Skip to main content

Home/ Politically Minded/ Group items tagged Medicaid

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
thinkahol *

Elections Have Consequences - 0 views

www.readersupportednews.org/...20-elections-have-consequences

Elections Have Consequences

shared by thinkahol * on 17 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 17 Jul 11
     
    We are at a pivotal moment in American history, and many Americans watching the deficit talks in Washington are confused, perplexed, angry and frustrated. This country, which has paid its debts from Day 1, must pay its debts. Anyone who says it is not a big deal for this country to default clearly does not understand what he or she is talking about. This is a nation whose faith and credit has been the gold standard of countries throughout the world. Some people simply say we're not going to pay our debt, that there's nothing to really worry about. Those are people who are wishing our economy harm for political reasons, and those are people whose attitudes will have terrible consequences for virtually every working family in this country in terms of higher interest rates, in terms of significant job loss, in terms of making a very unstable global economy even more unstable. Our right-wing friends in the House of Representatives have given us an option. What they have said is end Medicare as we know it and force elderly people, many of whom don't have the money, to pay substantially more for their health care. So when you're 70 under their plan and you get sick and you don't have a whole lot of income, we don't know what happens to you. They forget to tell us that if their plan was passed you're going to have to pay a heck of a lot more for the prescription drugs you're getting today. They we're going to throw millions of kids off health insurance. If your mom or dad is in a nursing home and that nursing home bill is paid significantly by Medicaid and Medicaid isn't paying anymore, they forgot to tell us what happens to your mom or dad in that nursing home. What happens? And what happens today if you are unemployed and you're not able to get unemployment extension? What happens if you are a middle-class family desperately trying to send their kids to college and you make savage cuts to Pell grants and you can't go to college? What does it mean for the nation if we
thinkahol *

I Remember America | Truthout - 0 views

www.truth-out.org/i-remember-america

to Wall Street Journal: a speech Wednesday Mr. Obama will propose cuts entitlement programs including Medicare Medicaid changes Social Security discussion has largely left Democrats Republicans in Congress. He also call for tax increases people making ove

shared by thinkahol * on 12 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 12 Apr 11
     
    Ac­cord­ing to the Wall Street Journ­al: In a speech Wed­nesday, Mr. Obama will pro­pose cuts to en­tit­le­ment pro­grams, in­clud­ing Medicare and Medicaid, and chan­ges to Soci­al Secur­ity, a dis­cuss­ion he has lar­ge­ly left to De­moc­rats and Re­pub­licans in Con­gress. He also will call for tax in­creases for peo­ple mak­ing over $250,000 a year, a pro­pos­al con­tained in his 2012 bud­get, and chang­ing parts of the tax code he thinks be­nefit the wealthy. Until now, Mr. Obama has been lar­ge­ly ab­sent from the rag­ing de­bate over the long-term de­ficit. The White House has done lit­tle with the re­com­menda­tions of its own bi­par­tisan de­ficit com­miss­ion. And Mr. Obama's 2012 bud­get didn't offer many new ideas for tackl­ing en­tit­le­ment spend­ing, among the bi­ggest long-term drains on the feder­al bud­get. The White House move caught De­moc­rats in Con­gress off guard, ac­cord­ing to aides, and de­tails of the pre­sident's pro­pos­als were sketchy. Mr. Plouf­fe said the pre­sident will name a dol­lar amount for de­ficit re­duc­tion, al­though the White House would­n't pro­vide specifics. In­troduc­ing taxes into the dis­cuss­ion has the poten­ti­al to com­plicate the re­solu­tion of com­ing bud­get fights, specifical­ly the need to raise the debt ceil­ing, a move needed to pre­vent the U.S. de­fault­ing on its debt.
thinkahol *

Dean Baker: Attack Wall Street, Not Social Security - 0 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...ll-street-not-so_b_535018.html

attack wall street dean baker

shared by thinkahol * on 07 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.
  • thinkahol * on 07 Sep 10
     
    This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding health care costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the health care system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing health care is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy. The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US health care system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries. And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for health care as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our health care is paid through public sector programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in health care costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector. On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.
thinkahol *

