Peril Continues


At Netroots Nation in Minneapolis, the questions came fast and furious for White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. Among them:

(On Afghanistan) "What will it take to get through to the White House that we want the war ended?"

Why didn't President Obama put on his walking shoes and go to Wisconsin to support the workers like he promised he would do in the 2008 campaign?"

What are the absolute lines you will not cross while negotiating with the GOP regarding Medicare and Social Security?"

To the latter, Pfeiffer responded

On Social Security, the president will do nothing that will slash benefits, privatize the program or change the nature of the program," Pfeiffer responded. "And on Medicaid, the same thing is true with Medicare..... He is absolutely 100-percent opposed to anything in 100-mile radius of what the Republicans and [Wisconsin Rep.] Paul Ryan have put forward.

Nothing new there. The Administration always has denied it intends to "slash" Social Security benefits. According to the online Free Dictionary, the first definition of "slash" is "To cut or form by cutting with forceful sweeping strokes: slash a path through the underbrush." No one would accuse President Obama of being forceful (well, perhaps Osama binLaden. but he's in no position to accuse anyone of anything anymore). Less snidely, most applicable is definition #7. "to reduce or curtail drastically." Obama is unlikely to reduce benefits dramatically (significantly, perhaps; dramatically, no).

The President has consistently criticized privatization sentiment and (arguably) nothing else would change the "nature" of the program. And no one could know what Pfeiffer meant when he referred figuratively to "anything in 100-mile radius of what the Republicans and [Wisconsin Rep.] Paul Ryan have put forward." (Sarcasm Alert) It is comforting, though, to be assured that Obama opposes eliminating the Medicare program, central to Ryan's budget proposal, or partially privatizing Social Security, a key to his "Roadmap for America's Destruction Future."

But cutting the program appeared to become a little easier Friday upon publication in the Wall Street Journal of "Key Seniors Association Pivots on Benefits Cut" (subscription required; try entering article title into search engine). Reporter Laura Meckler noted that AARP has refused to join the umbrella group Strengthen Social Security, which is steadfastly opposed to benefit cuts, because, according to policy chief John Rother, "The coalition's role was to kind of anchor the left, and our role is going to be to actually get something done." Getting "something done," according to Meckler, is requiring any deal to be "bipartisan." Given that one party wants to privatize (at least partially) Social Security and the leader of the other party supports a decrease in benefits, a "bipartisan" deal would include cuts, supported by Rother, and (far less likely) a FICA tax increase, also supported by Rother.

Responding to an outcry from its members and some on the left, AARP issued a statement proposing "any changes (to be) be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries." AARP's statement came, perhaps significantly, on the heels of the announcement of a Social Security plan by outgoing Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, sticking her neck out on behalf of her party. The Republican recommended gradually raising the retirement age and cutting the cost-of-living allowance for anyone currently under age 58. Ryan had recommended nailing anyone currently under 55. With the Obama Administration earlier signaling, and now reiterating, its intent to sacrifice elderly people, the GOP's opening salvo has been changed to age 58. AARP appears on board with the concept.

As usual, we're left wondering with this President: is he this bad a negotiator- or does he know exactly what he's doing?

Share|

Must Be All Acorn's Fault

Maine Republicans are apparently channeling the late Paul Weyrich. Co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, Weyrich told a Christian audience in 1980

I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They have never been from the beginning of our country and as a matter of fact they are not now. Quite frankly, our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down.

Maine Republicans are putting into practice Weyrich's dictum:

Tempers flared in the state Senate on Friday after the chairman of the Maine Republican Party suggested Democrats “steal elections” by taking advantage of Maine’s policy allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day.

A proposal to end Maine’s 38-year-old policy of same-day voter registration was already one of the most contentious of the legislative session.

Lawmakers have spent hours debating whether the bill would improve the integrity of Maine’s election system — as Republicans insist — or disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters — as Democrats suggest.

On Friday, the partisan tensions boiled over in the Senate thanks to comments from Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster.

“If you want to get really honest, this is about how the Democrats have managed to steal elections from Maine people,” Webster told a columnist for the Portland Press Herald in a piece published Friday. “Many of us believe that the Democrats intentionally steal elections.”

Webster also accused Democrats of busing people to the polls to register.

