The GOP Congressional Study Committee, led by Tea Party Stalwarts, have published its Deficit Reduction Plan. It is found at:
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov
It would be a joke if it didn’t reduce veterans, educational benefits, and contains an unfunded mandate to states by shifting taxes for Medicaid to States and Localities.
It claims to save 2.5 Trillion over 10 years. That equates to 250 Billion per year. Guess what? Obama’s first budget was 400 billion less than Bush’s last budget.
*Fiscal Year 2009 - President Bush’s last budget was - 1.7 Trillion.
NOTE: President’ Bush’s last budget had the largest deficit
in the history of the world and Country!
*Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama’s first budget was - 1.3 Trillion
Please see Blog entry of October 25, 2010 about the Fox and GOtP lies about the Debt and Deficit.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Welfare Queens
Teachers are the new “WELFARE QUEENS.”
Historical Note: President Ronald Reagan often referred to "Welfare Queens" usually riding Cadillacs to pick up welfare checks. One was never actually referred to, but as a political quote, it was successful in blaming Social Services help for people as the scapegoat for an inflationary economy
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, Supercapitalism, and his most recent book, Aftershock. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. He recently contributed an aticle on public employees to the Huffington Post,
Robert Reich warns that public employees are convenient scapegoats for the republicans. This diverts attention from corporate executive pay and bonuses. Blaming teachers and other public employees, their unions and their benefits for causing the Great Recession seems to gather support from the Tea Party and its servant the Republican Party.
How can people believe that? They believe it because they are ill informed by the media, intentionally by Fox News and ignorantly by other media. In addition no one “sets the record straight”. For example, tenure is often explained as allowing incompetent teachers to remain employed and that myth is repeated unchallenged at all levels of news and in the new US Congress.
There was a recent statement that after 2 years a teacher in DC had a lifetime position regardless of ability. The statement was unchallenged on MSNBC. As any person familiar with the system knows, tenure gives the right to a hearing should there be a complaint made and the employee, like most public employees, cannot be arbitrarily fired without cause. If cause is shown the teacher or public employee may be subject to a range of discipline including discharge.
Teachers, their unions and other public employees should be defending the system. The system was developed to eliminate the “spoils system” and favoritism by School Boards. It is suggested that public employees and teachers can be the subject of ignorant and politically motivated charges, which in the absence of protection, lessens employee security, rewards sycophants and destroys the professionalism of teachers.
Below is Robert Reich’s Article:
In 1968, 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually Memphis heard the grievances of its sanitation workers. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation have benefited from the job protections they've earned.
But now the right is going after public employees. Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work -- sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees -- to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big. Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.
But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions. They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts. The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college.
Compare apples to apples and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)
Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pension’s obligations are out of control. Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension. But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous. And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.
Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans. The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights -- Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights -- Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana -- have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees. It's only average workers -- both in the public and the private sectors -- who are being called upon to sacrifice. This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another -- comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits -- than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Historical Note: President Ronald Reagan often referred to "Welfare Queens" usually riding Cadillacs to pick up welfare checks. One was never actually referred to, but as a political quote, it was successful in blaming Social Services help for people as the scapegoat for an inflationary economy
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, Supercapitalism, and his most recent book, Aftershock. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. He recently contributed an aticle on public employees to the Huffington Post,
Robert Reich warns that public employees are convenient scapegoats for the republicans. This diverts attention from corporate executive pay and bonuses. Blaming teachers and other public employees, their unions and their benefits for causing the Great Recession seems to gather support from the Tea Party and its servant the Republican Party.
How can people believe that? They believe it because they are ill informed by the media, intentionally by Fox News and ignorantly by other media. In addition no one “sets the record straight”. For example, tenure is often explained as allowing incompetent teachers to remain employed and that myth is repeated unchallenged at all levels of news and in the new US Congress.
There was a recent statement that after 2 years a teacher in DC had a lifetime position regardless of ability. The statement was unchallenged on MSNBC. As any person familiar with the system knows, tenure gives the right to a hearing should there be a complaint made and the employee, like most public employees, cannot be arbitrarily fired without cause. If cause is shown the teacher or public employee may be subject to a range of discipline including discharge.