Plan to 'mess with' Social Security would backfire - latimes.com - 0 views

www.latimes.com/...urity-20101122,0,1606236.story

Plan to 'mess with' Social Security would backfire - latimes.com

shared by thinkahol * on 23 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 23 Nov 10
     
    Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the co-chairs of President Obama's deficit commission, have signaled for months that they are not friends of Social Security. In August, Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, wrote that Social Security is "a milk cow with 310 million tits." Last February, Bowles, who made his fortune on Wall Street and served as a top aide in the Clinton White House, boasted in a speech to bankers, "We're going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
thinkahol *

Walker's Budget Plan is a Three-Part Roadmap for Conservative State Governanc... - 0 views

rortybomb.wordpress.com/...-conservative-state-governance

Walker's Budget Plan is a Three-Part Roadmap for Conservative State Governance « Rortybomb

shared by thinkahol * on 25 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 25 Feb 11
     
    Tim Fernholz wrote an excellent article in the National Journal about the "bait and switch" of Governor Walker's Wisconsin plan. Fernholz points out that the short-term deficit problem can be covered by debt restructuring, and that the big pieces of the bill that relate to dismantling public sector unions, control over Medicaid and creating a no-bid energy asset sale process are not directly budget related. There's a three-prong approach in Governor Walker's plan that highlights a blueprint for conservative governorship after the 2010 election. The first is breaking public sector unions and public sector workers generally. The second is streamlining benefits away from legislative authority, especially for health care and in fighting the Health Care Reform Act. The third is the selling of public assets to private interests under firesale and crony capitalist situations. This wasn't clear to me at first. I thought this was about a narrow disagreement over teacher's unions. Depending on what you read, you may have only seen a few of these parts, and you may have not seen them put together as a coherent whole. This will be the framework that other conservative governors, and even a few Democratic ones, will use in their state, so it is good to get a working model in place. In order to frame where it stands now, I'm going to chart this and give a set of descriptions and must-read links:
thinkahol *

The People's Budget - 0 views

readersupportednews.org/...5972-the-peoples-budget

The People's Budget

shared by thinkahol * on 21 May 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 21 May 11
     
    Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money. Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it's a political football. Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit. But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there's no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic "they're making me" move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive - eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich. If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn't have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure - by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich. I commend to you the "People's Budget," a detailed plan for doing exactly this - while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican's or the President's plan does. When I read through the People's Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists - forty years ago.
thinkahol *

The Good News in Wisconsin That the Media Isn't Covering | Common Dreams - 0 views

www.commondreams.org/...08-8

Good News in Wisconsin That the Media Isn't Covering | Common Dreams

shared by thinkahol * on 13 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 13 Jun 11
     
    This week in Madison, Wis., has seen the largest protests since a "budget repair bill" virtually outlawing collective bargaining proposed by Gov. Scott Walker inspired an occupation of the state capitol building and massive street protests this past winter. Now, thousands are protesting Governor's Walker drastic cuts to the social safety net and workers' rights, contained in his 2011-2013 budgets. The budget would cut education funding by $824 million and Medicaid by $466 million. Walker is making these cuts despite giving away nearly $320 million in tax cuts to big corporations
thinkahol *

Obama's "bad negotiating" is actually shrewd negotiating - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

www.salon.com/...index.html

Obama's bad negotiating is actually shrewd negotiating - Glenn Greenwald Salon.com

shared by thinkahol * on 13 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 13 Apr 11
     
    In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of "reform." Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President. All of that has led to a spate of negotiation advice from the liberal punditocracy advising the President how he can better defend progressive policy aims -- as though the Obama White House deeply wishes for different results but just can't figure out how to achieve them. Jon Chait, Josh Marshall, and Matt Yglesias all insist that the President is "losing" on these battles because of bad negotiating strategy, and will continue to lose unless it improves. Ezra Klein says "it makes absolutely no sense" that Democrats didn't just raise the debt ceiling in December, when they had the majority and could have done it with no budget cuts. Once it became clear that the White House was not following their recommended action of demanding a "clean" vote on raising the debt ceiling -- thus ensuring there will be another, probably larger round of budget cuts -- Yglesias lamented that the White House had "flunked bargaining 101." Their assumption is that Obama loathes these outcomes but is the victim of his own weak negotiating strategy. I don't understand that assumption at all. Does anyone believe that Obama and his army of veteran Washington advisers are incapable of discovering these tactics on th
thinkahol *