The bill now heads to Governor Paul LePage, a Republican elected as a tea party favorite, who is enthusiastic about the measure's effort to suppress Democratic votes.

As GOP voter suppression efforts (noted by Ernest F. Canning in bradblog.org and here) proceed in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (already accomplished in Florida), the media seem unaware that as the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU found, "by any measure, voter fraud is extremely rare." In its 2007 study (here, in PDF) of fraud alleged in several states, the Center found "only a tiny portion of the claimed illegality is substantiated- and most of the remainder is either nothing more than speculation or has been conclusively debunked."

Of course, there have been examples of apparent fraud committed by prominent citizens. There is conservative lawyer and activist Ann Coulter, who likely has committed voter fraud in Florida and in Connecticut. Charlie White, Indiana's recently elected Secretary of State, has been indicted on seven counts of voter fraud. Todd Akin of Missouri appears to have voted ten times using the address of the home in which he and his wife previously lived, despite paying property taxes of the home he now lives in.

Presidential candidates don't want to be left out. Jon Huntsman used the governor's mansion in Salt Lake City as his official address to vote in Utah while he was serving as Ambassador to Mainland China- and after he had bought an expensive home in Washington, D.C. Mitt Romney, after buying a $5 million house in California and later selling his home in Massachusetts, then voted in the Massachusetts Senate race while claiming to live in the basement of his parent's home (donations now being accepted for the Mitt Romney Homeless Housing Fund).

Admittedly, none of these individuals has even the potential to do as much harm to the nation as did then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who prior to the 2000 election enlisted a private company to purge the voter rolls of felons. Although 94,000 names were purged, only 3,000 actually were ineligible to vote, according to the BBC's Greg Palast, as reported by The Brad Blog.

A report issued today by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds little to support the charges that led to the demise of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a grassroots consumer advocacy organization driven out of existence by Congressional critics.

The GAO found that monitoring of awards to ACORN by government agencies generally consisted of reviewing progress reports and making site visits. Of 22 investigations of alleged election and voter registration fraud, most were closed without prosecution, the report found.

What do all these individuals have in common? Perhaps you've already guessed- and if so, it's understandable that you would think that voter fraud is most common among prominent Republicans. Whatever the outcomes of the charges filed against these individuals, it appears that collectively they committed more fraud than ACORN, defunded by the U.S. Congress and run out of business amid hysterical allegations by the GOP (hysterical, but effective in intimidating Democrats). As if we needed yet another study largely exonerating ACORN, now

One of eight investigations of alleged voter registration fraud resulted in guilty pleas and seven were closed without action due to lack of evidence.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) reported five closed matters – one resolved, one dismissed and the others dropped after FEC "found no reason to believe the violations occurred."

But ACORN is gone, Republicans throughout the land are finding new and creative ways to deter members of Democratic-leaning groups to vote, and- as President Bush would have put it- the mission must be accomplished.

Share|

Health Care Simplified By Rush Limbaugh


Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, claimed (yet again) that the Great Recession was precipitated by banks being forced by the federal government to give mortgages to poor people. After putting forth a wildly false premise, he tried to make an analogy with health care and summarized

The more the government gets involved -- and it's not just because of these people running the government. It's just structurally, the government does not facilitate efficiency. It does not lower the cost of anything. It does not improve the efficiency of anything.

Limbaugh continued "It's, by definition, a series and a maze of bureaucracies made up of people who have to construct reasons to be employed." But Rush has continually made clear his contempt for all public employees which, at last glance, included the likes of special education teachers, police, firemen, and members of the armed services. But note that he contended yesterday

there's value added at every level to the point that real value of whatever you're talking about is distorted. If this ever happens to hotels, we're sunk. It's happened to health care, and now it's happening in housing....

The whole notion of insurance and massive costs didn't happen 'til the government got involved. Hello, Medicare -- and then later on, Medicaid.

Limbaugh never explained how the cost of medical care has increased because of government involvement, apparently because it has not. The costs for overhead in private insurance is likely 11.1% to 12% while for Medicare, it is approximately 1.3%.

