Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Samantha

Samantha's Journal
Samantha's Journal
December 18, 2012

Obama Counter-Offers on Fiscal Cliff (updated with stats on a chained COLA)

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/dec/17/obama-counter-offers-fiscal-cliff-raise-taxes-earn/

This appears to be the story Ed Schultz just reported.

Here are a couple of paragraphs:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has proposed a deficit-reduction package to House Speaker John Boehner that would increase the top tax rates on taxpayers earning more than $400,000, cut more spending from health care programs and add $200 billion more in spending cuts over 10 years to his earlier offer.

***

"People familiar with the plan said Obama is proposing lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. He also abandoned his request to extend a payroll tax cut — a move that would result in a tax increase for many Americans."

I hope to expand this thread shortly regarding the chained COLA.

Sam

Update: See this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1436970

Granted it was written in July 2011, however, it will give you an idea how much financial damage can be done to participants of Social Security. When the Bowles-Simpson Plan recommended the chained COLA, I did some research on the issue and posted this thread. I then contacted Bernie Sanders' office and asked that the data be reviewed, and if they agreed this would do substantial harm to Social Security participants to advocate against the implementation. To his credit, Bernie Sanders has not let up on the issue. He gathered the support of many of other Democrats. Here is a small portion of that thread:

"Switching to the chained CPI would reduce Social Security COLAs by about 0.3 of a percentage point each year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, saving the federal government more than $200 billion over the next 10 years. Most of the savings would come from lower Social Security benefits and lower retirement benefits for federal employees, whose increases also are tied to the CPI.

The Senior Citizens League calculates that such a change would reduce Social Security benefits by an estimated 7 percent over a 25-year retirement. For a senior who retires in 2011 and receives the average Social Security benefit -- about $1,100 per month -- this would reduce benefits over 25 years by $18,634. The cuts would be very small in the beginning but escalate as recipients age." (emphasis added)(see http://www.tscl.org/action/emergencycola.asp .)

Additionally, the Senior Citizens League issued a emergency petition, the first three bullet points of which are:

"• The Social Security COLA should not be calculated from the consumer price index (CPI), since the CPI is based on the purchases of young urban workers and does not reflect the actual expenses of senior citizens.

• Even when CPI-based inflation is very low, the expenses that form the backbone of senior citizens’ budgets – medical insurance, prescription drugs, fuel – continue to rise alarmingly.

• The federal government itself recognizes the inequity of a CPI-based COLA by calculating a senior-specific CPI formula, which it never uses, that shows our cost of living rises faster than that of most young people."

http://www.tscl.org/action/emergencycola.asp"

I hope the Democrats do not agree to this but I have a sinking feeling I am going to be disappointed....
November 27, 2012

Candidly, I do not see the necessity at this time for "Shared Sacrifice"

It has been reported frequently that 93 percent of the proceeds in this recovery from this near-depression has been reaped by the wealthy. During the recession's continuation, the middle class and the impoverished have continued to suffer. Many have lost their jobs, lost their health care and their homes. Poverty has increased.

The middle class and the indigent have already taken their turn at sacrificing. Now it is time for the wealthy to step up to the plate and take their turn. This also includes corporations that pay no taxes, as well as corporations that pay no taxes and additionally receive subsidies from the U.S. Government.

To date since the inception of this Bush-caused recession there has been no shared sacrifice. So why it so important to start that now? Let those who have already sacrificed be protected from further financial harm and demand that those who have benefited step up to the plate and take their rightful turn.

Sam

November 27, 2012

The Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and the renewal in 2003 were passed through reconciliation

Both times only 51 votes were required. 51 votes. The original Bush Tax Cuts were passed with a vote of 58 to 33. The second time in 2003 was much more controversial because of the ongoing wars but it passed by a vote of 51 to 50. How is that possible, you ask. Cheney cast the deciding vote to break the tie.

Passing a controversial piece of legislation by 51 votes is smart politics when Republicans do it. But when Democrats do it, Republicans react in anger with threats of retaliation and bringing the government to a halt.

Okay for Republicans but not okay for Democrats. See the difference?

Sam

November 21, 2012

Every state in the United States must adhere to its state constitution with regard to selecting

it's slate of electors. Each state constitution requires that the outcome of the popular vote determines the slate of electors (the one exception, I believe, is Maine). If a state does not abide by its state constitution, its slate can simply be discounted by the Electoral College, which is presided over by the Vice President of the United States....

From Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3, of the Constitution:

"...and they [meaning the electors, the party of which has previously been decided as a result of the outcome of the popular vote (except Maine)] shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and the Number of Votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify; and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (Joe Biden). The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all of the Certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be President, if such Number shall be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed, and if there be more than one that have such majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot; one of them for President." (emphasis added)

I am going to stop quoting here to make a point. I believe any state that refuses to participate as mentioned in the thread above, is disqualified from having a slate of electors counted in the official count over which the Vice President presides.

