Which Party Would Be Better at Protecting Medicare

Remember in 2010, those tea party Republicans prancing around with signs decrying the evils of government and the evils of “socialized medicine” and demanding that the government keep its hands off their Medicare? Someone must have tapped them on the shoulder and explained to them that their beloved Medicare is, in fact, pure government run socialized medicine because now they are all for doing away with Medicare and replacing it with another program they just happen to call Medicare.

The Republicans are using word tricks to fool people; they want to completely do away with Medicare (and by “Medicare” I mean the real government provided single payer healthcare) and replace it with a completely different program (seniors go to private insurers with a voucher and purchase their own healthcare) which they also call “Medicare”. So the Republicans can claim they are not doing away with “Medicare” because there will still be a program called “Medicare”. It's kind of like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” where the aliens take over humans and assume their outward form but inside they are really alien. So the Republicans take over Medicare and it is still called Medicare on the outside, but inside it is something completely different and alien.

This Republican Vouchercare will phase in over a number of years and completely do away with the real Medicare. When Romney claims Obama is “raiding Medicare” isn't it ironic that that is exactly what Romney wants to do? Here is Charlie Crist, former Republican governor of Florida, “The $716 billion in savings his (Obama's) opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse. His opponents (Romney/Ryan) would end the Medicare guarantee by creating a voucher that would raise seniors' costs by thousands of dollars and bankrupt the program.”

Changes are indeed going to be required in order to keep Medicare solvent as the huge bulge of boomers retire. Since Medicare is a Democratic program, Democrats are invested in the continued success of the real Medicare. On the other hand, remember the tea party signs, the Republicans are fundamentally opposed to socialized medicine as found in Medicare. Which party do you think will do the best job of protecting and preserving “the real Medicare” for the generations to come?  

Is Romney a Tax Cheat and Felon

In 2009 the Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a multi-billion dollar scheme to help wealthy U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS. This meant those secret accounts hiding money from the IRS in foreign banks were about to be revealed. The IRS offered an amnesty program for these wealthy people to avoid felony conviction if they owned up to these secret accounts and paid back taxes and penalties.

We know that Romney was heavily involved with foreign accounts; his 2010 return shows he has accounts in Switzerland and at least 5 other countries. Did Romney take the amnesty offer in 2009? And is that why he refuses to release his 2009 return that would show the felonious behavior and the amnesty?

They keep reporting in the media that Romney has released two years of tax returns, 2010 & 2011, but that is not quite true; he has only released a partial return for 2010. His 2010 return is missing one key page. The Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in his 2010 return for detailing offshore accounts is purposefully absent. It just coincidentally happens that this one missing page would have referenced his previous (2009) amnesty if he had taken it. Why is the FBAR page the only page missing from his 2010 return? John McCain looked at Romney's taxes in 2008 and I'll take McCain's word that he didn't see anything illegal but the amnesty didn't occur until 2009 so McCain wouldn't have seen it.

Of course this is speculative, but why would Romney take so much heat for not releasing his tax returns if he wasn't hiding something pretty bad? The circumstantial evidence presents a strong case that Romney is a tax cheat who stashed money in Swiss accounts and then took the IRS amnesty in 2009 to avoid prosecution. For what other reason does he refuse to show his 2009 return? For what other reason would that one page be missing from his 2010 return?

Romney could clear up all these questions by just releasing his 2009 return or even releasing his complete 2010 return with the FBAR but he is not going to do so which is a pretty strong indictment that he is hiding some seriously nasty stuff that would disqualify him from the presidency. Even if you are a Republican, are you willing to vote for a likely tax cheat who hid money offshore and thus committed multiple felonies, or are you going to just vote for the guy no matter what, just because he has an “R” after his name?

An Up or Down Vote on Medicare

This election is rare in that it is a clear up or down vote on the Republican budget designed by Paul Ryan, passed by the Republicans in the House and endorsed by Romney. This budget dismantles Medicare, increases defense spending and gives huge tax cuts to the rich while cutting education, child care, science and infrastructure.

Here are a few facts about Medicare and Social Security to keep in mind:

1. Medicare and Social Security are Democratic programs and have been hugely successful and popular.

2. Many Republicans hate that Medicare and Social Security are so popular, and that so much credit accrues to the Democrats, and have always looked for ways to weaken or dismantle these “socialist” programs.

3. Since Medicare and Social Security are the crown jewels of Democratic accomplishments, Democratic administrations vigilantly protect these programs and make changes with an eye to keeping them sustainable into the future on a sound financial footing.

4. When you hear a Republican say that Democrats are trying to destroy Medicare and Social Security, you know he is lying.

5. When you hear a Republican claim he is trying to “save” Medicare or Social Security, Watch Out!

Remember in 2005 when Bush, after being reelected, tried to privatize Social Security under the guise of saving it. If he had succeeded in privatizing Social Security to Wall Street, Social Security would have been destroyed in the Wall Street collapse of 2008. Now they want to do the same thing to Medicare; electing Republicans this year will give them clear approval to dismantle Medicare and eventually Social Security. Choices in elections are rarely this clear; after all the smoke and obfuscation, this election boils down to a straight up or down vote on the future of Medicare and Social Security.

The End of Medicare

The Republicans have a plan to get rid of Medicare. To make that plan palatable to present seniors, they are assuring them that if they are 55 or older they will still get Medicare, it's only people under 55 who get screwed, I mean get a voucher. If the voucher is so great, why doesn't everyone want vouchers?

