Paul Ryan

The GOP Still Wants to Gut Medicaid

Terrance Heath — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:06:25 -0400

Sometimes there no joy in being right. Sometimes it's just no fun to say "I told ya so." This is one of those times.

Depending on whom you ask, Mitt Romney choice of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate is either inspired or insane; bold or boneheaded; a opportunity for meaningful debate or a triumph of theory. But without a doubt, Romney's pick or Ryan as his running mate has revived the Ryan's seminal budget document, The Path to Prosperity, which would end Medicare as we know it back in the spotlight. (It's OK, really. There would still be a program called "Medicare," but the resemblance would end there.) This is already turning in to bad news for the campaign, as Romney can't win without Florida, and it seems neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan can show their faces down there right now.

But a few people have noticed something I pointed out at length about a year ago. He may want to give Medicare a witness-protection-style makeover, but Paul Ryan still wants to gut Medicaid. Apparently, so does Mitt Romney.

Though we'll all hear more about the GOP's dastardly plans for Medicare, we'll probably hear less about their equally destructive plans for Medicaid. That's dangerous, because Medicaid is just as important as Medicare, and the GOP's plans for it could have devastating consequences for millions of Americans.

Forewarned is forearmed. Here's what you need to know about Medicaid and the Ryan/GOP Budget.

Medicaid is not the problem. It's part of a larger health care cost problem.

Medicaid is not "just a program for poor people." It's also important to most middle- and working-class Americans.

The Republican cuts to Medicaid don't lower health care costs. They shift costs to poor, elderly, middle- and working-class Americans.

The Republican cuts to Medicaid are just as unpopular as the Republican cuts to Medicare. Democrats compromise with Republicans on Medicaid cuts at their peril.

In past few days Ed Kilgore, Meteor Blades at Daily Kos, and WaPo's Suzy Khim have been among those to point out the not-so-obvious: Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicaid, chop it into little pieces, and bury bits of the remains in each state. His plans for Medicare — embraced by the GOP, and endorsed by Mitt Romney — look mild by comparison; like the difference between a manicure and an amputation.

Ezra Klein notes that Ryan's cuts to Medicare “are only 60 percent as large as the cuts to Medicaid and other health-care programs.” But, as Khim points out, when it comes to Medicaid, Ryan exchanges his meat cleaver for a chainsaw and a wood-chipper.

Over the next 10 years, the Ryan plan would cut Medicaid by $642 billion by repealing the Affordable Care Act and by $750 billion through new caps on federal spending—a 34 percent cut to Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to Edwin Park of the Center and Budget and Policy Priorities.

Who would that impact? First, by overturning the ACA, the Ryan plan would prevent 11 million people from gaining Medicaid coverage by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimates.

At the same time, the Ryan plan would turn the entitlement program into a block-grant program. Currently, the federal government provides matching, open-ended funds to states, which each run their own Medicaid program. The Ryan plan would instead give states a block grant with a hard annual cap that would be adjusted to population growth and inflation, but it would not factor in rising health-care costs or economic conditions that impact state budgets. The result? Much less federal money. In exchange, states would have more flexibility to set the parameters for their Medicaid programs.

Remember those Republican governors who are refusing the Medicaid expansion in health care reform? You know, the ones who are ideologically opposed to reducing their uninsured population by half, by expanding Medicaid? The Republican governors who are already leaving federal money on the table, making their Medicaid programs are more restrictive than they need to be? Multiply them by 50. Actually, multiply Texas 50, and you'll have the picture about right.

As I noted a year ago, the GOP's cuts to Medicaid are deeper and more immediate than Republican cuts to Medicare. Ryan's plan doesn't begin really hacking away at Medicare until 2023. Medicaid, however, faces the buzz as early as 2013. And while you may not be able to recognize Medicare by the time Republicans are done with it, you'll need the entire cast of CSI and maybe a little help from Fox Mulder to have a hope of finding identifiable pieces of Medicaid.

And for all that, cutting Medicaid doesn't add up to cutting health care costs.

The CBO estimates that the Republican budget's $771 billion in Medicaid cuts over ten years amounts to a 35% cut in Medicaid funding to states. The transformation of Medicaid into a block grant program, ensures that funding will decline because the Republican budget increases these grants annually at the rate of inflation, adjusted for population growth — not the rate of inflation for health care, which is far above the general inflation rate.

In other words, it's built into the budget that states won't be able to keep up with the costs of the program under the Republican budget, because the Republican budget doesn't take the rate of growth in health care costs into consideration. So, states cut back on the very Medicaid services that the elderly and disabled, and their families, rely upon.

The GOP budget cuts a total $2.17 trillion from Medicaid and related health care programs — $771 billion in Medicaid cuts, plus $1.4 trillion from nixing the Medicaid expansion in health care reform — Some of it by eliminating health care coverage for at least 32 million people, and some through drastic cuts in nursing home care coverage.

Instead, it shifts costs to families.

"Cost Sharing" — which basically means imposing premiums on Medicaid recipients — is like to increase if Republicans simultaneously slash Medicaid funding to states and give states the "flexibility" to slash Medicaid benefits. Again, it may mean fewer government dollars are spent on health care, but it's cost shifting passed off as cost cutting.

If the goal is simply to get people off Medicaid rolls, then cost sharing can be said to work. A recent study showed that imposing even a 3% premium on participants in Wisconsin's Badger Care program would result in 49,422 fewer children and parents being enrolled in the program. Some of those families might find coverage elsewhere, but the declining levels of employer-provided coverage for low-income workers means that many of them would probably become uninsured. But they're off Medicaid, right? So, the government's not paying for their health care. Thus, costs go down.

The GOP's cuts to Medicaid would have disastrous consequences for countless American families.

An overview of the likely impact gives a 10,000 foot view of the collateral damage that's likely to be the result of the kind of cuts Republicans want to inflict on Medicaid.

