The Obama for whom I worked and voted in 2008 came out of hiding yesterday morning and his plan, while not perfect, is far more progressive than I had anticipated. I have an article that summarizes it and video of the speech, in case you missed it. However, the devil is in the details, and I was particularly concerned about Medicare and Medicaid. I have gone over the details and have analyzed those areas. In addition, I have interviews of three people who have criticized Obama in the past: Robert Reich, Michael Moore, and Katrina vanden Heuvel.
First, here is the summary.
President Obama struck a combative tone on Monday as called for $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue as part of a proposal to tame the nation’s rocketing federal debt, drawing a sharp contrast with the Republican vision and resetting the terms of the economic debate in Washington this fall.
In a defiant Rose Garden appearance, Obama threatened to veto any plan to tame the debt that does not pair cuts to Medicare and Medicaid with increases in taxes on the rich.
“We can’t just cut our way out of this hole,” Obama said. “It’s going to take a balanced approach.”
Combined with his call this month for $450 billion in new stimulus, the proposal represents a more populist approach to confronting the nation’s economic travails than the compromises he advocated earlier this summer.
It is also diametrically opposed to many of the views supported by Republicans, who want to balance the nation’s books mainly through cutting spending, particularly in Medicare and Medicaid.
Republicans argue that Obama’s plan to tax the rich is a divisive political strategy. But Obama rejected that view Monday.
“This is not class warfare,” Obama said. “It’s math.”…
Inserted from <Washington Post>
If you misses the speech, here’s the complete video.
I particularly enjoyed the way he trashed Agent Orange, by implying he is both stupid and wrong.
You can download the fact sheet about the Obama plan here. (PDF)
You can download Obama’s entire plan here. (PDF)
For Medicaid the adjustments deal primarily with abuse by both providers and state governments, and should not impact the coverage for beneficiaries.
For Medicare, there are several adjustments. Reduce subsidies for high-income beneficiaries, starting in 2017. Reduce coverage of bad debts from 70% – 25%. Reduce the IME adjustment for teaching hospitals by 10% End an add-on payment for physicians and hospitals in low population states. Eliminate the 1% subsidy for critical access hospitals within 10 miles of other hospitals. Realign payments for post-acute care to reflect what that care actually costs. Equalize payments for similar conditions between SNFs and IRFs. Align Medicare drug reimbursement policies with Medicaid. Recover erroneous payments to insurers participating in Medicare Advantage. Reduce improper payments. Add penalties for failure to use electronic record keeping. Adjust reimbursements for advanced imaging to reflect the actual cost. Require prior authorization for advanced imaging. Increase premiums for parts B and D by 15% for top 25% only, starting in 2017. Increase the Part B deductible by $25 in 2017, 2019, and 2021 for new beneficiaries only. Add a $100 copayment per incident for home health care, under certain (dubious) conditions, starting in 2017 for new beneficiaries only. Add a 15% (of Medi-Gap premium) surcharge for new beneficiaries who also enroll in Medi-Gap plans, starting in 2017.
The items I don’t like are the ones I bolded, but none of them are a deal breaker.
On the whole I like the plan, and here are the opinions of three individuals who have often criticized Obama in the past.
Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed Robert Reich.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow interviewed Michael Moore.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Ed Schultz interviewed Katrina vanden Heuvel.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In a recent discussion we had about Republicans blackmailing America, over a $1 billion loan guarantee program, I said disagreed with several of you and said that, if Democrats are going to take it to the edge, it’s important that we pick an issue that directly effects millions of people, not just thousands. This is the issue over which Obama and the Democrats must dig in their heels.
17 Responses to “The Plan: Economic Patriotism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think I can live with any premium increase if done in an incremental way but there should be a means test for the FLOOR. a person who has less than X coming in per year should see no increase in any co-payment. Once you are ona fixed income that is it and any increase in a co-payment brings us back to the choice of dry dog food or wet cat food or not getting the proper medical treatment. I know it is not a progressive idea but I really think the hole is deep enough where everyone has to pay some more in taxes. That alone will hurt. The best way to me is to simply drop all deductions except the personal exemption and the standard deduction, no more earned income credit, no more child care coverage, and if someone fails to file even if they have no income (which they should be doing anyway) they should be penalized with some loss of benefit. If we are going to fix the damn income stream with “shared sacrifice” than make it shared. Don’t misunderstand I am not sticking up for the wealthy here but it removes the argument that the poor don’t pay and if you saw the same interview i did then you saw that when the highest tax rate that was hitting the wealthiest was 90% the effectual tax rate was 50%.
I also think the justice department should be going after balls to the wall Grover Norquist and anyone who signed his pledge which effectually made it more important than the pledge to preserve and defend the constitution. If we are going to fix all this shit then someone has to get in their and really get dirty, shit ain’t fun to mess around in but at least the president started with a dare for them to jump in and help.
Mark, I agree about needing a floor. The poor and middle classes have been taxed to the hilt by years of stagnation when all the income they deserved went to the rich instead. I like the last idea, but on what possible charges?
My favorite line in his speech was “the only pledge we take is to uphold the Constitution”. Wake up Tea-publicans! Why are you pledging anything else?
well put!
Mine was. “It’s math”.
Not only an issue that directly affects millions of people, but an issue on which the Democrats’ stance is overwhelmingly what the people want. Even a lot of Republican voters favor restoring normal tax rates and protecting Medicare from deep cuts.