Teachers, their unions and other public employees should be defending the system. The system was developed to eliminate the “spoils system” and favoritism by School Boards. It is suggested that public employees and teachers can be the subject of ignorant and politically motivated charges, which in the absence of protection, lessens employee security, rewards sycophants and destroys the professionalism of teachers.
Below is Robert Reich’s Article:
In 1968, 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually Memphis heard the grievances of its sanitation workers. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation have benefited from the job protections they've earned.
But now the right is going after public employees. Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work -- sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees -- to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big. Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.
But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions. They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts. The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college.
Compare apples to apples and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)
Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pension’s obligations are out of control. Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension. But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous. And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.
Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans. The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights -- Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights -- Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana -- have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees. It's only average workers -- both in the public and the private sectors -- who are being called upon to sacrifice. This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another -- comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits -- than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Seniors and the Low Income Worker - NO HELP
Low Income earners and seniors
The focus upon the high income earners from the Compromise Tax Cut has missed the focus upon the miserable treatment of low income earners and seniors.
Consider the implications of the analysis from Huffington Post by Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute, which is found at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/any-payroll-tax-cut-shoul_b_796741.html
Basically, the 2% payroll tax cut exchange for the existing Making Work Pay program, takes away the help giving those earning under $20,000 per year and their taxes increase. The Making Work Pay program gives all workers 400 dollars and couples 800 dollars. That means the low income earner (less than 20,000). A 2% payroll tax reduction on less than $20,000 amounts to less than 400 dollars. $20,000.00 is the break even point.
The conclusion is that high income earners receive thousands in tax cuts and the lowest income earners will pay more. This GOP forced proposal shows its TEA PARTY attitude,
Further, the 2% is a cut on some money that goes to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. In many ways it is a good idea in that it is both simulative and helpful for middle class wage earners. I am sure that the President’s thinking is to correct that deficit down the road. However it is clear that GOP and especially its Tea Party constituency has a goal of limiting Social Security benefits. Please note that Congressman Elect Gibson was quoted at a GOP meeting as reviewing the retirement age because people are living longer. Please see:
What can be done:
Write of call our Senators and Current and New Congressman:
Congressman Murphy’s office in Saratoga Springs at 518-581-8247.
Senator Gillibrand’s office at 202-224-4451 or
Senator Schumer's office at 202-224-6542.
Doug McGivney
The focus upon the high income earners from the Compromise Tax Cut has missed the focus upon the miserable treatment of low income earners and seniors.
Consider the implications of the analysis from Huffington Post by Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute, which is found at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/any-payroll-tax-cut-shoul_b_796741.html
Basically, the 2% payroll tax cut exchange for the existing Making Work Pay program, takes away the help giving those earning under $20,000 per year and their taxes increase. The Making Work Pay program gives all workers 400 dollars and couples 800 dollars. That means the low income earner (less than 20,000). A 2% payroll tax reduction on less than $20,000 amounts to less than 400 dollars. $20,000.00 is the break even point.
The conclusion is that high income earners receive thousands in tax cuts and the lowest income earners will pay more. This GOP forced proposal shows its TEA PARTY attitude,
Further, the 2% is a cut on some money that goes to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. In many ways it is a good idea in that it is both simulative and helpful for middle class wage earners. I am sure that the President’s thinking is to correct that deficit down the road. However it is clear that GOP and especially its Tea Party constituency has a goal of limiting Social Security benefits. Please note that Congressman Elect Gibson was quoted at a GOP meeting as reviewing the retirement age because people are living longer. Please see:
The fact that Congressman Elect Gibson he has a “20 year and out” pension which will now be augmented by his Congressional retirement program further shows the GOTP thinking.http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2010/12/11/news/doc4d03033cd26fd206187188.txt
What can be done:
Write of call our Senators and Current and New Congressman:
Congressman Murphy’s office in Saratoga Springs at 518-581-8247.
Senator Gillibrand’s office at 202-224-4451 or
Senator Schumer's office at 202-224-6542.