Up to 44 million could lose health coverage. Federal spending on Medicaid would fall by $1.4 trillion, or 34% by 2021. States would receive $243 billion less per year. Cuts would produce decreases in Medicaid enrollment, resulting in 31 million to 44 million to lose coverage.

By 2013, 400,000 would lose vital health care services by 2013, according to the CBO.

By 2016, 1.7 million children will lose health insurance. If the Republican plan becomes law the CBO estimates that 1.7 million children will lose health insurance by 2016, as half the states could eliminate their CHIP programs, and remaining states could roll back coverage.

As many as 15 million could be forced off Medicaid rolls, according to state-by-state analysis.

Cuts would seriously impact seniors and people with disabilities. Some 14 million seniors and people with disabilities depend on Medicaid to pay for nursing home care and assisted living — which costs about $72,000 a year, on average. In fact, 70% of nursing home patients are Medicaid recipients. Deep cuts would mean less coverage for nursing home residents, shifting more of the cost on to the elderly and disabled beneficiaries and their families. Sharp reduction in the quality of nursing home care is another likely result. Many elderly and disabled recipients would be unable to obtain coverage elsewhere because of pre-existing conditions.

If it's true that the GOP's plan to gut Medicaid doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate, then it won't become law. Not federal law, anyway. Remember what Paul Ryan said, "This is isn't a budget. This is a cause." That cause may be defeated in D.C. (for now), but it promises to live on in several states, and may yet rise again on the federal level.

It doesn't stop there, either. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Ryan/Romney/Republican plan would bleed state budgets of discretionary funding for services and infrastructure that supports low-income, middle-class and working-class Americans. Thinks like job training, employment services, highway and road improvement, public transportation, elementary and high school education funding, public safety and disaster response would all have a date with the buzzsaw. On top of that, the Republican plan would likely cost the U.S. millions of jobs, as states take even more drastic actions to close the resulting budget shortfalls.

So, why put forth a budget that hacks away at Medicaid if it doesn't lower health care costs, passes the costs on to families, and leaves some of the most vulnerable out in the cold? Like Paul Ryan says, it isn't a budget, it's a cause. That's why Paul Ryan's budget is modeled after the "catastrophic success" of welfare reform. It works the same way: reducing the number of people receiving help, but not the number of people in need of help.

Why does the GOP want to gut Medicaid? Because conservatives have hated Medicaid since its inception in 1965, for reasons Paul Waldman aptly summarized.

...The primary objection here isn't budgetary; it's moral. Many conservatives feel that poverty is a moral failing, and if you're getting help from a government program, you're probably some kind of scamming welfare queen sucking off people who work for a living, getting a benefit you don't deserve. [emphasis added]

Conservatives like Paul Ryan have repeatedly said their goal is "strengthening welfare for those who need it." But what the Republican budget reflects is much closer to House Minority Leader Eric Cantor's statement that Medicaid and Medicare amount to "a safety net in place in this country for people who frankly don’t need one."

But Jim Wallis reminds us that, "a budget is a moral document," that "reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not." And the Republican budget casts Medicaid recipients as "the undeserving poor." Cutting aid for those who need it most makes perfect sense, if you believe those who need help the most deserve it the least. (For a more in-depth explanation, I recommend George Lakoff.

The budgetary justification for gutting Medicaid is weak. As I pointed out in the previous post, the cost-per-beneficiary for Medicaid is lower than private insurance. But the GOP thinks that "Medicaid is the easiest to win consensus on." That's because their perception of Medicaid is that it's "just a program for poor people."

Paul Ryan himself gave that much away when he said in his Wall Street Journal op-ed that Medicaid reform is really welfare reform. He gives much more away with his desire to model the GOP's "Medicaid reform" on the "successful" welfare reform of the late 90s. As wrote in a previous post, what Ryan sees as the "successful" welfare reform of the 90s was really a classic conservative "catastrophic success."

See, there's the problem with this is that the welfare reform of the late 1990s was not a success. Not unless you're a conservative. And even then it was at best a "catastrophic success" — defined here as "success" that's actually catastrophic for those it's purported to help. That's also what makes it a success. That is, if you're a conservative.

What makes it a success? Well, in a sense, failure. It works if it doesn't work, in other words, especially if it doesn't work for the right people — because the right people are the wrong people. Follow me? No?

...Paul Ryan, in his WSJ op-ed, says that with his roadmap we "strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't." It's curious, because it really does sound like he wants to duplicate the catastrophic success of the welfare reform of the 1990s. The "success" was getting people off welfare rolls, not necessarily improving their condition. It was about reducing the number of people receiving government assistance, not reducing the need for assistance. Simply put, it's fewer people getting help, instead of fewer people needing help.

It's like the right wing version of a Zen kōan that cannot be understood by the rational mind, and only makes sense to the conservative mind. It only makes sense if you believe that those who need help the most deserve it the least, and their need itself is the greatest evidence of that.

Then, not only does it makes economic sense to slash Medicaid beyond recognition, it makes moral sense. In fact, it seems like common sense. So much so, that it seems safe for Republicans to assume most people will see that Medicaid is "just a program for poor people," and cutting it is both an economic and a moral necessity.

Unfortunately, for the GOP, most people are not "Zen Republicans" and don't see the world through the same distorted lens.

Medicaid is not just a program for poor people. Two thirds of its benefits go to the elderly and disabled. Seniors get fully one quarter of those benefits, which supports long-term nursing home care for for 70 percent — or 1.4 million — nursing home residents in America. And most of them aren't indigent. They're middle-class Americans who've already run through their own money, paying for long-term care.

That makes Medicaid hugely important to middle-class families.

We all have parents or grandparents. As they age, the medical care most of them will need will only get more expensive. Some of them will need long-term care or nursing home care, the cost of which will outstrip our families already stressed financial resources.

