Sestak Grabs Lead in Pennsylvania
11 minutes ago
- The stupid reason: Social Security is "socialist." Well, sure it is and what of it? If people actually like it (and there is no question they do) are we really going to cut it just because it is something socialists happen to like also?Here are some facts. Social Security, if it has a long run problem at all, won't run in to any problems for at least three more decades by even the most conservative estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Even then, the "crisis" is that the SS trust fund will run out and SS will have to rely on current SS taxes like it did for most of its history. In other words, the "crisis" is that instead of having a steadily rising value, social security payments will be stuck at current levels, meaning us worker bees today will retire "only" at the level current retirees are getting rather than the steady increases we are promised. Of course, it is entirely possible and even probable that this "crisis" will never materialize at all, so it is silly to worry about it now when there are far bigger problems out there.
- The understandable reason: If I were a Republican, I too would hate the program that is so popular, it got Democrats elected and reelected for half a century. (Incidentally, this is also why they hate single payer health care. If we ever actually put it in place it would be so popular that the party who got credit for it would be cemented in power for the rest of our lives (which would be much markedly longer, incidentally). Only people who never travel to other countries (like most Republicans) could imagine that single payer wouldn't be popular. If you doubt what I say, just look at Medicare, our current seniors-only single payer government health care system. Even the tea-baggers like it.
Racheting up efforts to call the GOP’s bluff on bipartisanship, Obama made a surprise announcement moments ago that he’ll be holding a summit of sorts with leading Republicans at the White House to discuss their ideas on health care reform — and possibly to move forward on legislation with them.
At this second meeting, Obama said, the White House, Dems, and Republicans would determine whether there was a bipartisan way forward on specific legislation. He said he wanted to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there” on lowering costs and insuring the 30 million uninsured.The White House will deny it, but it sure sounds like they're starting over. Then at the same time, we hear this:
“If we can go step by step through a series of these issues,” Obama said, then “procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than we did last year.”
[T]he New York Times notes he "did not rule out scaling back the scope of the legislation in hopes of drawing more support for a health care plan."It's hard to understand any method to the madness. Our more cynical readers think this is all intentional on the part of the White House. But I don't see the benefit in raising liberal hopes one day, then smashing them the next, over and over again. The same thing happened a week ago on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The President included it in the State of the Union, we had a great hearing before the Senate Armed Services committee, and Obama even mentioned it to the DNC winter meeting yesterday. But at the same time, our sources tell us that DADT repeal is in serious trouble as the White House isn't doing anything to push for a vote this year. Raise our hopes then do nothing to follow through, and in fact, help squash the follow through. It's as if they think we'll hear the good news and ignore the bad the very next day. What possible benefit can there be to this ongoing mixed messaging? It's not helping us get any closer to a Democratic victory in the fall. Read More......
The Washington Post notes Obama "sketched out an alternative approach to passing health-care legislation that would enlist Republicans and potentially extend debate into the spring, a strategy seemingly in conflict with the fast-track talks among Democrats on Capitol Hill."
[O]ne thing [it] is essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.And before any goes off on anonymous sources, Steve knows more power people in this town than anyone I know. If he's writing this, it's because he's had 100 different people confirm to him that it's true. Read More......
President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.
Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.
And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.
Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.
Witnesses and emergency response authorities said as many as 100 people were injured and an undetermined number may have died when a massive explosion, which homeowners felt more than 10 miles away and mistook for an earth quake, blew up a power plant being built on the Connecticut River in the southern section of Middletown at about 11 a.m. Sunday.Anybody in the area? Read More......
Medical rescue personnel said at least 100 were injured, four critically, and two were dead. "There are bodies everywhere," a witness said. Another witness said many victims may be buried in rubble
Most Conservative MPs, including at least six members of the shadow cabinet, are sceptical about their party's continued focus on climate change policies, it has been claimed.Read More......
The recent furore around "Climategate" has hardened the views of Tory MPs, many of whom were already unconvinced by the scientific consensus, and has led to increasing calls for the issue to be pushed down the priority list.
Tim Montgomerie, founder and editor of the ConservativeHome website, said climate change had the potential to be as divisive for the party as Europe once was. "You have got 80% or 90% of the party just not signed up to this. No one minded at the beginning, but people are starting to realise this could be quite expensive, so opinion is hardening."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2010 - John Aravosis | Design maintenance by Jason Rosenbaum
Send me your tips: americablog AT starpower DOT net