none... and they're working to make that reality.

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility... NOT

Last night the United States Senate voted on a measure to restore PayGo- the principle that no new spending may be created in the budget without a means of paying for it.

The Republican Party, the party that is shouting its head off about runaway Democratic spending programs, the party currently blaming the entire budget deficit and national debt on Democrats and especially Barack Obama...

... voted against it. Without exception.

Since the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts hasn't had the election certified yet, the appointed Democratic Senator voted, making the final vote 60-40 directly on party lines. Not a single Republican voted to mandate paying for what the government spends.

Now, I have no faith the Democrats will actually follow PayGo, but this vote in particular ought, in any fair universe, to haunt the hypocritical Republicans straight through to the election.

Watch the media utterly ignore it.

Bush: You May Earmark It, but I Won't Spend It

Today George W. Bush issued an executive order to all executive departments- pretty much the whole federal government, really. The order states that no department is to spend money to fund any earmark which is not explicity listed in a Congressional budget bill and not voted on by the whole body of each house.

It sounds nice, but there are just a few problems with this.

(1) The biggest earmarker is George W. Bush himself. According to the Washington Examiner, David Obey, the Democratic chair of the House budget committee, said the President creates twenty times as many earmarks as all Congresspersons combined. Actual numbers come to billions of dollars- that's right, billions with a B, demanded by one man alone. If Bush wants to cut government waste, he should start by looking in a mirror.

(2) Bush's opposition to earmarks is strangely inconsistent... strange, that is, only to those who are politically colorblind. As reported in the New York Times, Bush signed bills into law over his Presidency with 55,000 earmarks totalling over $100 billion. Quoth the Times: "Such projects tucked into the endnotes of complex spending bills at the request of individual lawmakers with almost no oversight have contributed to a mounting pileup of waste and corruption, including sending the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the former congressman Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, to jail."

(3) Congress, under the Democrats, has already cut earmarks in half, according to the New York Times (subscription required). Bush, in the State of the Union, either ignored that fact when he promised to veto any bill that didn't cut earmarks in half... or, more sneakily, he might have made that promise so that he could take credit for the cuts in earmarks already made.

Finally, (4)... it's unconstitutional. The President does not have the authority to deliberately not spend money Congress has ordered to be spent, nor can he redirect those funds to other purposes. Bush's order hails back to the old and discredited concept of impoundment. Impoundment was first used in Thomas Jefferson's Presidency to postpone- not stop- spending on riverine gunboats until new technology became available. The first President to use impoundment to stop spending was Ulysses S. Grant (not a good example to take). FDR, Truman, and LBJ used impoundment in isolated cases, usually going to Congress to ask permission. Only one President ever attempted to use impoundment as a line-item veto power... Richard Nixon. (Source: The Imperial Presidency, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., book very highly recommended.)

Nixon's attempts to deny Congress its budgetary authority were consistently overruled by the courts. After Nixon's resignation, the principle appeared dead as the dodo, a relic of a president who wanted absolute power... until Bush, who despite Democrats holding Congress still appears to be a president who has been given absolute power by his party's members in the legislative branch.

During the Clinton administration, I supported the line-item veto. After seeing Bush, I oppose it. Dubya is again seeking to exercise powers the Presidency does not possess...

... and, if the past is anything to go by, he'll get away with it.

Get away with it despite angering one of his staunchest toadies supporters by using budget sleight-of-hand to kill off the Freedom of Information Act Office.

I repeat: the Republican Party is the party of evil.