A year in a nursing home costs an average of $72,000, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that's if there aren't an additional costs beyond just getting a bed in a nursing home. Medicare pays for about a month. It's not hard to see how easily and quickly our parents and grandparents can "spend down" their assets to quality for Medicaid.

We love our parents and grandparents, and we won't want their lack of resource or ours to keep them from getting the they need. Families USA's report, "Cutting Medicaid: Harming Seniors and People with Disabilities," shows that Medicare is a big part of how our parents and grandparents get the care they need.

Medicaid is the primary payer for an estimated 63.6 percent of all nursing home residents. In all states but one, Medicaid is the primary payer for more than 50 percent of nursing home residents.

In seven states and the District of Columbia, Medicaid is the primary payer for more than 70 percent of all nursing home residents. Those states are the District of Columbia (80.1%), Mississippi (74.7%), Alaska (73.8%), Louisiana (73.0%), New York (72.3%), West Virginia (72.2%), Georgia (71.9%), and Hawaii (70.1%).

It all means that Medicaid is an important program for middle- and working-class families, too.

It's not just us forty-somethings-and-up who see it that way. It's our parents and grandparents too. Many of them realize what the cost of long-term care or nursing home care out would mean to their children, and their grandchildren.

It's what stands between our families and what Gene Sperling called "the tyranny of the math.".

And I say this to everybody in this room, there is enormous discussion about the revenue side and the Medicare side. But from a policy perspective, from a values perspective, we should be very deeply troubled by the Medicaid cuts in the House Republican plan. I want to make clear what they are. This is not my numbers, this is theirs.

After they completely repeal the Affordable Care act, which would take away coverage for 34 million Americans, according to the Congressional Budget Office. After they've completely repealed that, they do a block grant that would cut Medicaid by $770 billion. In 2021, that would cut the program by 35 percent. Under their own numbers, by 2030, it would cut projected spending in Medicaid by half. By 49 percent. So, of course– I don't think– or imply any negative intentions or– lack of compassion. But there is a tyranny of the numbers that we have to face.

And here's the tyranny of the numbers. Sixty-four percent of Medicaid spending goes to older people in nursing homes or families who have someone with serious disabilities. Another 22 percent goes to 35 million very poor children. Now I ask you, how could you possibly cut 35 percent of that budget and not hurt hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families who are dealing with a parent or a grandparent in a nursing home, or a child with serious disabilities. How is the math possible.

If you tried to protect them mathematically, you would have to eliminate coverage for all 34 million children. Now I know some people didn't like when– the President mentioned that this was going to be very negative for families, for those amazingly brave parents. And he may be one of them in our country, who have a child with autism or Down's and who just are enormously committed and dedicated to doing everything they can to give their child the same chance– every other child has.

But here's the reality. Medicaid does help so many families in those situations. Over the years, we've allowed more middle class families who have a child with autism to get help in Medicaid. There's a medical needy program that says when you spend down– we'll– we'll count the income after you've spent down medical costs.

There's a Katie Beckett (PH) program that was passed by President Reagan that says if you have a child that's in need of institutional care– you can get help from Medicaid. This is– this is a life support for many of these families. But these are the optional programs in Medicaid. These are the ones that go to more middle class families. If you're going to cut 49 percent of projected Medicaid spending by 2030, do you really think these programs will not be seriously hurt.

So when we say that there– that the tyranny of the math is that these– these– this Medicaid– program, this Medicaid cut will lead to millions of poor children, children with serious disabilities, children with autism– elderly Americans in nursing homes losing their coverage or being– or– or having it significantly cut, we are not criticizing their plan. We are just simply explaining their plan.

That's why the more Americans hear about Ryan plan, the more they hate it. That's why even one fifth of right wing seniors hate it. For them, it's a one way ticket to the poorhouse.

If Americans who are embracing Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" -- and that now includes Mitt Romney -- spent a few minutes reviewing a few recent research reports, they just might conclude that the Wisconsin Republican's plan to reduce the deficit might better be renamed the "Path to the Poorhouse" because of what it would mean to the Medicare program and many senior citizens.

Ryan's proposal, which will get new scrutiny now that Romney has made him his running mate, would end the current Medicare program for everyone born after 1956. It would replace Medicare with a system in which beneficiaries would receive a set amount of money from the government every year to buy coverage from private insurers. That money would go straight into insurance companies' bank accounts, which would make them far richer and even more in control of our health care system than they already are.

Cutting Medicaid is as unpopular now as it was when Republicans adopted the Ryan Budget. Cutting Medicaid is especially unpopular in swing states. That's why some Republicans are already trying to distance themselves from the Ryan budget, which is now effectively the Republican budget and the Romney budget.

That's why the Romney/Ryan ticket will quickly lose its shine, if Democrats just explain just what the Romney/Ryan plans really mean.

Is There A Stealth Tax Increase For Working-Class People In The Republican Budget?

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:48:12 -0400

What the Republican budget proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't say is in many respects more ominous than what it says—and on taxes, perhaps more indicative of the truth. For while the Ryan slash-and-burn budget proposal doesn't come right out and say it, it could have some low-income and middle-class people paying higher taxes than they would under a more progressive proposal that is not tilted toward the wealthy.

There is practically no other way to make the numbers add up in a budget that would create or continue a total of $10 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations over 10 years while making cuts in government spending so deep that the economy would be slowed, resulting in 4.1 million fewer jobs created over 10 years.

