Calling ObamaCare “socialized medicine” truly lowers the standards on what could be considered socialized medicine. It’s like calling paved roads “government overreach”; a stop light a “government takeover of your commute”; or a neighborhood with speed bumps “a road to communism.” The law is really some regulations to help consumers buy private insurance coupled with a small fee if consumers decide not to buy said insurance.

Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Absolutely. However, ObamaCare is the opposite of socialism, it’s a market solution.

The right-wing got a “free” market solution to health care. That was their cause – personal responsibility their mantra – now it’s law. They got an entire reform bill incentivising citizens to buy into private for-profit insurance plans. This is the Republican vision for America: Less government more profits for giant corporations. This core of the Affordable Care Act was an idea floated by President Nixon in 1974, touted by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, introduced by Newt Gingrich in 1993 and implemented by Mitt Romney in 2005. And now? Now it’s a big festering albatross around Obama’s neck.

As former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said in front of the Supreme Court last week, "We have not waved the white flag of surrender on socialized medicine!”

So the decades-old Republican big idea finally gets Democratic presidential ink and now, if you ask a Republican, it’s an unconstitutional government takeover of health care Stalin would have loved. Mitt Romney wants to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with RomneyCare. Essentially repealing the Affordable Care Act with the Affordable Care Act. Leave it to a Republican frontrunner to vow their first act as president will be to waste time with redundancies while lamenting how ineffective government can be.

Now health care reform has reached the Supreme Court, we will have a ruling on the law in late June. Will it be overturned fully or partially or upheld? It’s anyone’s guess.

Regardless of the outcome, personal responsibility in health care is a Republican pet idea they’ve strapped to the roof of the car.

It makes the case that their ideas should never be law because if partisanship beckons, they’ll rally against them and call any Democrats who signed the bill, Hitler.

Imagine if Obama signed the most recent Paul Ryan Budget plan – a blueprint to cut taxes further for the wealthy and further increase the debt by not taking in enough revenues. If Obama embraced it, Republicans would storm the Capitol calling it a tax hike and a Maoist plot with Wall Street. People in tri-corner hats with signs reading, “Don’t raise my taxes!” and “Stop government takeover of business!” would swarm The Mall. The erosion of Medicare would make Republicans faint on the House floor. “It’s a tenet of Marxism to kill grandma!” They’d gasp.

Just remember, when George W. Bush took office the budget was set to be balanced in a few short years. Social security was actually its namesake – secure. And then he went uber-GOP-with-a-mandate – didn’t pay for any of the wars he started – just showered seniors with unpaid-for Medicare Part D and sent everyone in the country a rebate check. And when this “free market capitalism” failed? He bailed out the banks and the auto industry with taxpayer money, famously saying he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

Now? Now the Republicans blame the deficit, the debt, the recession, the bailouts and (wait for it) the wars on the Democrat in the Oval Office.

It’s a take on the Pottery Barn rule, “You break it, you buy it.” The Republican version: “We break it, we blame you … and call you a Nazi.”

enlarge

Credit: New York Times

The American social safety net is back in the news, and not just because Mitt Romney acknowledged, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." This week, the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University revealed that a third of Americans now receive Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance, a number that climbs to 148 million when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are factored in. The next day, the conservative Heritage Foundation fretted that its "Index of Dependence on Government" rose 8.1 percent last year. Then on Sunday, the New York Times detailed that the so-called safety net now delivers most its benefits to middle class Americans, including many who denounce the very government programs which now sustain them.

But while the torrent of new reports provides fodder for partisans of all stripes (myself included), the picture of the frayed U.S. safety net is a complex one. What conservatives routinely decry as government largesse for the undeserving poor is a hodge-podge of programs which increasingly support the middle class and, above all, the elderly.

Here, then, are five things I found caught in the safety net.

1. Universal Programs vs. Means-Tested Benefits

Eager to reinforce their narrative, conservatives tend to play fast and loose with what's actually in the safety net. As this Politico summary of the Heritage Foundation 2012 government dependency index shows, safety net critics intentionally conflate universal programs like Social Security and Medicare with means-tested aide like food stamps, housing assistance and welfare payments:

Since the 2008 index, the American people's dependence on government has grown a whopping 23 percent.

One in five Americans -- or slightly more than 67 million -- now relies on federal assistance...Overall, about 70 percent of the federal government's budget is directed to individual assistance programs. And nearly half of the population, or 49.5 percent, don't pay any federal income taxes, according to the survey.

Of course, virtually all working Americans pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes; programs whose growth accounts for most of the expansion of federal domestic spending. Since 1965, Social Security and Medicare have helped reduce poverty among the elderly by two-thirds. (Just as important, bipartisan support for the Earned Income Tax Credit and other tax credits have trimmed the numbers of working Americans who owe Uncle Sam each year.) That's why it was so refreshing to see at least one right-wing blogger react to Sunday's New York Times piece by complaining, "Wait - Medicare is now a "safety net" program? I thought that, like Social Security, it was an earned benefit - we all paid our taxes, and we are all eligible."