Further, in the year ending March 2012, health care costs covered by commercial insurers rose by 7.57% while Medicare spending rose at an annual 2.78%. D avid M. Blitzer, chairman of the S&P Index Committee, observes "costs for Medicare patients are being better contained than those covered under commercial insurance plans."

This has serious implications because under the Ryan budget plan passed by the House, which would replace Medicare with a voucher plan, a steadily increasing share of an individual's health care costs would not be covered by government (voucher) but by the private market. Medicare costs per service are lower than those offered by the private sector and costs covered by Medicare are increasing at a slower rate than in the private sector. Additionally, once elderly people, as envisioned by the GOP, are sent into the private market, health insurers are not going to fall all over themselves to insure these, the highest risks in the market. Those which do succumb to the need to offer insurance to old people (or "senior citizens," as society, offended by old people, call them) will probably jack up rates on the better risks to compensate and to keep Wall Street happy.

Rush Limbaugh is a huge (figuratively) supporter of the Ryan plan to rescind Medicare. The thought that the government- as with veterans- provides individuals in the shadows of life with less expensive than the private markets he speaks for is just too difficult for him to bear.

Share|

Romney To Disaster Victims: Do It Yourself


In November, 2012, at the top of the ticket, it might not matter that "tornadoes have wreaked havoc from Alabama to Massachusetts, while floods have inundated states from Montana to Louisiana." Short of a major landslide, Alabama, Montana, and Louisiana will go the GOP nominee, Massachusetts to Barack Obama.

But between those states it might matter that

the nation's deadliest tornado in six decades ripped apart the city of Joplin.

Thirty days of destruction in Missouri. Billions of dollars of damage. And it may not be done, as communities along the Missouri River from St. Joseph to St. Louis brace for a new round of flooding.

The economic aftershocks of Missouri's spring of disasters may be felt for years, even by many who weren't personally affected by the storms. Insurance premiums are likely to increase for home and vehicle owners. Restaurants and retail shops are likely to see lower sales in southeast Missouri. Utility rates are likely to rise in the southwestern part of the state. And Missouri's budget — already out of balance — now is tens of millions of dollars deeper in the hole, which could lead to more cuts to government services and schools.

"It's not just the loss of lives, but this is a horrible economic blow to the state of Missouri," said state House Speaker Steven Tilley, a Republican whose home district is near the Mississippi River.

Mitt Romney, however, doesn't agree, if this exchange he had with debate host John King at the GOP face-off on Monday in New Hampshire is indicative:

KING: What else, Governor Romney? You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all.

Deficit mania rages everywhere in Washington. Within the Republican Party, where it began, no deviation from this gospel is safe. Recently, Romney conceded even that climate change is affected by human behavior, a position at odds with the corporate and talk-show base of the party. The American people always sympathize, and empathize, with the victims of "acts of God"- and these victims live in the state of Missouri, site of the slimmest winning margin by eitherhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

But expressing sympathy for the individuals who have lost their businesses, or homes, or communities, or even lives, to an historic flood? Not in this man's (or woman's) Republican Party, you don't.

Share|

Out Now


No, not from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, which is another issue altogether.

The participants in last night's GOP presidential debate all come with their reputations: Herman Cain, the businessman; Newt Gingrich, the thrice-married policy wonk; Michelle Bachmann, strident, weak on American geography and darling of the tea party; Ron Paul, gadfly and libertarian; Tim Pawlenty, pro-life and colorless; Mitt Romney, button-down and liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.

If there is someone who can be characterized- or smeared- as a theocrat, it would be former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Or would have been Rick Santorum.

A question from a male in the audience "I'm just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making" inspired three ludicrous responses and two quite sensible ones. Not surprisingly, each candidate who responded avoided the more important part of the question/comment- how it would "affect your decision-making." But we still heard Pawlenty attributing American liberty to God; Paul claiming the U.S. Constitution "says no theocracy"; Cain confirming that he believes a presidential adviser's religious affiliation is more important than merit; Gingrich expressing fear that an administration official might turn out to be a bomb maker.

Mitt Romney's response was reasonable, if a little vanilla. But.... Rick Santorum? Checked and confirmed. It was Rick Santorum who in part commented

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

A diverse country? A candidate in the Republican nomination process endorsing diversity? That is truly wondrous, but no more than calling into "the public square" all individuals "to be heard." And even less extraordinary than Santorum welcoming "everybody, people of faith and no faith...." to express his or her opinion.

Forget the GOP (where an expression "of no faith" would instantly disqualify someone from public office) but consider that the American people at large are wary of a candidate for public office who professes little or no faith. A Pew Research Center survey taken late last month found that 61% of the electorate would be "less likely to vote" for a presidential candidate if that individual "does not believe in God." There is a reason that President Obama often ends speeches with "God bless the United States"- and it's not because the Almighty takes orders from Barack Obama or any other politician.

So Rick Santorum should drop out of the presidential race immediately. He was a very long short, anyway, and now has committed ideological heresy. There is no room in a Repub race (and, sadly, perhaps not in a Democratic race) for someone who asserts we must not "say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid." Rick Santorum, a staunch conservative, is wrong about almost everything and passionately so about a few things. But he was boldly, naively right about free expression in a democratic society.

Share|

Stop The Madness- Or Silliness


A stopped clock, as the tired cliche goes, is right twice a day and John King was right at least once last night during the Repub presidential debate (transcript here) he hosted in Manchester, New Hampshire. In the midst of a chat about immigration, King noted "There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. People have different numbers."

In 2005, two Bear Stearns employees estimated the number of illegal immigrants at 18-20 million. Now, more than six years later, that number somehow has dwindled to 12 million as claimed by most observers, primarily because others do it, and 20 million might be discomfiting.

Still, it is tempting to ridicule CNN's King for asking each candidate a frivolous question "to learn a little bit more about these candidates and their personalities." Especially, that would be, given the burden of serious issues, such as the impending cataclysm if the U.S.A. does not reduce the national debt by demolishing Medicare, Medicaid, disaster relief, and almost anything that isn't the Defense Department.

But that would be too easy. So, instead, consider that one candidate gave by far the best answer, which indicates why that individual has as much chance of being the GOP nominee as, say, Markos Moulitsas.

Tim Pawlenty, asked if he preferred Coke or Pepsi, promptly gave the correct answer: Coke. Queried "Blackberry or I-Phone," Ron Paul replied simply "Blackberry." Asked "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars," Newt Gingrich immediately responded "American Idol."

A few of the candidates, thankfully, gave the questions as much thought and attention as they deserved: 1-2 seconds. So did Herman Cain, who when asked "Deep dish or thin crust?" replied "deep dish." Which probably is a good reason to avoid Godfather's Pizza.

But Michelle Bachmann recognized a political opportunity when she saw it. She was asked "to you, Elvis or Johnny Cash?"

That put her in a bind. Presley was the king of crossover; starting as primarily a country performer, he morphed into largely a rock performer with considerable appeal to country music fans. Johnny Cash was a country singer but generally without the hard edge that characterized (and made great) the genre of his era. They both had an appeal across the music spectrum, making difficult any effort Bachmann might have made to reach out to a subset of voters with her answer. So, being underrated as a politician, she replied, courageously, "That's really tough. That's really--- both."

When King followed up with "both," Bachmann said "yes," and a moment later added "I've Christmas with Elvis" on my iPod."

Brilliant answer. She loves Elvis, doesn't say she likes him more than Cash, and even through a little shlock religiosity in there with "Christmas with Elvis." No doubt the traditional version of the music, on her I-Pod. We do Christianity high-tech in the Bachmann household, and make sure everyone knows it.

But if Bachmann was playing to the nation's Repub voters- and she was- Romney was determined to appeal to New Hampshire voters, many of whom have fled the high taxes of Massachusetts while maintaining their sports loyalties, all the better to claim a Boston heritage when convenient. King asked "Imagine you're getting to the barbecue joint. Maybe it's here in New Hampshire, maybe it's South Carolina ordering some wings. Spicy or mild?"

Remembering his new image- the Man Who Can Be Photographed Only Without A Tie, even if inchorent with the dark suit he wears- Romney responded "oh, spicy. Absolutely," adding "And, by the way, Bruins are up 4-0....." (in the sixth game of the Stanley Cup finals.) Pandering to the audience, but then, he really, really, really, does want to win that first in the nation primary.

But the best, and dumbest, answer of the night came from Rick Santorum, probably because his question was the first inkling of this obnoxious approach. Queried "Leno or Conan," the former Pennsylvania Senator replied, clearly uncomfortably, "Probably Leno. But I don't watch either. Sorry." Himself uncomfortable- but insufficiently- John King responded "All right. That's all right. That's the answer -- the answer is the answer."

It is candor like that which has made Santorum a bad politician and has made him along with Herman Cain (never held elective office) and Newt Gingrich (yesterday's news) as likely to be the GOP presidential nominee as is Joe Biden. The proper answer to each question was "don't watch either" or "don't like either" or "don't watch either" "Randy Travis" (video below) or "Johnny Paycheck" (video way below) or "calzone" (o.k., maybe not that one).

Share|

Spinning On Medicare


The discussion turned to Medicare on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS (transcript here) with guests Andrew Roberts, described as a "British historian and conservative," Chrystia Frland, Elliot Spitzer, and Ann Coulter. Coulter was at her best, with a grasp on truthfulness as strong as Sarah Palin's grasp of American history:


FREELAND: Yes, just for his party. And really, I think the tragedy for Democrats right now is that Barack Obama has not been making the strong Keynesian Democratic case he should be making, which Eliot has made right now.

ZAKARIA: OK, let me ask - let me ask - we've got to go, but I have to ask Ann this, which is there's - there is a strong case that he has made - Obama has made, which is about Medicare. And, on that issue, I want to know whether you think it will work. Not - I know that you wish that he didn't say it and that the Democrats' took entitlement reform more seriously, and I happen to agree with you there.

But, when you ask the American people, should - are you willing to deal with the budget deficit by cutting Medicare, 78 percent say no. I mean, I don't think you can get 78 percent of Americans to agree on the time of day.

COULTER: Right.

ZAKARIA: Where do (ph) -

COULTER: It's the utter irresponsibility of former Democrats. It's hard to take treats away from people, and that's what we've done. And Democrats set up a Ponzi scheme with social security and Medicare, and it's running out now. And, yes, it's very hard to take the treats away once you start giving them away, which is why it was utterly irresponsible for Democrats long dead and gone to set up these systems that could never last.

But, you know, it would be very helpful -

ZAKARIA: But will it work? That's what I'm asking.

COULTER: -- if we could get Democrats to acknowledge the system's about to go bankrupt rather than showing commercials of Paul Ryan -

ZAKARIA: But will it - OK.

COULTER: -- pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

ZAKARIA: All right. We've got to go. Chrystia, last word on Medicare and the rest (ph).

FREELAND: The last word is you are absolutely right. I think this is the single strongest point for the Democrats, and what it shows, actually, is that Americans don't see successful government programs as treats, which they are childish for enjoying. They see successful government programs as what the government should be doing.

COULTER: A program that's about to go bankrupt is not successful.

The trustees who oversee Medicare and Social Security, when last August they issued their latest annual report, estimated that funds in the Medicare hospital trust fund would be exhausted in 2029. That would be oh, 18 years from now, or in Ann Coulter's words "about to go." FREELAND: Yes, just for his party. And really, I think the tragedy for Democrats right now is that Barack Obama has not been making the strong Keynesian Democratic case he should be making, which Eliot has made right now.

ZAKARIA: OK, let me ask - let me ask - we've got to go, but I have to ask Ann this, which is there's - there is a strong case that he has made - Obama has made, which is about Medicare. And, on that issue, I want to know whether you think it will work. Not - I know that you wish that he didn't say it and that the Democrats' took entitlement reform more seriously, and I happen to agree with you there.

But, when you ask the American people, should - are you willing to deal with the budget deficit by cutting Medicare, 78 percent say no. I mean, I don't think you can get 78 percent of Americans to agree on the time of day.

COULTER: Right.

ZAKARIA: Where do (ph) -

COULTER: It's the utter irresponsibility of former Democrats. It's hard to take treats away from people, and that's what we've done. And Democrats set up a Ponzi scheme with social security and Medicare, and it's running out now. And, yes, it's very hard to take the treats away once you start giving them away, which is why it was utterly irresponsible for Democrats long dead and gone to set up these systems that could never last.

But, you know, it would be very helpful -

ZAKARIA: But will it work? That's what I'm asking.