The nice-sounding tax-cut sizzle in the Ryan Republican plan is a simplified tax structure on earned income, with 10 percent and 25 percent tax brackets, plus the lower capital gains rate of 15 percent. Ryan also promises the elimination of deductions and credits that he, in his "Road to Prosperity" budget manifesto, denounces because they direct "resources to politically favored uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation" and even "take taxes paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all"

But where one might expect to find the steak lurks a poisonous tax snake instead. A bulletin issued last week by the Coalition for Human Needs raised the relevant questions:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) asserts that the new tax cuts will be paid for by cuts to other tax expenditures—that is, the deductions and credits that make up so much of the tax code. But while the budget is fairly specific in recommending cuts to services, it is utterly silent on which tax expenditures it would end. Deductions for mortgage interest? state and local taxes? 401(k) contributions? charitable giving? employer contributions to health insurance? Mum's the word. These and more tax breaks would have to be eliminated altogether to pay for the tax cuts proposed in the budget.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, citing Tax Policy Center research, came to a similar conclusion.

TPC estimates that Chairman Ryan's new tax cuts would cost $4.6 trillion in lost federal revenue over the next decade. To offset those costs, the Ryan budget documents say the plan would curb tax expenditures. But, the documents offer no details. Tax experts doubt that policymakers could actually pass tax-expenditure savings of anywhere close to this magnitude. ...

Moreover, the Ryan documents say that his plan would secure the needed revenues to finance his tax cuts not by closing tax expenditures across the board but by getting rid of special-interest loopholes that mainly benefit the politically well-connected, distort economic growth, and encode unfairness in tax law. ... In essence, Chairman Ryan conveys the impression that he would pay for his rather massive tax cuts for high-income individuals by cutting tax expenditures for the same affluent taxpayers.

But, Chairman Ryan himself makes the challenge of doing so all but impossible. As TPC data show, the tax expenditures that tilt most heavily to high-income households are the preferential rates for capital gains and dividends. And while the Ryan budget does not provide details on the tax expenditures that he would curtail, it makes clear that Chairman Ryan rejects any increase in the capital gains tax rate.

But while the Mitt Romneys of the world are off limits to a tax increase on the money they make flipping stocks or managing hedge funds, one group is well within the conservative movement's cross-hairs: the working poor.

A little-noticed report from the Department of Labor last month contained the unsettling revelation that 10.5 million Americans, more than 7 percent of the labor force, is classified as "working poor." These are people who are working at least 27 weeks of the year but who are still below the federal poverty line. Close to 5 million of these working poor are below the poverty line even after working full-time for a full year.

Especially for workers struggling to raise children on poverty wages, the Earned Income Tax Credit is a vital lifeline. It is a refundable tax credit; families that qualify can get a credit that can be in excess of $5,000 when they file their taxes. In a post-welfare-"reform" age in which aid to low-income people increasingly comes with conditions and is more designed to shame than assist, one would think that strengthening the Earned Income Tax Credit—getting more cash into the hands of people who are working but are unable through no fault of their own to earn a living wage—would get bipartisan support.

But the Earned Income Tax Credit falls squarely in the category of "[taking] taxes paid by hardworking Americans and [issuing] government checks to individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all." It's anathema to many conservatives, such as Red State's Daniel Horowitz, who wrote last year that the EITC and its cousin, the Child Tax Credit, "have surreptitiously created dependency by manipulating the tax code."

You think that Republicans would never countenance an effective tax increase on people who are at or below the poverty line? Last week the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a report that found that the working poor "saw their income taxes increase" in "almost all" of the 15 states where such families pay state income taxes. In eight of those 15, Republicans control at least two of the three political bodies—the House, the Senate and the governor's office. Nearly all are "red" or "purple" presidential election states, where many of the Democratic lawmakers lean conservative.

There is no overt embrace in the Ryan budget of the tax principle laid out most directly by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., when she was a presidential candidate, that "everybody pays something," no matter how poor they are—without fretting over the multibillion-dollar corporations that evade paying any income tax. But what the Ryan Republican budget would do is outsource tax burden decisions to Bachmann's fellow travelers in the extreme, Tea-Party core of the Republican Party who now sit on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Knowing that, there is ample reason to distrust the supporters of the Ryan plan when they say that it will leave economically struggling families better off. That would be far from true if low-income people end up paying more for a government too crippled to meet their needs.

The Most Important Thing The President Said About The Republican Budget

Dave Johnson — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:06:17 -0400

The most important thing the President said about the Republican Budget in his big speech Tuesday was when he described just some of the damage it does, and said, "This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself." Seriously, do that, and see if you can get your friends, relatives and especially your right-wing bother-in-law to do it, too. Seriously.

Republicans Counting On "Low-Information" Voters

The secret of the Republican technique is that they count on lots of people being tuned out, apathetic and largely uninformed. They put up a lot of misinformation and smoke and mirrors and diversion and distraction, often claiming that what they are doing is the opposite of what they are doing, to trick people into accepting what they are doing, or at least not getting involved and working to stop them. And then they go ahead with their hidden agenda, usually involving handing over tax cuts, public money or property, favors, contracts, deregulation, get-out-of-jail cards, etc., to the highest-bidding contributor, or the company/lobbyist/etc. promising the most lucrative "jobs" or "speaking fees" etc., after government service is completed...

Another technique is accusing the other side of doing what they themselves are doing, as "cover." (It's called inoculation.) They won the majority in the House by running ads telling seniors that Democrats had cut $500 billion from Medicare, and a majority of seniors voted Republican for the first time. It was enough to swing control of the House. Now in office they are not just cutting Medicare, they are privatizing Medicare, phasing it out for those now under 55.

(Update: See: Romney Accuses Obama Of Taking ‘A Series Of Steps That End Medicare As We Know It’)

They are using another inoculation tactic to mask what they are doing, confusing people by portraying Obama as extreme and divisive for saying the Republican budget is extreme. Really, if you try to explain to regular people what is in this Republican budget, they will think you are an insane extremist for saying such things! (See Who Is The Crazy Person In The Room?)