2. Complain and Ye Shall Receive

To be sure, the conservative commentariat is none too happy to see The New York Times once again highlight the hypocrisy of government spending critics happily (or often, unknowingly) receiving payments from Washington. For example, there's the case of Ki Gulbranson, a Minnesotan who earns $39,000 a year and, The Times claims, "wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government":

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region's long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Gulbranson has plenty of company within the ranks of the Tea Party. 2009 data from Public Policy Polling revealed that while 39 percent of all Americans responded that the government should "stay out of Medicare," 59 percent of self-identified conservatives and 62 percent of McCain voters hold that oxymoronic view. As The New York Times reported on its joint survey with CBS of Tea Party members in April 2010, "Despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers." 62-year-old Tea Party supporter Jodine White acknowledged to The Times what her desire to slash government spending would produce:

"That's a conundrum, isn't it? I don't know what to say. Maybe I don't want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security." She added, "I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."

Continue reading »

Fred Karger, the openly gay Republican presidential candidate, held his own party at CPAC last night. Despite being barred from exhibiting or speaking at the conference, he kept his suite door open, set up an open bar and attracted a crowd of young Republicans and reporters.

He’s been on a roll recently, after his home state of California put his name on the ballot on Monday. He’s now on ballots in six states. But, at CPAC, he has been ignored.

“I’ll represent about 30 percent of the population on the ballot and this group won’t even rent me a booth,” said Karger, when I spoke to him at his party, “It’s the second year in a row. Last year, I didn’t take any action, but this year… I said, OK, I’m going to apply in November and get the early bird discount.”

Despite his best efforts, organizers from CPAC ignored him. He said the group told a Buzzfeed reporter they were sold out.

“I knew you couldn’t be sold out if you still had an early bird discount,” said Karger.

So in January he filed a discrimination complaint with the DC Human Rights Commission. On Friday morning, he met with the Human Rights Commission who is moving quickly with his complaint, according to Karger

“It goes next to mediation and CPAC is going to have to show up,” said Karger, who noted the commission has subpoena power.

He said if the commission sides with him then CPAC will have to allow gay people at their convention next year, which has been booked at the DC convention center, or they’re going to have to move to another location that doesn’t have a discrimination policy.

“I’m not settling for anything less than that,” said Karger.

Last year, CPAC angered some of its large sponsors like the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Liberty University after it allowed GOProud, the gay Republican organization, to have a booth at the conference for the second year in a row. But after a change in leadership from David Keene, who defended GOProud’s presence, to Al Cardenas, they changed their policy. This year, CPAC sent GOProud a letter in July of 2011 informing them they would not be invited to participate in formal events for CPAC 2012.

Karger said taking a strong stance against gay rights is not helping the Republican Party.

“We’re a minority party, we need younger people, we need new blood, we’re going to be going the way of the dinosaurs,” said Karger, who hopes the party will be more inclusive.

He said the number one reason he’s running for president is to open the door for future gay candidates, “so they don’t have to have their fingers slammed in the door for no reason.”

Then he got back to his party, where unlike CPAC, Karger invited everyone. Around 11 p.m. the party was crowded and guests were jovial.

But then a couple of hotel security guards came and shut it down.

“This party is over,” said the large man wearing a fake police badge that said Marriott Security.

Al Jazeera English, posted this documentary today about wealth inequality in America. The highlight of the clip above is Congressman Paul Ryan being asked if his budget plan isn't undemocratic because the majority of Americans don't like it. He bolts from the reporter and tells her, her question is "rude."

Al Jazeera English does some good work. The piece also features economist Jeffrey Sachs stating flatly, "The rich not only became richer they became politically more powerful."

enlarge

You'd think there was no news out there if you were a Daily Caller reader. Because the Really Big News on the Daily Caller concerns a Heritage Foundation guy by the name of Rob Bluey. Rob is upset, and claims that Jesse Lee, the White House new media guy, is 'bullying' people on Twitter. Note: that link goes to Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's whine cellar.

One such example happened last week in a dispute over the budget.

Eder posted this tweet: “Hmm…it can’t be true that @SenateDems haven’t passed a budget in 790 days and the only plan Obama has is a speech. Right, @jesseclee44?”

To which Lee responded: “@keder @SenateDems Plan is keep negotiating w/ Rs & Ds, not default & trash economy, not voucherize Medicare to fund more tax cuts for rich.”