Obama, Democrats Open to Medicare Cuts - 0 views

readersupportednews.org/...emocrats-open-to-medicare-cuts

Obama Democrats Open to Medicare Cuts

shared by thinkahol * on 07 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 07 Jul 11
     
    Obama administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues.' Robert Pear, The New York Tim
Skeptical Debunker

Obama, Republicans clash at heated health summit - Yahoo! News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/...us_health_care_overhaul

health care summit rancor

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10
     
    "We have a very difficult gap to bridge here," said Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican. "We just can't afford this. That's the ultimate problem." With Cantor sitting in front of a giant stack of nearly 2,400 pages representing the Democrats' Senate-passed bill, Obama said cost is a legitimate question, but he took Cantor and other Republicans to task for using political shorthand and props "that prevent us from having a conversation." And so it went, hour after hour at Blair House, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House - a marathon policy debate available from start to finish to a divided public. The more than six-hour back-and-forth was essentially a condensed, one-day version of the entire past year of debate over the nation's health care crisis, with all its heat, complexity and detail, and a crash course in the partisan divide, in which Democrats seek the kind of broad remake that has eluded leaders for half a century and Republicans favor much more modest changes. With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, they were left with the critical decision about where to go next. Obama and his Democratic allies argued at Thursday's meeting that a broad overhaul is imperative for the nation's future economic vitality. The president cast health care as "one of the biggest drags on our economy," tying his top domestic priority to an issue that's even more pressing to many Americans.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10
     
    Of course the "we" in "We can't afford this" is the big health care monopolies (pharma, insurance, etc.). Supposedly, the country and people can afford the continued gouging by those special interests (up to 40% in some places this year alone!). Too, if the government were to find a way to "afford it" (disregarding that Medicare and Medicaid savings might pay for it altogether!), that would probably be on the "back" of the richest 5% and by reducing corporate and business subsidies (like those to oil companies, the military industrial complex, "big finance" bailouts and sweetheart Federal funds rates and "liquidity" pumping, non-risk underwriting for things like coastal flood insurance, etc., etc., etc.). Since that is the "invisible hand" that feeds most "conservatives" and Republican politicians, that would never do.
Skeptical Debunker

Robert Reich: It's Time to Enact Health Care Reform With 51 Senate Votes - 0 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...-to-enact-health_b_470805.html

reconciliation process Senate healthcare passage reasons robert reich

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 22 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Why haven't the President and Senate Democrats pulled the reconciliation trigger before now? I haven't spoken directly with the President or with Harry Reid but I've spent the last several weeks sounding out contacts on the Hill and in the White House to find an answer. Here are the theories. None of them justifies waiting any longer. Reconciliation is too extreme a measure to use on a piece of legislation so important. I hear this a lot but it's bunk. George W. Bush used reconciliation to enact his giant tax cut bill in 2003 (he garnered only 50 votes for it in the Senate, forcing Vice President Cheney to cast the deciding vote). Six years before that, Bill Clinton rounded up 51 votes to enact the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. Through reconciliation, we also got Medicare Advantage. Also through reconciliation came the COBRA act, which gives Americans a bit of healthcare protection after they lose a job ("reconciliaton is the "R" in the COBRA acronym.) These were all big, important pieces of legislation, and all were enacted by 51 votes in the Senate. Use of reconciliation would infuriate Senate Republicans. It may. So what? They haven't given Obama a single vote on any major issue since he first began wining and dining them at the White House. In fact, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and company have been doing everything in their power to undermine the President. They're using the same playbook Republicans used in the first two years of the Clinton administration, hoping to discredit the President and score large victories in the midterm elections by burying his biggest legislative initiative. Indeed, Obama could credibly argue that Senate Republicans have altered the rules of the Senate by demanding 60 votes on almost every initiative - a far more extensive use of the filibuster than at any time in modern history - so it's only right that he, the President, now resort to reconciliation. Obama needs Republican votes on military policy so he doesn't dare antagonize them on health care. I hear this from some quarters but I don't buy it. While it's true that Dems are skeptical of Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan and that Republicans are his major backers, it seems doubtful R's would withdraw their support if the President forced their hand on health care. Foreign policy is the one area where Republicans have offered a halfway consistent (and always bellicose) voice, and Dick Cheney et al would excoriate them if they failed to back a strong military presence in the Middle East. This is truer now than ever. Reid fears he can't even get 51 votes in the Senate now, after Scott Brown's win. Reid counts noses better than I do, but if Senate Democrats can't come up with even 51 votes for the health care reforms they enacted weeks ago they give new definition to the term "spineless." Besides, if this is the case, Obama ought to be banging Senate heads together. A president has huge bargaining leverage because he presides over an almost infinite list of future deals. Lyndon Johnson wasn't afraid to use his power to the fullest to get Medicare enacted. If Obama can't get 51 Senate votes out of 58 or 59 Dems and Independents, he definitely won't be able to get 51 Senate votes after November. Inevitably, the Senate will lose some Democrats. Now's his last opportunity. House and Senate Democrats are telling Obama they don't want to take another vote on health care or even enact it before November's midterms because they're afraid it will jeopardize their chances of being reelected and may threaten their control over the House and Senate. I hear this repeatedly but if it's true Republicans have done a far better job scaring Americans about health care reform than any pollster has been able to uncover. Most polls still show a majority of Americans still in favor of the basic tenets of reform - expanded coverage, regulations barring insurers from refusing coverage because of someone's preexisting conditions and preventing insurers from kicking someone off the rolls because they get sick, requirements that employers provide coverage or pay into a common pool, and so on. And now that many private insurers are hiking up premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, the public is even readier to embrace reform.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 22 Feb 10
     
    This week the president is hosting a bipartisan gab-fest at the White House to try to tease out some Republican votes for health care reform. It's a total waste of time. If Obama thinks he's going to get a single Republican vote at this stage of the game, he's fooling himself (or the American people). Many months ago, you may recall, the White House and Democratic party leaders in the Senate threatened to pass health care with 51 votes -- using a process called "reconciliation" that allows tax and spending bills to be enacted without filibuster -- unless Republicans came on board. It's time to pull the trigger.
Skeptical Debunker

Time for Democrats to take a risk - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

health care Senate reconciliation analysis

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 01 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Reconciliation was created through the Budget Reform Act of 1974 in an effort to streamline the budget process, strengthen the ability of Congress to make tough decisions regarding deficits, and to make legislative decision-making more efficient. Congress quickly expanded on the types of measures that could be considered under reconciliation until 1985 and 1986, when the Senate passed rules proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd that limited what could or could not be included when using this process. Before moving forward, Democrats must consider two questions. The first is whether using reconciliation to pass health care is legitimate or an abuse of the process. Republicans have charged that this would be akin to forcing the program through the chamber rather than passing the bill through negotiation and compromise. On this question, the answer is easy. Reconciliation has been as much a part of the Senate in the past three decades as the filibuster. According to an article that was published in The New Republic, Congress passed 22 reconciliation bills between 1980 and 2008. Many important policy changes were enacted through this process, including the Children's Health Insurance Program, COBRA (which allows people who switch jobs to keep their health care), student aid reform, expansions in Medicaid and several major tax cuts. NPR's Julie Rovner reported that most of the health care reforms enacted in the past two decades have gone through reconciliation. President Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to make aggressive use of reconciliation when he pushed through his economic program in 1981. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker said then that speed had been essential because "Every day that this is delayed makes it more difficult to pass. This is an extraordinary proposal, and these are extraordinary times." Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all used reconciliation as well. It is worth noting that these presidents, particularly George W. Bush, also made use of sweeping executive power to circumvent Congress altogether. The second question is more difficult and it involves perceptions. If the Democratic leadership wants to use this tactic, they have to convince enough members of their own party that this won't scare off independent voters. This argument was harder to make in 2009 than in 2010. But after a year of dealing with paralysis in the Senate and highly effective Republican obstruction, more Democrats are coming on board. The leadership must be proactive in responding to the criticism about reconciliation. They will have to explain that reconciliation is a legitimate process by pointing to the history. They will also have to connect the dots for voters frustrated with the ineffective government by explaining that the constant use of the filibuster has turned the Senate into a supermajority institution where both parties have found it extraordinarily difficult -- virtually impossible -- to pass major legislation.On this point, Republicans and Democrats actually agree. Indeed, as Democrats make this decision, Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning is objecting to a unanimous consent order and single-handedly preventing the Senate from passing an important bill to assist unemployed workers.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 01 Mar 10
     