Don't Trust Me - Find Out For Yourself

The antidote is to get informed. Do not just trust what I write here, go find out for yourself what the Republicans have voted to do. Go visit several news sources and learn about this Republican budget. I'm not going to tell you where to go (except that FOX is not a news source.) Make an effort. Use the Google. And this is what you will learn:

They really are privatizing Medicare.

They really are claiming to "cut deficits" but extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, costing $4.6 trillion.

They really are cutting taxes on the rich by another $4.6 trillion!

They really are giving millionaires an average $187,000 tax cut.

They really are dramatically cutting corporate taxes.

They really are denying health insurance to up to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.

They really are dramatically cutting Medicaid by as much as 75%, with as many as 27 million people losing coverage.

They really are cutting 1,311 federal agents immediately from the Dept of Justice and another 4,587 agents each year over the next decade.

The cuts really do cost 4.1 million jobs.

They really are cutting 700,000 pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children off the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (WIC) program and another 1.8 million women, infants, and children off each year for the next 10 years.

They really are cutting 60,000 children out of Head Start immediately, and another 200,000 a year out each year for a decade.

And those are just some of the cuts. Food inspectors, work safety inspectors, education, infrastructure, police, courts, environmental protection ...

They really are counting on most of the the public to stay distracted, apathetic and largely uninformed. YOU can help do something about that. Learn the facts and spread the word.

"The Results Of Their Experiment Are There For All To See" - A Prescription For Decline

Dave Johnson — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:46:46 -0400

In a speech today President Obama called the Republican proposals a "prescription for decline." The President reminded listeners how we got where we are -- Republican policies that led to collapse -- and said that Republicans are now "doubling down" with their new budget.

In the speech, the President said that the country tried tax cuts under Bush, with bad results,

"At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. Yes, the wealthy got wealthier. The income of the top 1% has grown by more than 275% over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity never trickled-down."

The Bush tax cuts created massive debt, and did nothing other than make the rich way, way, way, way richer. So now instead of fixing things they insist on doing that even more,

"You would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics were made painfully clear, the proponents of this theory might moderate their views a bit. You would think they’d say, “You know what? Maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy, and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts."

In fact they are "doubling down,"

"Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. In fact, renowned liberal Newt Gingrich first called the original version of the budget “radical” and said it would contribute to “right-wing social engineering.” Newt Gingrich!

And yet, this isn’t a budget supported by some small number of Republicans in Washington. This is now the party’s governing platform."

What The Republican Budget Would Do

The President enumerated some of the things that would happen to people if this Repubican budget is implemented,

The year after next, nearly ten million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical research grants for things like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal agents at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.

Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means Governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.

... That's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget.

"This is not an exaggeration. Check it out for yourself."

Republicans depend on the pubic just not hearing about what they are proposing. And, if they do hear about it, not believing anyone would do such things, and therefore will think the people telling them about the Republican budget are making it up. "Really, how could anyone believe that people would actually propose a budget like this? S0 something must be wrong with you for saying they would." Is there any other way to explain it?

Decline

The President called this pulling back from investing in our country's future a "prescription for decline."

"By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last – education and training; research and development – it’s a prescription for decline."

Taxes

The President spelled out the differences in tax proposals. Republicans want to dramatically cut taxes on the rich - even more. The President wants to start taxing them at least at the same rate as the rest of us. (Romney only pays 15% taxes on him millions of income.)

"We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes – an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we just can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t really asking for them and that we cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1% of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same people are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years."

The President explained that low taxes for the rich mean either more deficit or higher taxes on the rest of us.

"If we want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place – or give out even more, as the Republicans in Congress propose – it will either mean either a higher deficit or more sacrifice from the middle-class."

Patriotism

In closing the President appealed to our patriotism.

We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

Lemmings

Richard Eskow — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:38:29 -0400

Europe's in crisis. Unemployment is at a fifteen-year high after climbing for ten straight months, thanks to the austerity measures imposed on it by conservative leaders in France, Germany, and the international financial community.

But if you think things are bad over there, imagine what they'll be like if Republican budget measures are imposed here. The GOP budget makes European austerity look like summer camp.

Ever wonder why lemmings jump off cliffs?

While England Slept

Great Britain blazed the trail for Europe with a series of steep cuts to government spending - and it soon led the continent in economic misfortune. Unemployment skyrocketed, consumer confidence plummeted, and growth stagnated.

That's what austerity economics does to struggling economies. When you ask already-beleaguered middle class and lower-income people to bear the burden for the mistakes that made other rich the results are predictable: real income falls, demand for goods and services drops, and the entire economy drops back into a death spiral.

You'd think that Europe and the world would have learned from Britain's mistakes, but they haven't. In fact, even Britain hasn't learned from its mistakes. As the New York Times reports, the UK is doubling down on the madness.

In its latest round of budget announcements the government announced that it's continuing to push for additional spending reductions but wants to cut taxes for the wealthiest citizens, including those who got rich from the bank speculation that broke the economy! As critics have correctly observed, the UK government is paying for this rich person's tax cut through a 'stealth tax' on low-income retirees.

Britain's misplaced emphasis on reducing government deficits is even backfiring where deficits are concerned. From the Times: "The Office for National Statistics said Wednesday that Britain's budget deficit almost doubled in February, to £15.2 billion, far exceeding economists' expectations of about £8 billion. "

Kamikaze Europe

Now the rest of Europe is following Great Britain's lead. Unemployment is officially 10.8 percent and expected to reach 11 percent soon. Seventeen million people are out of work.

Austerity mania spread through Europe like a plague. Unemployment's now at 23.6 percent in Spain and 21 percent in Greece. How is a country expected to lower its deficits when a quarter of its working population isn't paying taxes and doesn't have disposable income? Apparently the financial geniuses running things there didn't think about that.

Ireland was once touted as austerity's success story. They're not bragging on Old Eire much now that it's officially back in a recession. Spain's problems disprove the theory that government debt is the source of all economic woes since, as Paul Krugman notes, Spain has been a much more thrifty government spender than Germany. Further austerity measures there are going to be disastrous.

Then there's Greece. According to reports, there are no working traffic lights left in the city of Athens. People have taken to bartering for goods and services in a world where many people have little or no sources of currency income while the streets swarm with formerly middle-class Greeks who are now being described as 'the new poor.'

In fact, there are encampments of the working poor throughout Europe. Even the leading European economy, Germany, is losing ground because of Chancellor Merkel's obsession with austerity measures - while France, the other austerity leader, is also struggling.

What do they plan to do, now that they have the benefit of experience? More austerity, according to reports. Merkel even thinks that's the road to her own re-election.

The Home Front

Which gets us to the United States. The Republicans in Congress have just passed a budget that makes Europe's austerity measures seem positively genteel. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Pied Piper of nihilist economics, said when it passed that we're in a "debt-driven crisis, and so we have an obligation -- not just a legal obligation but a moral obligation -- to do something about it."

That budget's "moral obligation" doesn't extend to our military budget, which the Republicans voted to massively expand - or to tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, whose current historically low tax rates will plunge if their budget ever goes into effect. And, as we now know, the GOP budget would essentially shut down every other function of government that Americans have valued for the last century and a half. 62 percent would come from programs for lower-income people and Pell grants to help young people go to college.

And what a time for austerity: As Matt Stoller notes, one in seven Americans is being pursued by debt collectors. Student loan debt exceeded $1 trillion last year, even as young people face sky-high unemployment. 8.8 percent of student loans defaulted in their first two years of payment last year and more than one-fourth of student loan payments are now delinquent.

Robert Schiller, arguably the world's top economic expert on real estate, says that prices for suburban real estate aren't coming back in our lifetime. Consumer debt is soaring. US growth is expect to turn even more sluggish, which even has Ben Bernanke pushing for more government action.

But while the projected deficit reductions in the GOP budget are a hoax, the cuts to vital programs, including its hidden cuts to Medicare, aren't. As Mike Konczal notes, states like Florida are a preview of a Ryan-budget America. Konczal coauthored an article with Bryce Covert which showed that "Of the eleven states in which Republicans came into power in 2010 -(five) lost more than 2.5 percent of their workforce from December 2010 to December 2011."

Bargain Basement

The budget-cutting rhetoric of the right is too often echoed by Democrats, at a time when they (or someone) should be proposing a more common-sense and more humane approach to the economy. Talking about deficits today is the moral equivalent of lecturing firefighters about water conservation while the town is burning down.

We need to put out the fire first. We urgently need spending to create jobs, especially when the government can borrow money for virtually nothing. Or, to put it another way -

This is your country:

(job recovery after current & previous recessions, United States)

This is your country on austerity:

(Konczal, Covert)

And yet there are still those in the White House and Congress who dream of a "grand bargain" with the Republicans like the one the President nearly finalized last year - the kind of bargain that would send the nation's economy over a cliff.

Lemmings

People used to believe that lemmings committed mass suicide. Scientists now say that they follow migration patterns which sometimes lead them straight into the ocean. Either way, a lot of them drown because they followed the tail of the rodent in front of them.

The US seems determined to cling to Europe's ragged tail as it plunges into the icy waters below. The Republicans would drown our economy in a way that would make Europe's problems seem mild by comparison. (At least they still have working governments over there.) But few Democrats are willing to challenge the austerity fundamentalism that's gripped Washington. Instead they prefer to debate means to an austere end, rather than the end itself.

It's all insane. But this Ryan budget - now the official budget of Republicans in Congress, and warmly embraced by presumptive GOP candidate Mitt Romney - is the biggest sign of insanity yet.

Not that our national leaders are lemmings. Far from it. They're intelligent economic actors behaving in a way that ensures they'll receive future rewards. So if we don't like the way this story ends, we'll have to change it ourselves.

No, politicians aren't the lemmings in this story. Until the time comes when we demand something different from our leaders in Washington ...

... we are.

Deficit Trouble - Right Here In River City!

Dave Johnson — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:10:52 -0400

River City faces a terrible deficit, and if we don't cut spending on the things We, the People do for each other right now, there will be trouble. We gotta do some austerity! We gotta eat that seed corn. We gotta stop taxing the 1% and stop paying for things the 99% need!

It's a con as old as the hills. Whip up the people with fear, and then offer them the ready-made "solution." In his post, Ya Got Trouble — A fresh look at an old con, Tom Sullivan nails it with a scene from The Music Man. For those not familiar with The Music Man, here is the lead-up: "River City ain't in any trouble." "Well, we're going to have to create some." Then the ~~Republican Congressman~~ Music Man goes out and whips the town into a state. He does it to sell them. (The following is from a local production, which YouTube allowed to be embedded here. To see the clip from the movie click here.)

From Sullivan's post:

Trouble with a capital “T”
And that rhymes with “P”
and that stands for pool!

In one, short speech — building intensity as he goes — Professor Harold Hill gathers a crowd of onlookers and rattles off a litany of big city sins “the right kinda parents” worry about corrupting their children and their small town: sloth, drinking, gambling, being “stuck-up,” smoking, loose morals, and indecent pop culture. In a fevered crescendo, Hill warns parents of “shameless music • That’ll grab your son, your daughter • With the arms of a jungle animal instink!”

Sullivan explains the con:

Hill presses every button the people of River City, Iowa have to press, plus appeals to patriotism and God to create a city-wide moral crisis that four minutes earlier the townspeople didn’t know they had. Sound familiar?

Now strike pool. Insert contraception, voter fraud, death panels, or a half dozen other right-wing bogey men and the grifter’s pitch works the same. Today, Harold Hill would be working for Fox News or Americans for Prosperity. He’d be running American Crossroads, and making a lot more money.

