Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to effect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
MORNING MESSAGE: Four Bad Liberal Arguments For "Compromising" On the Medicare Age
OurFuture.org's Richard Eskow: "It's tempting to read these pieces by Matt Yglesias and Jonathan Chait and decide that, all things considered, liberals should at least consider raising the Medicare age to 67 as part of a budget compromise. They shouldn't. 'This seems like a useful time for liberals to sort out the difference between budget ideas we don't like and budget ideas we can't or shouldn't accept,' Chait writes. I couldn't agree more. Put this one in the 'can't accept' column. Here are four arguments for compromising on the Medicare age – and why they're wrong."
"Reform" Nobody Wants
Political Animal's Ed Kilgore says nobody wants "entitlement reform": "Just when you thought the fiscal talks couldn't get any more absurd, there is growing evidence that the big sticking point may be an "entitlement reform" that nobody has any real reason to support: an increase in the age for Medicare eligibility. …So you've got a "reform" that makes no substantive sense to anybody, and that nobody much likes, and it's now the linchpin of the Great Big Fiscal Debate For the Ages. That's a sign of how detached from reality these negotiations have become."
Americans' 'fiscal cliff' fix? Cut government spending – but not Medicare. [Christian Science Monitor]: "As politicians bargain over how to deal with the nation's "fiscal cliff," a new poll hints at why the talks are so difficult: The American public is wary of both broad tax hikes and spending cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, which account for about two-thirds of all federal spending. In fact, "cutting Medicare spending" ranked last with the public among a dozen specific fiscal proposals, in the Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll, conducted over the past week. At the same time, Americans are concerned about the size of budget deficits and about the rising national debt. The poll results also suggest some openness to a possible bargain between Republican and Democratic leaders, which would would involve both spending cuts and new tax revenue."
Entitlement Cuts Loom as Obstacle to Fiscal Cliff Deal [Time]: "As a counterweight to a tax hike that is anathema to his members, Boehner needs to extract concessions from Democrats in the form of cuts to entitlement programs. Obama has expressed willingness to cut a deal that scales back such programs; during the misbegotten talks to craft a far-reaching deficit-reduction plan last summer, he put some $350 billion in cuts to federal health programs over the next decade on the table, so long as they accompanied sizable revenue increases achieved through rate increases or tax reform. The White House has been disciplined about keeping the substance of the President's conversations with Boehner private, but having gone that far once, he is probably prepared to offer something similar again if the other pieces of the puzzle are in place."
Slouching Towards the "Fiscal Cliff"
In Talks, House Majority Weighs Loyalty to Voters [NY Times]: "As their leaders inch toward agreeing to higher tax rates, dozens of House Republicans find themselves caught between the will of a larger American public that favors higher taxes on the rich and the wishes of constituents who re-elected them overwhelmingly to oppose the Obama agenda at every turn. With the last House race decided over the weekend, the conflict between a Democratic president convincingly re-elected to a second term and the House Republicans who held their majority illustrates a striking dichotomy in the nation's body politic: the president and a majority of senators, including a growing number of Republicans, back compromise on tax rates and say the public is on their side, and a majority of the House, in artfully drawn districts, claim just the opposite."
Cuts looming, no answer in sight for sequestration [Politico]: "They've tried everything they could think of and so far, none of it has worked. The Pentagon hasn't been able to get Congress to undo sequestration. Hawks in Congress haven't gotten their colleagues to agree to undo sequestration. The defense industry tried its hardest to energize voters — and Congress hasn't undone sequestration. For all the apocalyptic rhetoric, the hours upon hours of hearings, the threats and counterthreats and the dread that built with each tick of the countdown, the defense establishment has little progress to show as it enters the final days before it faces a decade of $500 billion in automatic, across-the-board budget restrictions. Defense advocates in Congress now lament openly that they see little way to avoid sequestration taking effect."
Preparing for 'fiscal cliff,' investors move assets to avoid higher taxes [Washington Post]: "As lawmakers struggle to agree on a plan to avert the series of tax increases looming next year, many investors are taking preemptive action to get out of harm's way. Americans are moving to sell investment homes, off-load stocks, expand charitable donations and establish tax-sheltering gifts before the end of the year. Financial advisers and accountants say people are trying to avoid the higher taxes that will take effect in 2013 if Washington does not avert the 'fiscal cliff.' For the most part, the people moving their assets are the wealthy, who have the most to lose even if a deal is struck. Ordinary Americans also are in line for higher income and payroll taxes and fewer deductions and tax credits if the nation goes over the fiscal cliff. But since most of their earnings come through wages, there is little they can do to minimize the impact."
Michigan Labor Battle Heats Up
Obama Says Michigan Labor Battle About 'The Right To Work For Less Money' [Huffington Post]: "President Barack Obama weighed in on the contentious labor battle playing out in Michigan, condemning the Republican push to make Michigan a so-called "right-to-work" state as nothing more than a partisan maneuver that will hurt the working class. 'We should do everything we can to keep creating good middle-class jobs that help folks rebuild security for their families,' Obama said Monday in a speech at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant. 'And by the way, what we shouldn't do -- I've just got to say this -- what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions,' he added to loud applause from the audience. 'We shouldn't be doing that. The so-called 'right-to-work' laws -- they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.'"