    After the Republicans and Democrats met at the White House summit on health care, it was clear that the parties are very far away from a bipartisan agreement. Indeed, few participants walked away with the sense that they were any closer to a deal. The White House did make clear that it was willing to move forward on health care without Republican support. The choice now becomes whether Democrats should use the budget reconciliation process to pass some parts of health care legislation. According to recent reports, Democrats are considering having the House pass the bill that was already approved in the Senate and then dealing with a package of additional reforms through reconciliation.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 01 Mar 10
     
    Get that? The current "god" of conservatism - Ronald Reagan - used reconciliation aggressively. So if it was good enough for him ...
Omnipotent Poobah

Don't Blame Obama, America Did It To Itself - 0 views

omnipotentpoobah.com/...obama-america-did-it-to-itself

Barack Obama politics George W Bush Howard Dean John McCain Attila the Hun

shared by Omnipotent Poobah on 17 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Omnipotent Poobah on 17 Dec 09
     
    Obama is neither liberal nor conservative, he's a middle of the roader. It sure would've been nice if voters had noticed that before they elected him.
  • Frank Schreiber on 19 Dec 09
     
    I'd sure like to see Obama "kick some ass", instead of allowing the Repubs to do the same thing they've been doing for the past eight or nine years. Mainly bully and intimidate, and use scare tactics to get what they and big business want.
  • anonymous on 20 Dec 09
     
    Frank: The democrats have a 60 vote majority and Obama doesn't need them at all for anything. He pretty much has let them know "We Won!" He also has pretty much let them know he doesn't need them. This is a Liberal controlled White House, Senate and House. Stop the blame game. Let's put the focus exactly where everyone who is truthful, here, understands: On the Democratic controlled Administration and Congress. They have all the marbles and they don't need the Republicans' vote. The problem Obama has is that he realizes that there is going to be a bloodbath. Please, don't say otherwise - even his own people are starting to prepare the party. Why do you suppose four Democrats announced that they are retiring - they aren't even running over the next 10 1/2 months. More will reitre before election day. He has the same problem that Clinton had - he could possibly lose the House and he would then be somewhat in the same position of Clinton - who was forced to the middle because he would not be able to get anything else approved. I may be wrong, history will decide, but I think the American people no longer trust either party. Are you happy with the Democrats? We now have senators selling their vote for $300,000,000 in one instance and Sen. Nelson just got a permanent exemption for Medicaid cost that States have to pay - Forever! All 49 other states must pick up this states cost - all for one vote! Do you believe this is what the Democrats, Republicans or Independents expect or want from their government. I don't. Getting back to my point, the people of America don't trust either party, now, and want them closely divided so they don't do too much harm. Independents have swung away from Obama in a very big way. He ran more as a centrist and now people fill lied to. Seven days before he took office he said he was fundamentally going to change America. No one had heard this before - not "Fundamentally". They expected a far more bipartisan
Mike Ch

Health Care Reform Part 13--Baucus Plan = Health Insurance & Big Pharma Profit Enhancem... - 0 views

www.examiner.com/...Pharma-Profit-Enhancement-Bill

health care insurance companies Baucus Medicare public option Depression Medicaid

shared by Mike Ch on 17 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Mike Ch on 17 Sep 09
     
    The Baucus Bill has now been kicked to the curb by almost everyone who's heard anything about it. And rightly so. I'm going to kick it a little more myself, and give some specifics for doing so. In general, the Baucus bill has nothing to offer anyone, other than the health insurance industry.
thinkahol *

Obama Is Missing - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...11krugman.html

Obama Is Missing - NYTimes.com

shared by thinkahol * on 13 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice!
1 - 16 of 16
Showing 20▼ items per page