Those states deliberately not participating are in violation of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, which violation does not give the legislatures of those state the right to rewrite the rules enumerated in our Constitution in order to effectuate the selection of a candidate not property elected by the laws in place.

What should happen then is those slates would be discarded and the number of votes required to be President would be a majority of those officially counted. When the language in the U.S. Constitution says the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such a number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed, that only includes the slates in the official count, not the other electors votes who were not forwarded to the President of the Senate as required by the highest law of the land. Whoever devised this scheme is counting those electors in the whole number, but it seems to me their participation is thrown out because the rules of the Constitution were deliberately violated.

How does one plan to violate the Constitution and win by rewriting the rules? If Romney's slates of the electors are not forwarded to be included in the official count, the only ones the Vice-President presiding over the Senate receives would be those for President Obama (plus the slate forwarded by Maine, assuming that state is participating).

Can you say "Safe Harbor?"

Furthermore, there is zero wiggle room to change a state constitution after an election but before the Electoral College vote. Just thought I would mention that before I see someone suggest it. Any changes to a state constitution from hereon out would become applicable to the next election, not this one.

Sam




November 7, 2012

Rove is talking about Hamilton County in that meltdown video

The minute he said Hamilton, that rang a bell. I did not finish the video but stopped to see what county Romney's son is invested in voting machines. Here is a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/liberal-critics-worry-about-romney-connection-to-voting-machines-in-ohio/2012/10/24/827f16e4-1ded-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.html

"Hart InterCivic is an Austin-based voting machine company that serves local governments nationwide. Its clients include Hamilton County, Ohio, which administers elections in Cincinnati. Hart InterCivic also has in its DNA just enough traces of Bain & Co. and Mitt Romney campaign donors to trigger serious angst in the liberal blogosphere about the fate of Ohio’s must-have 18 electoral votes."

I cannot say I have thoroughly researched this, but it is difficult to believe this is a coincidence. If you are one of the DU'ers that has thoroughly researched this, perhaps you can post some thoughts on this thread.

Sam

November 6, 2012

Something unexpected happened to me as I voted this morning

In College Park, Maryland, the polls opened this morning at 7:00 a.m. I left my home and arrived at 6:50 a.m. prepared for a long wait. To my joy, the doors were opened and the line was inside along with the warmth of the building. People were polite. The man in front of me opened the door for me and allowed me to get in front of him in line. I eyed the numbers in the hallway and the snake around the corner, but I could not tell how many were in the voting room itself.

Soon the line started to move, and it kept moving. Ten minutes later, I was at the table where they checked my registration. They only asked my name and address and then found my listing in the database. At that point, I was only asked my date of birth. They printed a receipt and asked me to sign it, and at that point I was handed my access card for the machine. I was never asked to provide identification.

That line moved quickly as well. Finally, I stood in front of the machine and accessed my ballot. I had studied the sample ballot so I could move through the process quickly. When I finished, I reviewed all of my choices.

At that point, I focused only on the names of Barack Obama and Joe Biden for President and Vice President. And that is when something unexpected happened.

It must have been the emotion of the moment, all the pent-up turmoil over the worrying about the outcome of this election, the sleepless nights, the late-nite postings here, all of this welled up inside and I cried.

I cried with pride for the privilege of casting my vote for a great President, Barack Obama. I knew when I saw his name this would be the last time I would have that privilege. So it was with both joy and sorrow I cast my ballot and walked away.

Time elapsed from when I entered the door until I left: 40 minutes. Every state should have this type of process available for its citizens to exercise their right to vote. That is one of the reasons I am proud to live in the blue state of Maryland.

I found my car and sat there for a moment to reflect. Well, I have done my part, President Barack Obama, but I know it was just a small measure compared to what you have done for this Country. Thank you for everything you have given this Nation.

Sam

November 4, 2012

Ashley Judd to run against Mitch McConnell in 2016?

Just presented by Fineman on Chris Matthews' show is the rumor that the monied people in Kentucky want Judd to defeat McConnell in 2016. He said she is from Kentucky and the movement is on to get her to run.

That would be a political dream come true.

What great news!

Sam

October 23, 2012

Romney torpedoed his own campaign tonight

Romney's strategy tonight was obvious. In order to defeat a candidate, one must differentiate himself from his opponent. Former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly warned Democrats if we want to win elections again, we must demonstrate clearly the differences between ourselves and our opponents on issues and policies.