Large crowds expected in Mich. over right-to-work bill [USA Today]: "The predicted crowd of up to 10,000 people from inside and outside Michigan will be just about the biggest crowd the Michigan state Capitol has seen as conservatives, union members and the media flood the streets of Lansing to protest, applaud and record the actions expected to be taken Tuesday on controversial right-to-work legislation. Cars with license plates from Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois sat alongside the rest in the Michigan AFL-CIO parking lot Monday, just a few blocks from the Capitol building. 'Since the restoration of the Capitol, this one is definitely going to be the biggest,' said Steve Benkovsky, director of the Legislative Council Facilities Agency, which manages the Capitol. 'We had about 2,000 here on Thursday, so I would say that between 7,000 and 10,000 is probably a good figure for Tuesday.'"
GOP set to deliver blow to labor in union-heavy Michigan [NBC News]: "Republicans stand on the cusp of delivering a major blow to organized labor, as they prepare to vote Tuesday on legislation to make Michigan – a state linked to unions in the public conscious – a "right to work" state. State lawmakers are expected to approve legislation barring rules in workplaces that make union membership a condition of employment. The offensive would mark the culmination of efforts by Midwestern Republican governors to curb labor rights in the heart of industrial America, where unions once loomed large."
Michigan's Road to "Right-To-Work"
Ed Kilgore says Michigan Republicans kicked their "race to the bottom" into high gear, because they're afraid they won't have the votes later: "In looking at the reasons for this quite-literal "race to the bottom," a lot of analysts have emphasized the rejection by Michigan voters on November 6 of a union-backed ballot initiative to put collective bargaining rights into the state constitution. And others (including sometimes PA contributor Rich Yeselson in his excellent summary of the background and implications of this development for TAP) have stressed the symbolism of this traditional union stronghold, the birthplace of the UAW, enacting such blatantly anti-labor legislation. But there is a more practical reason for the haste, as I have suspected: Michigan Republicans were rightfully afraid they wouldn't have the votes in the House had they taken this up as normal legislation in the next session of the legislature."
Edward McClelland, writing at Salon, says the main reason Michigan is likely to pass a "right-to-work" law is more than a decade of brain-drain: "Fifty percent of Michigan State students now leave the state immediately after graduation. That ratio doubled in the 2000s, which is known in Michigan as "The Lost Decade." In those 10 years, Michigan dropped from 30th to 35th in the percentage of college graduates, and from 18th to 37th in per capita income. (Michigan was also the only state to lose population in the last census.) The university system's main function is giving Michigan's brightest students a credential to get the hell off that jobless peninsula. Their No. 1 destination is Chicago, the drain where most of the brains in the Midwest end up… What does this have to do with the right-to-work law? Michigan has lost so many educated workers that the state's leadership seems to feel it has no choice but to become a low-wage haven. The kind of place that attracts chicken processors, not software engineers."
How Stealth Tactics Are Making Michigan A Right To Work State [Forbes]: "In Wisconsin, the protests dragged on for weeks… Michigan, by comparison, has moved much more swiftly. Although the issue has been the subject of discussion throughout 2011 and 2012, Snyder was still insisting a week ago that Right to Work was not part of his agenda for the troubled state, a stand he maintained throughout the first two years of his tenure. Then, last Thursday, he swiftly changed his tune. In just hours, Snyder went from neutrality to support for Right to Work, and the provision was attached to two pieces of legislation already making their way through the Michigan House and Senate.Snyder chose his moment carefully, and with the knowledge that state voters, at least for now, are sanguine with a Right to Work law. His last second shift followed voters' defeat during the November election of a constitutional amendment that would have banned Right to Work laws from being enacted. Republican lawmakers have since taken steps to make sure another ballot drive won't be successful, by tying appropriations to the Right to Work law."
More Obamacare Changes Roll Out
Obama Approves Health Insurance Marketplaces in 6 States [NY Times]: "The Obama administration gave conditional approval on Monday to health insurance marketplaces being set up by six states led by Democratic governors eager to carry out President Obama's health care overhaul. The six are Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington. At the same time, the administration rejected pleas from other states that want to carry out a partial expansion of Medicaid, to cover fewer people than the president and Congress originally intended. Some states want to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults with incomes up to the poverty level, $19,090 for a family of three."
The White House is telling states it's all or nothing on Medicaid expansion, write's Wonkblog's Sarah Kliff: "The Supreme Court decision threw a wrench in the health law's plan to expand Medicaid: It ruled that states can't be required to participate as the law directed. If states were to cover citizens below 133 percent of the federal poverty line — $14,893 for an individual — they would have to volunteer to do so. That got some state officials thinking: Could they volunteer just to cover some of those people? The federal government, after all, is offering a pretty sweet deal: They'll pay 100 percent of the cost for the newly eligible enrollees. …Monday, Health and Human Services came back with its answer: The health-care law will not fund partial Medicaid expansions."
Companies face Obamacare preexisting condition fee [Salon]: "Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers. …Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014."
For the Trapped-In-Their-Jobs, a Possible Escape Plan [Wall Street Journal]: "The health-care overhaul, whatever its larger merits, might offer some relief for individuals in their 50s and early 60s in the grips of 'job lock.' … That's a term used to describe workers who are unable or reluctant to leave their current jobs for fear they won't be able to find health insurance. Older employees in particular—who are likelier than younger workers to have health problems and who don't qualify for Medicare until age 65—see that uncertainty as a "major barrier" to changing jobs or retiring, says Michael Thompson, New York-based principal of human-resource services at consulting firm PwC. Come 2014, barring any delays in the health-care law's implementation, people will be able to buy insurance through new exchanges. The law dictates that no one can be denied coverage for health reasons, and it limits age-based pricing."