Doug McGivney
Thursday, December 9, 2010
YES WE STILL CAN
NO WE WON'T
AND THEY DIDN'T
Although President Obama was able to get a compromise with the GOP leadership, it continues wealth distribution upward and only temporarily helps middle class Americans. It may be the best that can be obtained, but it is hoped that the Democratic Congressional leaders can get A NEW DEAL.
One GOP assertion is the idea that the rich are “job creators”. They are not. Most of the high earners are Wall Street operators, who are getting the best of the GOP deal, are "finance managers" who only incidently (30% of business) invest in companies that are going to manufacture something. They sell short, speculate on currency differentials or gamble with hedge funds. Trading "credit default swaps"; creating & selling "collateral backed securities” and selling securities short; does nothing to grow the economy or to create jobs.(1)
These investments are big stakes gambling. If the investment firms and the "high earners" used their own money, no one could complain - or even care. However, they use bank deposits, 401k money, retirement funds and other “public” money. When these bets fail – the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bush administration protect them. Bush’s TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program) did not protect the depositor, or the people with IRAs and 401Ks, or even the stock holders in some companies. However, the money managers continued to receive billion of dollars in bonuses much of it from TARP. (2) It is these millionairs that are the receivers of the big tax cuts.
What can be done? Many have sent me Rabbi Michael Lerner’s recent article in the Washington Post that suggests action. That action perceives leadership failures of President Obama and the need to consider alternatives and seek new leadership. His admittedly sad recognition of the leadership failures of President Obama leads to the thinking of moving on without him. I do not yet agree with him but it is hard not understand his point. The Lerner article may be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120304148.html
We need a NEW – NEW DEAL. The GOP continues class warfare on the middle class. I understand the President's dilemma and fear of cutting off benefits for the 2 million unemployed and the reinstatement of taxes on the middle class. However, kicking the can down the road is not, in my opinion, the answer. The 7 or 8 Billion dollar deficit caused by the compromise saddles the middle class wage earners and not the future bonus millionaires.
When to hold them and when to fold them is always a tricky issue. We know that the President has his heart in the right place. He did get some real progressive benefits. However, I am afraid that we are just postponing the inevitable and that is the need to change the continued Corporate, Tea party and GOBP agenda. What happens when there is a need to increase the Debt limit. Will the GOP compromise? I suspect not and then we are arguing about cutting Medicare and Social Security. Should we not be discussing that issue before the compromise not after. President Obama and others have referred to the GOP has holding the unemployed and middle class hostage. The so called compromise does not release the hostages, but gives only a temporary reprive.
Political action is suggested as the partial answer in David Koren’s new book Agenda for a New Economy. It is an answer to consider – and that consideration is needed now. His long and short term goals need examination by all. In the meantime, political action is needed now. To the question of whether political action can overcome overwhelming corporate power – as Jefferson, Washington and Adams overcame the overwhelming Monarchy Power – the answer is YES WE CAN!
We need a long term plan but right now we need to call and encourage our Senators and Congressman Murphy. Urge them to work with Vermont Senator Sanders to get a NEW DEAL.
References:
(1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40504582/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
(2) The Big Short by Michael Lewis; When Genius failed by Roger Lowenstein, Agenda for a New Economy by David Korten
(3) The New York Times, Global Ed. www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html
Pay czar: ‘Ill advised’ bonuses at 17 bailed-out banks. msnbc.com news services. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38376709/ns/business-us_business/
Monday, October 25, 2010
How the Fox & GOTP Lies about National Debt & Deficits;
A Grand Old Tea Party friend of mine intentionally confronts me with Fox News and Gibson stuff. The kidding does not bother me but the fact that he really believes it, does. The confusion intentionally spread by, Fox News, the TEA Party & GOBP often confuse “National Debt” and “deficit”. That repeated confusion may be affecting this election.
Here are the actual facts. I will include reliable source references at the end.
1. The National Dept., comprised of all money the USA owes and is the accumulation of the deficits that are budgeted and incurred each Federal Fiscal year is: 12.4 Trillion. When President Bush started the National Dept was 5.7 Trillion dollars with Clinton budgets having surpluses so that the National Dept was going down.