COULTER: -- if we could get Democrats to acknowledge the system's about to go bankrupt rather than showing commercials of Paul Ryan -

ZAKARIA: But will it - OK.

COULTER: -- pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

ZAKARIA: All right. We've got to go. Chrystia, last word on Medicare and the rest (ph).

FREELAND: The last word is you are absolutely right. I think this is the single strongest point for the Democrats, and what it shows, actually, is that Americans don't see successful government programs as treats, which they are childish for enjoying. They see successful government programs as what the government should be doing.

COULTER: A program that's about to go bankrupt is not successful.

The trustees who oversee Medicare and Social Security, when last August they issued their latest annual report, estimated that funds in the Medicare hospital trust fund would be exhausted in 2029. That would be oh, 18 years from now, or in Ann Coulter's words "about to go." FREELAND: Yes, just for his party. And really, I think the tragedy for Democrats right now is that Barack Obama has not been making the strong Keynesian Democratic case he should be making, which Eliot has made right now.

ZAKARIA: OK, let me ask - let me ask - we've got to go, but I have to ask Ann this, which is there's - there is a strong case that he has made - Obama has made, which is about Medicare. And, on that issue, I want to know whether you think it will work. Not - I know that you wish that he didn't say it and that the Democrats' took entitlement reform more seriously, and I happen to agree with you there.

But, when you ask the American people, should - are you willing to deal with the budget deficit by cutting Medicare, 78 percent say no. I mean, I don't think you can get 78 percent of Americans to agree on the time of day.

COULTER: Right.

ZAKARIA: Where do (ph) -

COULTER: It's the utter irresponsibility of former Democrats. It's hard to take treats away from people, and that's what we've done. And Democrats set up a Ponzi scheme with social security and Medicare, and it's running out now. And, yes, it's very hard to take the treats away once you start giving them away, which is why it was utterly irresponsible for Democrats long dead and gone to set up these systems that could never last.

But, you know, it would be very helpful -

ZAKARIA: But will it work? That's what I'm asking.

COULTER: -- if we could get Democrats to acknowledge the system's about to go bankrupt rather than showing commercials of Paul Ryan -

ZAKARIA: But will it - OK.

COULTER: -- pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

ZAKARIA: All right. We've got to go. Chrystia, last word on Medicare and the rest (ph).

FREELAND: The last word is you are absolutely right. I think this is the single strongest point for the Democrats, and what it shows, actually, is that Americans don't see successful government programs as treats, which they are childish for enjoying. They see successful government programs as what the government should be doing.

COULTER: A program that's about to go bankrupt is not successful.

The trustees who oversee Medicare and Social Security, when last August they issued their latest annual report, estimated that funds in the Medicare hospital trust fund would be exhausted in 2029. That would be oh, 18 years from now, or in Ann Coulter's words "about to go." Part B (doctor's, and other outpatient, expenses) and Part D (drugs) cannot be exhausted because their needs by law are provided by financing each year to meet the next year's expected costs. (This also is why Medicare technically is not a "Ponzi scheme." No matter- the characterization is a frivolous one meant only to deligitimize the program.) Projected shortfalls have been reduced by the Affordable Care Act, which Coulter lustfully opposes.


But Coulter has a point, almost. The cost of Medicare keeps going up- but not nearly as much as the cost of private sector health care, which is less efficient and whose costs are rising more rapidly, as the graph (below) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services indicates







Paul Krugman summarizes "If Medicare costs had risen as fast as private insurance premiums, it would cost around 40 percent more than it does. If phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrivate insurers had done as well as Medicare at controlling costs, insurance would be a lot cheaper."

Health care costs, not Medicare, are the problem, as Coulter, not completely ignorant, is aware. As the table (from OECD Health Data, 2009 via angelfire.com) below shows, per capita health spending in the U.S.A. in 2007 reached $7,290, the highest among 30 OECD countries and $2527 higher than #2, Norway.





Even as a share of GDP (as displayed by the table- from the same source- below) the USA ranked #1- worst- in 2007 (and still does), when 16.0% of the gross domestic product went to health care, far more than the 11.0% devoted to health care by #2, France.







Even more disturbing: Coulter and much of the right are even less truthful about Social Security.

Share|