FYI: This was written before I read that PolitiFact had decided to label an accurate claim its "lie of the year." It seems Paul Ryan's "contact PolitiFact and tell them to give me an intellectual bailout" lobbying campaign paid off for him. For more on this, see Brian Beutler, Dean Baker, and Paul Krugman.
I won't be backing down on this one bit and I seriously doubt anyone else will be either. Truth doesn't change just because PolitFact, in all of its posturing glory, wishes it would.
The usual suspects, still pining for a Beltway "Grand Bargain" -- a bad solution that focuses on the wrong problem -- are reliant on a false equivalency. Their line goes something like this: Social Security and Medicare supporters like the NCPSSM (National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare) and the Strenghten Social Security coalition are no different than Grover Norquist.
To turn a popular phrase at the moment, this is a DC drone's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like. Whether the person giving voice to this "analysis" actually believes it or they're repeating it as a testament to their own Seriousness, they're out of their depth in a kiddie pool.
Republicans continue their coordinated effort to label the Buffet Rule that President Obama introduced last week "class warfare." This predictable line of attack is worthy of derision. Paul Krugman, Jared Bernstein, and Rebecca Thiess have the details.
The laughable assertion that things like the Buffet Rule constitute "class warfare" is a useful example of how the GOP operates. The Republican response to the president's mainstream proposal should be a catalyst for a broader Democratic realization that we shouldn't let baseless accusations of "class warfare" deter us from making accurate contrasts that resonate broadly. The right's "class warfare" charge is both inevitable and eminently beatable.
Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times has a very introspective and informative column that I would ask each of you to take the time to peruse. His pièce de résistance? This quote.
Ryan is right when he suggests that his plan would "fix" Medicare; it's the same way that the Mafia "fixes" an informer. In both cases the solution guarantees that the target won't be around to create trouble anymore, and as long as you don't feel remorse about collateral damage you're home free.
Alan Grayson had it straight up correct when he said ""If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. "That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."
In case some were wondering, it's not enough for one to say he has principles; especially "I have principles" followed with a qualifier. The acknowledgment of one's principles have to be earned by standing by them otherwise they don't really exist. Principled stances are theoretical lines in the sand. Even though there may be more than 1, there is a line too far where one cannot move the goal post anymore and then claim a principled 1st down. At that point, one cannot breach that line without that breach turning into an unprincipled one. You see, it's not enough to support a Democrat when that said Democrat doesn't adhere to the Democratic Party Platform. It's also not enough to say you care about Medicare when you don't even admonish those in power that call it an entitlement program.
This kind of framing does not garner support for Medicare and framing matters; ask Drew Westen who predicted the 2010 outcome years before it happened. And no, Medicare's problems mostly stem from privatization and our other fully privatized system suckling off of it through Medicare Advantage. There was also its precursor in the deal president Clinton made with Republicans in the balanced budget act of 1997 which cut and privatized Medicare partially leading to Medicare Advantage which is 9% less efficient than your grandfather's Medicare.