2. The Deficit is the amount spent or budgeted to be spent over the expected revenues. Each budget year has its own deficit (or under President Clinton – a surplus. )
a. Fiscal Year 2009 President Bush’s last budget 1.7 Trillion
b. Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama’s first budget 1.3 Trillion
NOTE: a. President’ Bush’s last budget had the largest deficit in History!
b. President Obama reduced the budget and spent less than Bush did in his first year in office.,
So, when your right wing friends state that Obama had a “ Trillion dollar deficit” as my friend did - the answer was YES - but it was still 400 Billion less than Bush’s. Like my friend and Fox News – the facts don’t keep them from stating facts that don’t exist, but you will feel better and there may be other people that will listen.
References:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_debt_by_U.S
See Chart below showing:
Biggest deficit spenders and National Debt builders since Presidents Truman and Roosevelt both of whom had to pay for WW II
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
George W. Bush
Here are the actual facts. I will include reliable source references at the end.
1. The National Dept., comprised of all money the USA owes and is the accumulation of the deficits that are budgeted and incurred each Federal Fiscal year is: 12.4 Trillion. When President Bush started the National Dept was 5.7 Trillion dollars with Clinton budgets having surpluses so that the National Dept was going down.
2. The Deficit is the amount spent or budgeted to be spent over the expected revenues. Each budget year has its own deficit (or under President Clinton – a surplus. )
a. Fiscal Year 2009 President Bush’s last budget 1.7 Trillion
b. Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama’s first budget 1.3 Trillion
NOTE: a. President’ Bush’s last budget had the largest deficit in History!
b. President Obama reduced the budget and spent less than Bush did in his first year in office.,
So, when your right wing friends state that Obama had a “ Trillion dollar deficit” as my friend did - the answer was YES - but it was still 400 Billion less than Bush’s. Like my friend and Fox News – the facts don’t keep them from stating facts that don’t exist, but you will feel better and there may be other people that will listen.
References:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_debt_by_U.S
See Chart below showing:
Biggest deficit spenders and National Debt builders since Presidents Truman and Roosevelt both of whom had to pay for WW II
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
George W. Bush
Friday, October 15, 2010
Compare: Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner
Recent Gibson Campaign Ads indicate without any proof that Speaker Pelosi is somehow very bad and so Congressman Murphy must be bad too. Neither Speaker Pelosi nor Minority Leader Boehner are "bad" but their policies are extremely different.
Lets compare her to Minority Leader Boehner who has campaigned for Mr. Gibson and is slated to become the Speaker of the House, if Mr. Gibson wins and the GOP take it over:
Minority Leader, John Boehner
"HELL NO WE WON'T"
and doesn't support:
Social Security, as we know it
He wants to "reform" Social Security
HELL NO WE WON'T
and he doesn't
Support Health and Insurance Reform
He led House voting against reform which:
- Stops Ins. Cos using pre-existing conditions even against children
- Stops Ins.Cos dropping young adults from parents health ins. policies
- Increased Medicare Spending from 529 Billion to 929 billion.
- Eliminating the "donut hole" in Medicare D and saved Seniors $ thousands.
- Limits the growth in medical & insurance costs, so much so that the non-partisan
- The BiPartisan Cogressional Budget Office found that it leads to deficit and debt reduction.
HELL NO WE WON"T
and he doesn't support
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act>
He lead his minority to oppose
-creating 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,
Lets compare her to Minority Leader Boehner who has campaigned for Mr. Gibson and is slated to become the Speaker of the House, if Mr. Gibson wins and the GOP take it over:
Minority Leader, John Boehner
"HELL NO WE WON'T"
and doesn't support:
Social Security, as we know it
He wants to "reform" Social Security
HELL NO WE WON'T
and he doesn't
Support Health and Insurance Reform
He led House voting against reform which:
- Stops Ins. Cos using pre-existing conditions even against children
- Stops Ins.Cos dropping young adults from parents health ins. policies
- Increased Medicare Spending from 529 Billion to 929 billion.
- Eliminating the "donut hole" in Medicare D and saved Seniors $ thousands.
- Limits the growth in medical & insurance costs, so much so that the non-partisan
- The BiPartisan Cogressional Budget Office found that it leads to deficit and debt reduction.
HELL NO WE WON"T
and he doesn't support
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act>
He lead his minority to oppose
-creating 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,
-closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas and reduces the deficit.
