As I noted in my last post, there aren’t a whole lot of differences between Harry Reid and John Boehner’s deficit reduction plans. As far as I can tell, there are two main differences…
|By: David Dayen Monday July 25, 2011 1:13 pm|
|By: Jon Walker Saturday December 4, 2010 6:00 pm|
Although the growth of health care costs means it must remain a top political issue, we seem doomed to have our elected officials embrace destructive, regressive “solutions” that don’t fix the problem. The Republican Party, Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission, and even the Obama administration are all devotees of the economic dogma that forcing regular Americans to pay even more out-of-pocket for health care will control costs.
|By: Swopa Friday December 3, 2010 8:00 pm|
Sure, there were plausible, even obvious reasons for President Obama to take an unannounced trip to Afghanistan today. But…
|By: Teddy Partridge Thursday August 26, 2010 6:00 am|
This whole “I never intended” Alan Simpson apology has gotten entirely out of hand: the person to whom the insult was directed still wants Simpson to resign from the Catfood Commission, while the White House, an unrelated party to the insult or the apology, accepts Simpson’s apology. D’oh!
|By: David Dayen Friday August 13, 2010 7:45 am|
Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, have sent a letter directly to Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the President’s deficit commission. In it, they say in no uncertain terms that cuts to Social Security, including an increase in the retirement age, must be off the table.
|By: Phoenix Woman Saturday July 31, 2010 6:45 am|
Ezra Klein apparently thinks Social Security hater Pete Peterson’s just the most charming guy, charming enough for Mr. Klein to overlook the decades-long evidence of the former Nixon Cabinet member’s paper trail in favor of doing a “balanced” report the way all the nice serious big-boy pundits like David Broder do.
|By: David Dayen Thursday July 29, 2010 3:10 pm|
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has written a report on the catfood commission’s spending cut target, and finds it completely inadequate and bordering on numerology.
|By: Jon Walker Friday July 23, 2010 6:55 am|
If the Catfood Commission suggests a bill slashing Social Security benefits and it comes to a vote in the House, it is likely to pass with the votes of Republicans and conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Even if all the progressive-leaning Democrats oppose it on a straight vote, it will probably pass. Progressives likely won’t have the votes to defeat it on the floor.
But they should have the votes to prevent it from ever reaching the floor if they are willing to play hardball. Here’s how. . .