Give me a break. If this is bullying, I'm writing this upside down while hanging from a tree in upside-down land, where everything right side up is upside down. Compare and contrast Jesse Lee's response with this one from Andrew Breitbart:

enlarge

Well, maybe not bullying. Maybe more like flaming someone. But whatever. I debated even writing about this, except that the point of Mr. Bluey's whine is so disingenuous. First, he whines about Jesse Lee, and then likens that to White House bullying of the press. Only, the three examples he gives of this alleged bullying have nothing to do with Jesse Lee or Twitter or the White House. Maybe he could actually take aim at the guy responsible for two of them -- Jay Carney, and then tell the truth about the White House response to Mark Halperin's stupidity on the air last week.

Bullying online is real and it's scary when it happens. Trivializing it this way for political whine points is yet another cynical effort to pin the tail on the white house donkey when it's still stuck to the elephant. While I expect little more from the likes of Tucker Carlson, I thought the esteemed Heritage Foundation was above such idiocy.

Oh, wait. Here's why, via Jason Linkins on the Huffington Post:

"The Heritage Foundation was on the receiving end last week from both Lee and White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, both of whom maintain official White House accounts on Twitter that are subject to archival under the Presidential Records Act," writes the article's author, Rob Bluey, who is also the director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. So, basically, this whole article is just a complicated way of asking Lee to please stop criticizing the Heritage Foundation on Twitter. What a world!

Aw, Tuckie. Get the bad bully for Rob Bluey, pretty please?

(h/t ThinkTanked Blog)

Just in case you didn't see it coming, here's the opening salvo in the Great Bush Tax Hike Cut Battle, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation, that non-partisan think tank that just happens to wrap itself around every conservative value out there.

It's a fantasy, just like every other fiscal policy the Republicans think is gospel. They cue the tax cut fairies and ignore David Stockman, Alan Greenspan, Paul Krugman, and just about every economist on the planet while catering to the few and starving the many.

Reassure the children. The Tax Cut Monster is a big red greedy thing, but it's easy to kill. Do nothing, and the tax cuts vanish! Just like that. The tax cut fairies will cry and stomp, but it'll be all right. We'll all be better off for it, even if the richest 400 people in the country have to pay something more like their fair share.

DOWNLOADS: (880)

PLAYS: (4735)

Embed

It's nice up there in the right-wing ivory tower... In this Hardball segment, Chris Matthews cracks up after James Sherk, a Heritage Foundation analyst, explains that the unemployment checks keep people from packing up and moving to find work -- you know, like in the Dust Bowl days? (I know people who can't afford to pack up and move across town, let alone across the country.)

So Tweety asks him if he has any friends who are unemployed. Sherk says yes, he does. Tweety asks if he's encouraging his friends to pack up and move elsewhere to look for work, and the look on the guy's face is priceless.

You see, his friends are looking for specific work in their field, as he quickly explains.

Just watch.

The Daily Dish: Michael Mukasey's secret plot to aid the New Black Panthers

Wonkette: Rep Ciro Rodriguez doesn't like being called a liar

Religion Dispatches: Why is the Economy Stuck: Market Theology for Nonbelievers

Modoweiss: Whitewash encounters skepticism

Lawyers, Guns & Money: Heritage Foundation ideologues who would have been laughed out of the Reagan administration find themselves in command of the foreign policy statements of several major GOP presidential aspirants.

Mad Kane’s Political Madness: David Vitter's Traylor Travails

Kind of funny when the GOP is so extreme, they're pushing NJ Gov. Chris Christie (a real wingnut) to be more of a right-winger!

Gov. Christie says he has not decided whether to sign on to a 20-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health-care law signed in March by President Obama. That makes New Jersey one of seven Republican-led states that have not joined the largely partisan fight.

Interest groups on both sides of the debate are lobbying the governor, but some of his advisers say he should not join the suit. Capping property taxes and managing a difficult budget have rightly been his top priorities, they say, and New Jersey residents are more open than people in other parts of the country to health-care regulation.

With 16 of 23 states led by GOP governors fighting the new law, at least one national expert said Christie faced the risk of becoming an "outlier through inaction."

"He's going to have to explain why he has stood out among his colleagues in his own party by not doing something they've all done," said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group in Washington.

Can you imagine? When Christie goes to the men's room, does he have to say "Mother, may I?"

Bipartisan Budget Woes Rear Window Ethics

The conservative Heritage Foundation and the more liberal Brookings Institute sat down jointly yesterday to explain that in less than 40 years, if taxes are not raised and spending is not cut, the United States economy will near collapse as the country will be only capable of paying interest on the growing federal debt.

Meanwhile the White House has been touting the fact that the deficit will shrink in the next year. What both groups that spoke yesterday agree on is the fact that after the few years of possible deficit shrinkage (for lack of a better word), it will skyrocket after that.

What ever happened to worrying about future generations? Didn't leadership in both parties talk about that a lot in the not too distant past? Just a few years later all they seem to be able to do is worry about Terri Schiavo and a handful of judges, while they happen to pass a pork-filled highway bill without anyone noticing. Washington Post: Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety