[progchat_action] Dems austerity plan may bite them
Steven Robinson
insurance company subsidies, in part, through massive cuts in
medicare benefits. There is ample reason that there will be a
backlash among seniors at the prospect of having their benefits
cut. Jay Cost - writing as a centrist - portrays it as the Pelosi-Reid
Congressional leadership as having scant regard for their bluedog
back benchers. IMO the plan to cut medicare arises from a contempt
that the Dem leadership has for their base - they assume that the
seniors who depend on medicare will simply "take it." Cost cites
evidence to the contrary. SR)
Have Democratic Leaders Gone Mad?
By Jay Cost RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog November 20, 2009
With the introduction of Harry Reid's health care bill - talk will
inevitably focus on whether the public option or the Stupak amendment
will undermine the legislation. Yet, if the bill dies, I do not
think either of these will be the primary cause of death.
I think this will be the culprit:
[Go to Source URL to see chart]
This is the CBO's analysis of how the Reid bill will cut Medicare.
The total reductions come out to $491 billion over 10 years when
everything is factored in.
The following has been said by other commentators, but I have to
add my voice to the chorus: This is insanity, Democratic leaders.
Why are you doing this?
Getting AARP's support might give you cover among the Washington
crowd, but let's inject some common sense here. Lots of people are
members of AARP, but that does not mean they are intensely committed
to it, and will therefore follow its lead on such an important
issue. AARP is not like the unions in that regard. Lots of people
join to get discounts on auto insurance and movie tickets, meaning
that affiliation with the organization is broader than it is deep.
Obama's current numbers among senior citizens demonstrate the
validity of this point, not to mention the concern that Democrats
should have heading into 2010. Gallup has him at 45% among those
over 65, and at 49% among those between 50 and 64. Hint. Quinnipiac
has him at 42% with those over 55. Hint hint. Rasmussen currently
shows Democrats losing the generic ballot among seniors by 15 points;
in 2008, Democrats split the senior vote with the GOP.
Hint hint hint.
Let's review the political power that American seniors wield. In
the Virginia gubernatorial election, people over 65 accounted for
18% of all voters. In New Jersey it was 19%. People over 65 accounted
for 19% of all voters in the 2006 House midterm. And even in the
"Yes We Can!" presidential election of 2008, when college kids
supposedly overwhelmed the normal electoral process, the 65 and
over crowd still accounted for 16% of the electorate (unchanged
relative to 2004).
The 2006 House exit poll showed the Democrats winning the national
vote by a margin of 54 to 46. If, however, we plug in Rasmussen's
current generic ballot number among seniors in place of what the
Democrats actually won from that cohort in 2006, their lead falls
to 52-48. Note that this assumes no change among younger cohorts.
That's seniors alone cutting the Democratic margin in half. This
also assumes that seniors do not come out in greater numbers in
2010 to defend against perceived assaults on their Medicare benefits.
Blanche Lincoln knows what I'm talking about. When she won reelection
in 2004, seniors made up 16% of the electorate and went 59-41 for
her. In the 1998 midterm, seniors made up 26% of the electorate and
went 60-37 for her. In both contests, they were her strongest
supporters. I wonder what she thinks of Table 2 in the CBO's analysis
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Bob Dole knows what I'm talking about, too. From January through
September of 1995, Bill Clinton's job approval numbers were tepid,
with a typical net approval rating of about +2.5. Things turned
around for him in late 1995 when the budget battle heated up and
Clinton took a stand against...GOP reductions in projected Medicare
spending! I'll let Michael Barone finish the story. This is from
the 1998 Almanac of American Politics:
"[I]n August 1995 [Clinton] started running political ads against
the Republicans' Medicare plan. All this was part of a strategy
pollster Dick Morris called "triangulation," taking positions between
liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans so as to elevate the
president's stature above both...In November and December he
negotiated on the budget with Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority
Leader Bob Dole, promising them agreement at times, but he ultimately
vetoed most of their appropriations bills. That technically shut
down non-emergency functions of the federal government, a step which
many Republicans initially welcomed and thought would be popular.
This was a stunning miscalculation, as was their lack of a strategy
to deal with Clinton's vetoes...By the time Republicans backtracked
and agreed to Clinton's terms, their ratings were down and they
were running behind Democrats in the polls. The President declared
at the time the deal was struck that his proposal was a "sensible
solution" that showed "you can balance the budget in 7 years, and
protect Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment and
provide tax relief to working families." He cruised to reelection.
Not coincidentally, Dick Morris was the first to suggest that mucking
around with Medicare would mean trouble for the Democrats. He knows
what he's talking about, and in September he wrote:
"The Democratic Party, led by Obama, is systematically converting
the elderly vote into a Republican bastion. The work of FDR in
passing Social Security in 1937 and of LBJ in enacting Medicare in
1965 is being undone by the president's healthcare program. The
elderly see [Obama's] proposals for what they are: a massive
redistribution of healthcare away from the elderly and toward a
population that is younger, healthier and richer but happens, at
the moment, to lack insurance. (Remember that the uninsured are,
by definition, not elderly, not young and not in poverty - and if
they are, they are currently eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or
SCHIP and do not need the Obama program.) THE ELDERLY SEE THE $ 500
BILLION PROJECTED CUT IN MEDICARE THROUGH THE SAME LENS AS THEY
VIEWED GINGRICHS EFFORTS TO SLICE THE GROWTH IN THE MID-1990s..
[Emphasis in source]
Why are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid doing this? How could they be so
foolish as to repeat the most egregious mistake of the Republicans
of the 104th Congress?
Why are they forcing their vulnerable members to vote on a bill
that would cut Medicare in this fashion? Do they dislike their
moderate colleagues? Do they find the chore of being the majority
party too burdensome? Have they simply gone mad?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/have_democratic_leader
s_gone_m.html
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJma2lmMDlnB
F9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk5MjY1NDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3
N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyNTg3ODUwMzk-> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings
via email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest<mailto:progchat_ac...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery
:%20Digest> | Switch to Fully
Featured<mailto:progchat_actio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%2
0Delivery%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action;_ylc=X3oDMTJkczRiMnBsBF9TAzk3N
Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk5MjY1NDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdG
ltZQMxMjU4Nzg1MDM5> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
<mailto:progchat_acti...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
__,_._,___