Think about it for a minute; the only reason that we all paid into Medicare and Social Security for all those years was because of the promise that it would be there when our turn came, we were all in it together. Now the Republicans want to create a two tiered system pitted against each other, one group of over-55s who will receive Medicare and another group of under-55s that will pay for the oldster's Medicare but when their turn comes they don't get Medicare, instead they only get a stinking voucher. What makes you think that at some point the under-55s will not collectively say; Enough! We are not going to pay for these old people to receive benefits that we will not get when we are their age.

As time goes on, the younger group will become larger while the older group will be dying off and become smaller. Mark my words, at some point, the younger group will have the political clout to stop paying for Medicare for the older group and the oldsters will be up a creek without a paddle. Good luck trying to take that 50% off coupon to an insurance company and buying health insurance when you are 80.

The Republicans are telling us we need to get rid of Medicare because it costs too much and after they destroy Medicare, Social Security will be next because it costs even more. There is another approach to the problem: For instance, did you know that a grocery checker pays about 15% out of their compensation for Social Security and Medicare while someone who makes billions like Bill Gates pays only a tiny fraction of 1% into Social Security? Simple solution: Have the wealthy pay the same rate as everyone else and, voila, Medicare (with the cost savings from Obamacare) and Social Security will be on a sound financial footing far into the future and will be there for you and your children.

A Suggestion to Save Our Democracy

As I watch the uber-rich buying our elections, I'm not sure which is more disheartening: The death of our democracy or watching half the country cheer it on because they think it results in their side winning. Truly, party before country.

It used to be that extremely rich people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, amassed huge fortunes (sometimes ill begotten) but then, in an American tradition, gave most of it back in philanthropy. Now with Citizens United and the Supreme Court equating spending unlimited sums of money to buy elections as free speech, we have a new breed of rich people like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson who instead of giving away money to help others, have decided to flood money into the political arena and hand pick our leaders thus subverting our democracy.

I have an idea how we can turn the Citizen United ruling around and use it to stop this political whoring. If we gather together 10 million regular folks that care enough about their country to each pledge $100 into a $1 billion kitty (they would only need to send in $10 and pledge the other $90) that is managed by a fairly non-partisan person with high integrity (like John Huntsman?) who has the duty to 110% counter-balance the ledger of giant political contributions (say over $1 million). So, if for instance, a Sheldon Adelson or a George Soros gives $10 million to buy a political campaign, our group would give $11 million to the other side. This would bring these massive political contributions to an end because they would actually be counter productive since it would result in the other side getting even more money. The fund manager would have the discretion to not make the counter contribution if he thought the contributor was just trying to game the system; such as if George Soros made a $10 million contribution to a conservative cause that he opposes with the idea that it would result in $11 million going to the side he actually favors.

Maybe we could call our group the “ Real Citizens United” and we could take back our democracy. If this works in elections, we could eventually expand this idea into countering the lobbying money spent to buy our elected representatives and effectively remove the influence of big money from our political process.

Goldwater is a Liberal in Today's America

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.”

When you can use a quote by Barry Goldwater as a voice of sanity and moderation, it demonstrates rather dramatically just how far to the right our country has swung. For those too young to remember, Barry Goldwater was considered a right wing extremist in the 1960s, today he would be left of Obama on many issues.

The doomsayers on the right keep telling us as a country we should do less, to aim lower, to shrink government, to invest less in the future, to spend less on education and to privatize everything from prisons to medicare. For the last 30 years the right, both Democratic and Republican, has won nearly every argument from denying climate change to achieving the lowest taxes on the rich. The right has gotten nearly everything they want at every turn and look at what a mess they have made of our country. That is what aiming lower gets you.

So here is an idea, we have tried it their way for the last 30 years and it clearly doesn't work, so let's try something different and progressive for a change. Let's aim higher. Let's try investing more in our future, more in education, more in science, more in single payer health care (medicare for all), let's extend full human rights to all people and invest more in the kind of infrastructure that will make our country a technological world leader again and pay for it by returning tax rates on the rich to the levels they were in the 1950s, 60s and 70s; you know, when we were prosperous. When the country was run by such wild eyed liberals as Republican Richard Nixon who created the EPA, OSHA, increased NASA and supported a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive options. 

Is the 99% Movement the Modern Equivalent of Storming the Bastille

Here is a startling statistic, the candidate for office in America with the most money backing him or her wins 94% of the races. In other words money buys almost every election. This fact means they really aren't elections, they are auctions. Character doesn't matter, positions don't matter, honesty doesn't matter; what matters is who puts in the highest bid and raises the most money. Guess where that money comes from and why do you think that money is spent? Any wonder our country is so fucked up? At its core, that is an extremely disheartening statistic because it says something terrible about how a democracy can be corrupted if money is allowed into the election process. That 94% statistic proves that a gullible electorate can be led to any conclusion with enough slick advertising. The Citizens United case has made things even worse, allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections.

We are caught in a catch-22; in order to throw off the shackles we would have to elect large majorities in the House and Senate to pass a Constitutional amendment removing money influence in elections, but we can't even begin to elect those majorities since the moneyed interests can buy any number of representatives they chose. Our hope rests with the 99% uprising or if they fail with another outraged grassroot populist movement with even greater intensity. If the groundswell of outrage grows to enough people and the outrage is sufficiently intense, maybe we can overthrow the moneyed interests despite their attempts to buy our government. This is the only way I can see that the people of America can reclaim their democracy from the 1%. Storm the Bastille!