This con has been perfected in recent years as The Shock Doctrine, forcing entire countries into debt or other crisis, then stepping in to plunder and privatize their resources, like what is happening to Greece right now.

Whipping Up Deficit Hysteria

This "con game" is what is happening to our own country as well, with the whipped-up terrification over deficits. The Reagan plan was cut taxes and increase military spending to force the country into debt, and then use the debt to force privatization of public resources into the hands of a few. George 'W' Bush said after cutting taxes on the rich and raising military spending that the resulting transformation of Clinton's budget surplus into huge budget deficits was "incredibly positive news" because it would force us into near-bankruptcy. Yes, he said that.

But the solution offered -- the current Republican budget that phases out Medicare and guts our government -- doesn't even cut the deficit! The Republican "austerity" budget starts with $10 trillion in tax cuts for the 1%! Then it guts most of what We, the People do for each other.

Don't be fooled, it is just one more conservative con game.

It's a Rand Rand Rand Rand World

Terrance Heath — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:45:03 -0400

In 2010, Christopher Beam reported that Rep. Paul Ryan (WI, R) required his congressional staff to read Ayn Rand's Objectivist tome, Atlas Shrugged (now a ~~major~~ motion picture). Ryan has made no secret of his admiration for Rand's philosophy, and has cited her as "the reason I got into public policy." (He's not the only one. Kentucky's aptly-name, big-oil-glorifying Senator Rand Paul is another.) Whether Ryan still makes his staff slog through Rand's work, is anybody's guess. But his latest budget proposal — unanimously approved by House Republicans, and embraced by all-but-inevitable Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — makes it clear that he and the rest of the GOP want very much to make the rest of us slog through a world redesigned according to Rand's worldview.

What exactly is that worldview? And what would a world designed according to its dictates look like? I'm glad you asked.

I'm even gladder that Gary Weiss has provided an answer, so I don't have to attempt to digest any more of Rand's philosophy than I already have.

The shape of a future Objectivist world has been a matter of public record for the past half century, since Ayn Rand, the Brandens, Alan Greenspan, and other Objectivist theoreticians began to set down their views in Objectivist newsletters. When he casually defended repeal of child labor laws in the debate with Miles Rapoport, Yaron Brook [President of the Ayn Rand Institute] was merely repeating long- established Objectivist doctrine, summarized by Leonard Peikoff as “Government is inherently negative.” It is a worldview that has been static through the decades, its tenets reiterated endlessly by Rand and her apostles:

That's a passage from his book, Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul, which I should and probably will read (though I'm sure it will keep me up at night). In an excerpt posted to Alternet, Weiss goes on to describe what an America based on that worldview would look like.

No government except the police, courts of law, and the armed services.

No regulation of anything by any government.

No Medicare or Medicaid.

No Social Security.

No public schools.

No public hospitals.

No public anything, in fact. Just individuals, each looking out for himself, not asking for help or giving help to anyone.

An Objectivist America would be a dark age of unhindered free enterprise, far more primitive and Darwinian than anything seen before...

In an Objectivist world, the reset button would be pushed on government services that we take for granted. They would not be cut back, not reduced -- they would vanish. In an Objectivist world, roads would go unplowed in the snows of winter, and bridges would fall as the government withdrew from the business of maintaining them -- unless some private citizen would find it in his rational self-interest to voluntarily take up the slack by scraping off the rust and replacing frayed cables. Public parks and land, from the tiniest vest-pocket patch of green to vast expanses of the West, would be sold off to the newly liberated megacorporations. Airplane traffic would be grounded unless a profit-making capitalist found it in his own selfish interests to fund the air traffic control system. If it could be made profitable, fine. If not, tough luck. The market had spoken. The Coast Guard would stay in port while storm- tossed mariners drown lustily as they did in days of yore. Fires would rage in the remnants of silent forests, vegetation and wildlife no longer protected by rangers and coercive environmental laws, swept clean of timber, their streams polluted in a rational, self-interested manner by bold, imaginative entrepreneurs.

It's the kind of world view that progressives like to poke fun at — myself included — because it seems so absurd. I mean, c'mon. Yeah, conserva-tarians on the right have this weird, post-apocalyptic, "Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome" fantasy they want to make real. But it's just crazy talk, right? After all, it can't happen here.

Yeah, but here's the thing: they really mean it. No. Listen. They really, really mean it.

Paul Ryan's not just a member of the Ayn Rand fan club. He's a member of Congress. Because his party holds a majority in the House, he's also chair of the House Budget Committee. In was in that capacity that Ryan presented his latest budget proposal, which has since been passed by the Republican majority in the House, and embraced by GOP presidential front runner Mitt Romney (whom Ryan just endorsed). So, really, it's not "the Ryan budget" anymore. It's much bigger than that. It's the Republican budget, and practically a mission statement for the GOP itself.

Essentially, the Republican budget spends about $5.3 trillion less than the President's budget. What we're really talking about here is $5.3 trillion in cuts. Half the cuts in the Republican budget come from changes to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. On top of that, there's another $2.2 trillion in cuts to just about everything else.

The Republican budget:

Converts Medicare to "premium support"
Cuts Medicaid by a third, converts it to block grants, and gives control to the states
Cuts "income security" programs for the poor by 16%
Cuts transportation spending by 24%
Cuts "general science, space and basic technology" by 6%
Cuts "education, training, employment" and social services" by 33%
Cuts spending on "natural resources and the environment" by 14%

Third Way connected the the dots to paint a bleak picture of the real world consequences of the recent debt-ceiling deal. It should give you a pretty good idea of what Paul Ryan's Republican-approved, Romney embraced budget would do.

In fact, according to Third Way, Ryan's budget would "end Medicare as we know it" — along with a lot of things government does to benefit the other 99 percent of us.