-included $10 billion in funding to save teacher jobs;
- saved or created 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,
-included $16.1 billion in health assistance to the states that, by reducing shortfalls, will help keep many others on the job, including police officers and firefighters.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
YES WE CAN(and did)
This is the Congresswoman and grandmother signing an education bill which became law that:
- saved or created 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,
- closed tax loopholes that encouraged corporations to ship American jobs overseas and reduces the deficit.
-The bill includes $10 billion in funding to save teacher jobs;
-and $16.1 billion in health assistance to the states that, by reducing shortfalls, will help keep many others on the job, including police officers and firefighters.
Mr. Gibson, on the other hand has been the recepient of Mr. Boehner's fund raising and has accepted advertising from a Corporate front group named 60 Plus Association. That organization has been funded by the World's Largest Pharmaceutical Corporations
She had been selected by a very diverse group of Representatives, comprised mostly of men. She has been a leading representative in the House of Representatives for many years and so was and is known for her smarts, diplomacy and knowledge. The allegation is that Congressman Scott Murphy follows her leadership. Thank goodness he mostly has. As an independent thinking man, he has not always agreed and has insisted upon matters important to the District. Remember, he voted no on Health and Insurance Reform until his ideas were included.
Mr. Gibson, on the other hand has been the recepient of Mr. Boehner's fund raising and has accepted advertising from a Corporate front group named 60 Plus Association. That organization has been funded by the World's Largest Pharmaceutical Corporations
Conclusion:
Mr. Murphy working with YES WE CAN Speaker Pelosi is a better choice than Mr. Gibson working with HELL NO WE WON'T Mr. Boehner.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Gibson, Plus 60 attacks on Congressman Scott Murphy
A recent TV ad attacking Scott Murphy was sponsored by 60 Plus, The irony is that 60 Plus, pretends to be an alternative to AARP, however it fights for corporate rights not Senior rights!
In actuality, this a GOP front for corporate interest such as Big Pharma, in general and Pfizer in particular. . There is further irony or duplicity in the fact that Pfizer recently bought Wyest and discharged 18 000 US employees. Another irony is the fact that Pfizer used President Bush's "tarp " money to finance the takeover. Pfizer, has extensive off shore operation.
The ads are against Scott and 16 other Democratic Congress Members. The ads are blatantly false in every way. In general, they do not represent seniors or have an organization to do so. In particular and thanks to the investigative reporting of:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/misleading-onslaught-by-60-plus/
the actual lies are debunked.
One lie used against Congressman Murphy is that the Medical Care reform act caused a 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare. It didn’t! “CBO predicts that federal outlays for Medicare in fiscal year 2020 will be $929 billion, compared with projected spending of $519 billion this year”. So the program isn’t being cut below existing levels, or even stopped in its tracks.
Other references are:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/422/
I suggest that if the people in the ads are not familiar in your neighborhood, just look at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ You can buy “generic photos on line.
It is hoped that the people will see thru the lies and distortions and re-elect Scott Murphy to continue the progress made in the past 2 years.
In actuality, this a GOP front for corporate interest such as Big Pharma, in general and Pfizer in particular. . There is further irony or duplicity in the fact that Pfizer recently bought Wyest and discharged 18 000 US employees. Another irony is the fact that Pfizer used President Bush's "tarp " money to finance the takeover. Pfizer, has extensive off shore operation.
The ads are against Scott and 16 other Democratic Congress Members. The ads are blatantly false in every way. In general, they do not represent seniors or have an organization to do so. In particular and thanks to the investigative reporting of:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/misleading-onslaught-by-60-plus/
the actual lies are debunked.
One lie used against Congressman Murphy is that the Medical Care reform act caused a 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare. It didn’t! “CBO predicts that federal outlays for Medicare in fiscal year 2020 will be $929 billion, compared with projected spending of $519 billion this year”. So the program isn’t being cut below existing levels, or even stopped in its tracks.
Other references are:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/422/
I suggest that if the people in the ads are not familiar in your neighborhood, just look at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ You can buy “generic photos on line.
It is hoped that the people will see thru the lies and distortions and re-elect Scott Murphy to continue the progress made in the past 2 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
