"Grover Norquist’s Last Laugh" -- Dems Got Rolled.. Robert Kuttner
Published on Friday, March 15, 2013 by The American Prospect
Grover Norquist’s Last Laugh
Democrats, can’t you see how you are getting rolled?
by Robert Kuttner
When President Obama got Republicans to raise taxes on the top one percent of income earners as part of the January deal that ended the threat of the fiscal cliff, some Democrats gloated that Republicans had been made to go back on the famous Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes. It appeared that Obama, fresh from his November victory and taking Grover Norquist, the man behind "the pledge." (Photo: AP)advantage of Republicans’ divisions, had won big.
Well, think again.
If you compare the leverage that Obama had in that set of bargaining with the leverage he has now in the post-sequester budget negotiations, it is like night and day. Had Obama hung tough and demanded a lot more in the way of tax increases on the wealthy, Republicans were just stuck—because no action would have caused taxes to increase on everyone. Obama had begun the bargaining requesting a reversion to the pre-Bush tax levels on the top two percent, targeting revenue increases of at least $1.6 trillion over a decade. Instead, he settled for just $620 billion—meaning that another billion has to be taken out of the spending side. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was holding out for the higher number, correctly calculating that Republicans would have to give ground, when Obama cut the ground out from Reid by shifting the leadership to Joe Biden with instructions to make more concessions, without even the courtesy of informing Reid. The White House also disastrously miscalculated that the threat of defense cuts in the sequester would bring Republicans back to the table on taxes. Oops. Republicans realize that Afghanistan is winding down, and what’s most interesting about the Paul Ryan budget is that its proposed defense spending over the next decade is scarcely different from the Democrats’ proposal.
I happened to be speaking at The Atlantic’s Economy Summit conference this week, where Norquist was also a speaker, and I had a chance to discuss the January and March budget negotiations with him afterward. According to Norquist, when House Republican negotiators were told that Obama would settle for as little as reverting to the pre-Bush tax rates only on the top one percent, they were astonished at their good fortune. Obama’s cave-in was almost too good to be true. As Norquist sees it, the White House was so fixated on the symbolism of getting Republicans to say “uncle” on some form of tax increases on the rich that Obama lost track of both the substance and the larger tactical situation. In late December, when the automatic tax increase of the fiscal cliff was the threat, Democrats held all the cards. Now, with the automatic spending cuts of the sequester in play, the Republicans hold the cards. Why, Norquist wondered, didn’t Obama hold out for only a one-year deal on tax cuts, so that the Democrats would have the leverage of automatic tax increases to hold over the Republicans in the sequester negotiations and next year.
Great idea! I’d never heard anyone propose that gambit.
"Who came up with that?" I asked. "I did," said Norquist. He was worried that the Democrats would think of it. The White House should hire this man.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/15-9
= new reply since forum marked as read
him and these vipers, who've done everything possible to destroy him, to like him, but it ain't gonna happen in this life. 
feel that he's either clueless, threatened, compromised...OR...that his beliefs are so in tune with Reagan (Celebrity President from Hollywood GE with lovely Wife who'd been a Movie Star) that he modeled his Presidency as to what in his "young years" most appealed to him...and it was REAGAN and not FDR.
That might be some "crux" of the problem. He identifies with ACTORS like Reagan and Michelle also feels that this is her incredible ROLE PLAY to be the Beautiful Accomplished Face for Women/Mothers Everywhere...in her Role Play.
Maybe there is just some Self-Deception with hero images of their aspirations and the TEE VEE they WATCHED and AMERICA as the LAND OF THE CELEBRITY.....that they just can't break out of...and I surely could understand that.
BUT...WHAT ABOUT US? 
Just throwing this out there trying to understand the Obama Administration from THEIR Life Experience as to what we are dealing through...living through.
Still trying to work through what's going on here in the Second Administration...after getting my butt out to VOTE ONCE AGAIN..(even thought I was very disappointed with Obama's Speeches and Promise and What happened in his First Administration).and finding that "something seems wrong about what's going on given what and who I voted for in his SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
At least that's what many Democrats thought.
He has not succeded in that...and he has in many ways FURTHERED BUSH...which is why many DU'ers who've been here a very long time fighting are so disappointed.
He's now into his SECOND TERM...If we don't STAND UP NOW against Expansion of Bush Policies then WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...and even the LEFT in the Dem Party going to be when a Repug (cyclical that a after a Two-Term the Opposite Party gets elected)...going to BE when the REPUGS STILL RULE for 8 Years of Bush and 8 YEARS OF "BUSH LIGHT or Bush CONTINUATION BUT HARDER?"
I'm distraught over this...as you can read and many other Dems are but they've left this Site and Mobilizing Elsewhere. I know some here want to say "GOOD RIDDANCE...BE GONE!" But, does that mean that you supported Repugs and Bush all ALONG?
Congressional "representatives" give a shit.
even for his second Administration.
I could understand. a young New Democratic President..."going with the flow" that his Elders picked for his First Admin...when he was new to get his grounding...
BUT..
Then..after all this Tragedy with America allowing BIG BANKSTER CROOKS to GET OFF..to SAVE AMERICA...he THEN..get's Re-elected by those of us skeptical...but...we were TOLD by our DEMOCRATIC PARTY..."Vote for Him Again!" ......He will be a Liberal for his Second Term....and THEN!.....Look at his picks for Second Term. You can Google yourself...I'm not into Grave Dancing....but...
"We Shall Be Known by Our Deeds." WHAT THE HELL was this "FRACING, GITMO (Hunger Strikes by Should be Released Prisoners), DRONE WARS (Collateral Damage Killing Innocents with Button Push) MONSANTO (owning the patent to ALL OUR SEEDS), Expanded Privacy (not answering to FOIA/ACLU/Common Cause/Brennan Center for Justice...etc.) SECRECY...when he PROMISED TRANSPARENCY...and ON and ON and ON...
What's Up with Him?
And let's not even talk about getting the famous 1% on the wealthy. Remember when it was for 'anyone earning over $250,000 a year'. Yeah, so do I. Not to mention the stealth drawback of the decrease in Social Securty retention in paychecks so that many Americans wound up with substantially less in their monthly pay. And, in return, what did we get - nothing but the promise of more obstructionism. And lets not even look ahead to the upcoming Debt Ceiling 'negotiations'. I never thought I would agree with anything Norquist had to say but I have to say I think he's right on the money on this.
...how do you expect anyone to take you seriously after that comment? I mean, how exactly does your opinion of the health care law prove that asshole right?
Not everyone is searching for validation from the likes of Norquist. Just because Republicans bow to this clown doesn't mean he's accomplishing a damn thing...just obstruction.
Eugene Robinson: Obama, winning the argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931
And my memory and reality are damn near on par.
The economy is recovering and Republicans are determined to destroy it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505883
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266
The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.
Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesn’t look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
Then there are the health care savings.
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
This helps:
Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924
The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.
b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.
c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services
a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.
b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.
c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.
d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.
New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451
Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922
Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967
Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762
The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
Grover Norquist and he did his report which is REPORTING...
Are you suggesting that people at conferences (where they were invited) are not to REPORT on Interviews they had with participants?
Why? So he could write a piece hyping this idiot?