The Republican politicians don’t like this because it forces them out from under their rocks. The clearer they have to be about the ugliness they’re advocating, instead of hiding it behind a cloud of platitudes, the less they like it.
You’re right, Infidel. 70-80% of moderates support raising taxes on the rich.
Very well said!
I’m cautiously encouraged that the O has shown some spark – as Michael Moore said “”better 600 days late” – Have to difer w TMW about the child care deductions, it may depend on the situation – I needed it when my wife died and as a singe parent making about 25,000 out of which I needed a “nanny” so I could work! Now on disability I fear the changes to Medicare! I’m glad O mentioned the “pledge” in his speech – it may be news to some! What is so offensive at the beginning of the L O’Donnell clip is the pro_fracking ad preceeding it! It almost makes me want to stop watching MSNBC altogether! (my cause celebre) I wonder (off subject) if anyone saw Need to Know last Fri. – their first segment was one concerning the insidious privitization of disposal industry in Harrisburgh and Chicago’s parking meters (a ridiculous 75-90 yr deal), as well as Indiana’s cross state thruway – these are deals that industries (being the wealthy of America) are taking advantage of cash strapped cities and giving the “big bucks” up front (with Wall St.’s help of course) – and suddenly the citizens find themselves at the mercy of whatever these corporations want to charge (in Chicago there are areas in which meters are charging 4 times the amount the city charged) —- later in an interview w C T Whitman (the joke – I mean x gov of NJ) she was asked if raising revenue might help prevent some of these “bad deals” – first she said well contracts have to be “more carefully negotiated” and then to ask more taxes to be paid is an unreasonable “burden” for some! This is the crap that scares me! This is what prompts me to fear the country’s fascist direction – privitization of cities and states!!!!! WTF!!! Sorry Tom that I went off on a tangent – I do think it’s a pivotal time in history – and M Moore is probably right as is V-Heuvel when they seem to insist that it’s time to rally for O – it was also a result of the lack of enthusiasm perhaps that O is showing some testosterone – and maybe – just maybe – the fact that for the first time in my life I didn’t show at NY’s primary was one more indication of the loss of political aplomb that O seemed so secure (arrogantly so?) – fortunately the loss of the Weiner’s seat is only for a few moments since gerrymandering and census is taking that seat away (for better or more likely worse!),
Lee. I’m sorry about the fracking ad. I hate it too, but I’d rather have it than not bring you the content.
Memo to repubicans: Spare me your crappy canard that taxing the rich will stop the “job creators” from creating jobs – because it’s a bold-faced LIE!
Given that [1] the wealthy are sitting on a pile of cash because the 2010 Census documents the gap between the Rich and the rest of us is the greatest it’s ever been, and [2] the tax rate on the wealthy is already at the lowest it’s ever been in more than sixty years … then WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE JOBS?
But it is thoughtful of the repubicans to offer us a Chance to become wealthy:
Bingo!
There is now reason for the tax code to be5 ft tall when stacked up. How do average Americans manage to do their taxes? They obviously have to pay someone to do them – something they can’t afford. I loved Obama’s speech- he hit the mark with that one.
I agree, Lisa. Do you remember the tax code I proposed a while back?
We learned in debate class It’s the way the argument is framed that determines the message. It’s about time Obama brought out the flag and I hope he rubs it all over everything.
Blue, you’re absolutely right. For the first time in two years he’s framing the message himself, not letting Republicans do it.
Bernie Sanders said in Madison, WI : “Clearly, you are not going to win over the American people unless you are prepared to stand and fight.”
Many have said that Mr Obama and the Democrats need to find their collective backbone and stand up to the political pugilists, the Republicans. Well, I believe that Mr Obama threw down the gauntlet to the pugilists and has hopefullly taken a page out of Sanders book. From the Washington Post: “I will not support — I will not support — any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans,” Obama said. “We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.”
Unfortunately, the Republicans came back with the same old sorry drivel. From the Washington Post: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), a member of the special committee, said Obama’s plan was “defined by political posturing.” . . . “We do not have time to waste on political games and pushing big tax increases that will only make our economy weaker for all Americans,” he said.
That’s right Senator, there is no time to waste, so ‘shit or get off the pot!’ The President and 98% of the people are waiting for you and your Republican colleagues to take your oath of office (the real one, not Norquist’s) seriously and stand up for the Constitution and your constituents.
One comment that I thought was telling was when Ms vanden Heuvel referred to Tahrir Square in Egypt. She said the gap between rich and poor was smaller than in the US. That is a scary thought. If the Egyptian gap was smaller and spawned a revolution for reform, what would happen if the American public, who experience a bigger gap, collectively decided, finally, that enough is enough?
The people have to stand up and be counted, stand up behind Mr Obama if they want change. It is hard to keep hammering, and there is no guarantee of winning. But if you want guarantees, I’ll guarantee that if you don’t stand up and be counted, you will lose. In one of the video clips, I can’t remember which, there was a comment about people getting out to vote, but they likely aren’t going to take 10 friends with them. Well, take 10 friends, take 20 if you can!
I especially liked the way Mr Obama put Boehner in his place — I could just feeeel the luuuv! Stupid and wrong. Ooooo, can’t you just feeeel the luuuv!
Lynn, I fully agree and do support what he’s trying to do. I don’t like some things about it, but it beats socialism for the rich only.