Alternatively, we can look at what specific cuts might ensue in the very near future. Third Way has tried to game out the impacts of Congress’s recent debt-ceiling deal on specific government programs. The cuts to domestic spending, if applied across the board, would lead to fewer food inspectors, fewer air-traffic controllers, and so forth. That would mean more delays and cases of food poisoning, and so forth. And Ryan’s budget, for its part, goes even deeper than the debt-ceiling deal.

I asked Third Way’s budget expert David Kendall if he could update some of his numbers for Ryan’s budget. Under Ryan’s plan, for instance, spending on transportation would be 26.1 percent lower in 2014 than it is today. If that size cut was applied to, say, air-traffic control programs, Kendall notes, “there would be 3,092 more flight cancellations and 68,683 delays annually. At the U.S. average of 49 passengers per flight, that’s enough to strand 151,503 more people at the gate and make 3,365,685 more people late every year.”

Likewise, spending on natural resources and the environment would be 14.6 percent lower under Ryan’s budget in 2014 than it is today. Assuming those cuts hit all programs in this category equally — and, again, this is for illustration purposes — then this is how it would affect weather forecasting. “Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,” estimates Kendall. “For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.”

Now, obviously, Ryan’s budget may not lead to these exact cuts. Perhaps Congress will go out of its way to shield weather forecasting while cutting something else in the environmental budget even more. But when the budget is this tight, Congress can’t shield everything. And Kendall’s analysis is a useful way to make those spending reductions a little more concrete.

As depressing as that sounds, it's nothing to the total body count on jobs. The Republican budget would actually cost us around 4.1 million jobs through 2014.

Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, the shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.*

Speaking of body counts, the GOP's 45% cut to Medicaid would leave leave 19 million without coverage, and eliminate plans to provide coverage to 33 million people who are currently without it. GOP budget would also repeal the Affordable Care Act. (An attempt to beat the Supreme Court to the punch?) Assuming that conservatives are more enthusiastic about "repeal" than "replace" when it comes to health care reform, that would leave millions without without coverage — including 2.5 million young people under 26, who can now be covered by their parent's insurance. (Never mind that some parents won't have health insurance to cover anymore anyway, once their jobs are gone.)

Who are the beneficiaries of all this? The wealthy 1 percent would benefit from $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over ten years — on top of capturing 93% of all income growth in 2010. The military, the only department of government that gets an increase in spending under the Republican budget, would benefit.

For the rest of us, the Ryan/Republican budget would "render the United States unrecognizable" in short order.

If the foreign adversaries and competitors of the United States imagined a future that would fulfill their most ambitious objectives, it might begin with a government crippled by the House Republican leadership's "Ryan budget" released on Tuesday. Followed to its absurd conclusion, this document would lead America toward a withered state, approaching the point where Marxian dreams and Randian dogma converge.

Or at least that's the view suggested by the sober analysts at the Congressional Budget Office, whose report on the Ryan budget shows debilitating cuts to nearly every department of government today, from law enforcement and border patrols to scientific research, food safety, environmental protection, federal highways, national parks, weather monitoring, education and all the other essential functions of a great country. There would not be much left for Medicare and Medicaid, either. Social Security would continue in some form, and defense -- of course -- would increase.

But in a nation stripped of science and infrastructure, with a people demoralized by insecurity, unemployment and inequity, exactly what would be left to defend?

Certainly Ryan and his Republican colleagues will deny that their new budget -- like their old budget -- would cripple the federal government and render the United States unrecognizable over the coming decades, if implemented. Yet the calculations released by the CBO, a nonpartisan arm of the Congress, permit no other conclusion.

It's no coincidence that what Joe Conason describes above sounds a lot like the Randian dystopia in Gary Weiss' excerpt. For 99 percent of Americans, Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" leads America redesigned according to vision of his the Republican party's — favorite "political philosopher."

Ryan's budget stand no chance of becoming law, if only because there's still a Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House. But that doesn't matter to its proponents in the long run. For now, it serves to set Republican agenda for the 2012 election year, and perhaps beyond — if, after the election, Republicans find themselves in possession of a Senate majority, and an obedient president who can "hold a pen."

Who Voted For The Most Radical Right-Wing Budget In American History?

Bill Scher — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:58:55 -0400

Today, 228 House representatives -- all Republicans -- voted for a budget that would give every millionaire a brand new $265,000 tax handout, cut funding for the poor by $3.3 trillion, privatize Medicare, and impose spending caps so radical that it would "end most of government other than Social Security, health care, and defense by 2050."

That's quite a vote.

Speaker John Boehner said this budget represents "a real vision of what we were to do if we get more control here in this town."

Then presumably, everyone that voted for it will want to make sure you remember come election time that they supported a budget that literally takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

So, here is who voted for it. Is your congressperson on the list?

Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24]
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2]
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7]
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2]
Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1]
Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1]
Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8]
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1]
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3]
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6]
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11]
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8]
Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10]
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26]
Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7]
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3]
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Blake Farenthold [R, TX-27]
Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8]
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3]
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4]
Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17]
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18]
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1]
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4]
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12]
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6]
Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2]
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9]
Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13]
Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1]
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4]
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1]
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4]
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4]
Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19]
Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5]
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3]
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2]
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52]
Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1]
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11]
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2]
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3]
Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14]
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9]
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24]
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10]
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19]
Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0]
Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1]
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22]
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4]
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3]
Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2]
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4]
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3]
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16]
Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8]
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2]
Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25]
Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2]
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3]
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46]
Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12]
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40]
Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5]
Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1]
Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19]
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]
Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6]
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15]
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12]
Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3]
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9]
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2]
Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8]
Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8]
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]
Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3]
Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7]
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]
Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10]
Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]

Paul Ryan's Class Warfare

OurFuture.org Staff — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:50:35 -0400

Rep. Ryan's Hunger Games

OurFuture.org Staff — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:49:27 -0400