Barack Obama's strongest credentials are his foreign policy accomplishments. Knowing that he could never best his opponent in a clear debate on foreign affairs, Romney chose to come out tonight attempting to take that advantage from President Obama by obfuscating policy and issue distinctions between the two of them. He simply agreed with him as often as possible, leaving little space for the President to take a swing. The President astutely turned those opportunities into chances to draw distinctions between Romney's positions du jour and those of yesterdays gone by.

In executing this strategy, Romney appeared not to be the statesman he hoped to project to the viewing audience. He appeared simply tranquilized, at times even stupefied. Tangled up in the ropes? This was once again a different Mitt Romney from the prevaricator in the first debate or the bully in the second debate. In the arena of performance art, he projected the new, improved Mitt Romney who had an astoundingly similar position to Barack Obama on a number of foreign affairs issues.

Al Sharpton stood out brightly tonight in describing Romney's retreats as clinching, as in a boxing scenario. Excellent word to describe Romney's antics. Kudos to the Reverend Al for his excellent call on this fight.

How did I see Romney's performance? Massive epic fail. He torpedoed his own chances to win this debate, and in the process probably sank his entire campaign.

Comments?

Sam

October 18, 2012

The sleeper vote and other election anomalies

Focusing on obscure details prior to an election sometimes points to a classic Rove maneuver.

On October 16, 2012, The Washington Post reported the Supreme Court Justices ruled on Ohio early voting, mentioning why it could be “a very big deal”:

“So the U.S. Supreme Court has refused the Ohio GOP’s request to overturn an appeals court decision to reinstate early voting on the weekend and Monday before the election. This is a big, big victory for the Obama campaign, and it could arguably make a difference to the outcome in the critical state of Ohio.

“Remember, this is something the Romney campaign opposed. As you may recall, the Obama campaign this summer sued to restore in-person early voting for all Ohio voters, and not just members of the military. The Romney campaign falsely claimed this was an effort to “undermine” military voting rights, when in fact it was an effort to expand voting rights, not limit them.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-ohio-early-voting-decision-could-be-a-big-deal/2012/10/16/a8c7d232-17bc-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Apparently, Mitt Romney’s campaign team agreed it was a very big deal. One might think it chances of stuffing the ballot box with exclusively absentee military votes had evaporated.

On October 16, 2012, (quite coincidentally I am sure) Mitt Romney’s campaign sued Wisconsin over absentee military ballots. Can’t get what you want in Ohio, look for the next best thing. Try to get Wisconsin and perhaps Colorado.*

“WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's campaign is stepping up its efforts to ensure that U.S. service members overseas are able to get their votes counted in the November elections, filing suit in Wisconsin Friday to get a five-day extension for absentee and military voters.

"At issue is a federal law -- the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA) -- that requires election officials to send absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before a federal election. All absentee ballots must be returned by Nov. 9, which is three days after the election; the Romney campaign wants Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections in the state, to push that date back to Nov. 14.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/mitt-romney-wisconsin-absentee-ballots-military_n_1970418.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

So what are the lowest common denominators here? Both Ohio and Wisconsin are swing states. But there is a lot of Koch money in Wisconsin, so I believe financing the ground game election night simply would not be a problem. Additionally, both Ohio and Wisconsin have recently experienced voting, shall we say, anomalies? Both states have Republican Governors and Republican Secretaries of State (always very handy to the GOP during election years). I am sure you remember Governor John Kasich in Ohio, and Secretary of State Jon Husted with his nefarious maneuvers on early voting. Regarding Wisconsin, I am sure there is nothing about Scott Walker I can tell you you do not already know. It does appear the Secretary of State Doug La Follette just might be a good guy, so I have nothing negative about him except to say perhaps someone on Romney’s team didn’t do their homework….

Is this maneuver starting to ring any distant bells? Well, yes!

Ann Richards commenting on Larry King’s show during the 2000 election night made this statement:






*Doesn’t Colorado have one of those Bain-associated voting machines? Take a look:

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=34823#.UICHjGfKFfQ

Sam
October 17, 2012

The stinging shot Obama aimed at Romney that no one is talking about

My favorite question from the audience was a woman who inquired of Romney could he assure her that if elected he would be different from George W. Bush*. Romney made some mealy-mouthed response, but Obama landed a punch on Romney's chin.

(Paraphrasing) There are differences between Mr. Romney and George W. Bush. Bush did not want to voucherize Medicare, he was better on immigration reform, and Bush never proposed defunding Planned Parenthood.

I consider Obama's response a true verbal assault on Romney, because in my opinion, there is nothing worse than being compared to George W. Bush* and pale in that comparison. What a heck of an insult, but executed so beautifully.

I absolutely loved it.

Sam

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 9,314
Latest Discussions»Samantha's Journal