Lowering the Boom

Of course Medicare and Social Security are on the table. In a truly big way:

“It is my intention to leave Social Security as it is!” announced Trump in a March debate. He told the Heritage Foundation – the neoliberal far-right think tank that drafted the budget outlines used by Republicans in Congress – that “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Every other Republican is going to cut, and even if they wouldn’t, they don’t know what to do because they don’t know where the money is. I do.”

But it appears Donald Trump, pathological liar and ideological weathervane, is backtracking on his promises yet again. The Hill reports that the budget reductions are based off a Heritage Foundation outline, and a Mother Jones analysis found that this means the Trump Administration will be cutting Medicare by 41%, Medicaid by 41%, and Social Security by 8%.

The big reveal: Paul Ryan is Darth Sidious.

Why Is Paul Ryan Rushing to Repeal Obamacare?

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPo thinks it's because there's too much good news coming in about Obamacare and that it will start to push his caucus's constituents to start to make noise:

House Speaker Paul Ryan has vowed a quick repeal of Obamacare in order to “stop the damage” and because “things are only getting worse.”

Meanwhile, here is a selection of news reports from the past two weeks:

The Obama administration announced that the number of people signing up for insurance through HealthCare.gov, the federal website that 39 states use to administer Obamacare plans, is even higher than last year. State-run sites such as Covered California are reporting similar surges.

An independent think tank, The Commonwealth Fund, published a study showing that fewer people are skipping medical care because of cost ― most likely because, thanks to the health care law, so many more people have health insurance.

Standard and Poor’s Global Ratings reported that insurers selling Obamacare plans are seeing better financial results this year, suggesting that premiums are finally coming into line with the actual medical expenses of their customers ― and that this year’s big rate hikes may be a “one-time pricing correction.”

It’s possible that Ryan thinks these and similarly positive news items are irrelevant ― that the Wisconsin Republican has deluded himself into thinking Obamacare really is an unmitigated policy disaster, rather than a fairly typical government program full of pluses and minuses and the inevitable implementation complications that large reform efforts usually overcome.

It’s also possible that Ryan’s crusade to pass repeal in January has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics ― that he wants Congress to vote before the rest of the country, and maybe even the president-elect, wakes up to the real-life changes such a vote would unleash.

It could be, but aside from the fact that many House Republicans are pretty safe thanks to gerrymandering, getting this and many other things that will result in lower taxes for his backers is the highest priority, and he may only have two years to get them all through -- ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP, public education... these things will take time.

Having said that, delaying the vote in any way we can, for whatever reason, is a good idea. Also, protesting ACA repeal in districts like these would be terrific.

Flipping the Switch

Last night I was concerned about the sheer authoritarianism of Trump and his followers, but we also need to remember that there are extreme policy reasons for our leadership to do something about him before his Putin-pounded butt gets into the White House.

Medicare and Medicaid getting into Paul Ryan's grubby hands:

Under Ryan’s plan, once you reach retirement, instead of being automatically enrolled in Medicare, you will be given the option to buy insurance from a number of private plans. At first glance, this might not seem like a bad idea since the option to enroll in the traditional system will remain in place. However, it is very possible — and we would argue very likely — that this measure is only the first step towards a full privatization of the program.

Assuming the GOP can pass this bill, then  Ryan’s goal of privatizing Medicare will be that much closer to reality. If they are successful then it’s possible Social Security could be next.

Paul Krugman reminds us:

Does the GOP even care about the deficit? pic.twitter.com/xcESJgXhrT

— Jeffrey Levin (@jilevin) December 22, 2016

Then, there's a nightmare bill regarding civil rights going through Congress that I wasn't aware of:

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.

A few months ago, we thought we were done with the gay marriage arguments.

Once again, Republicans are terrible people. And now they're going to be extremely hard to stop. I have to keep reminding myself that despite my tendency to describe the approach of the Apocalyse, I really want to highlight potential ways to mitigate as much of the harm that we can. Rude Pundit has an idea that doesn't seem so wacky:

So while we're still tilting at the burning windmills of Russian interference and possible Obama spine-stiffening on things like Merrick Garland, let's not overlook one real Hail Mary pass on confronting Donald Trump and halting his history-demolishing agenda. What about trying to turn three Republican senators into Democrats (or, at least, turn independent and then caucusing with the Democrats)? It's crazy, sure, and unlikely, in that it relies on the possibility of there existing rational Republicans, but surely there are ones who have a gut-level fear of what Trump might do.

My guess is that it can't work. Of the Senators mentioned, I think Murkowski is the only realistic flip, because she might only be in the party because of her family history. Too many give McCain, Collins, and Graham credit, and I think they sold their souls long ago and are basically with Ryan on most policy issues. However, it really is worth a shot because it could be a world-saver. I would be SO much less nervous if the Democrats had one house of Congress.

I think the Democrats would do well to hire bloggers as strategists. Not kidding.

Normal

Hot off the presses from TPM...

Republicans apparently aren't going to be satisfied with phasing out Medicare. They're going to try to pass huge cuts to Social Security this year too. Not Bush-style partial phaseout but just big, big cuts. And you're out of luck even if you're a current beneficiary.

More shortly. (JASON'S UPDATE, 12/9/16, 5:02 PM: Here's the more)

I'm about to lose my lunch. They need to be stopped cold.

And here's a reason to do it.

President Barack Obama has directed U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct an investigation into hacking attacks related to the U.S. election and issue a report before he leaves office next month, White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco said.

The report, which will be provided to Congress but not necessarily made public, will examine what impact hacking by Russia may have had on the election last month, Monaco said Friday at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Reiterating what I said yesterday, only now 100X so:

This cannot be about "grace," or "hashtags," or "the burden of being the President of the United States." Donald Trump doesn't give a shit molecule about your "concerns" or "fears." It can't be about a "Sincere and Inspiring" farewell speech. It can't be about crossing our fingers and hoping Mitch McConnell doesn't end the filibuster or begging three Republicans to stand on the side of good on some issues when there is not a single issue or nominee on which the other side is pushing abject evil.

We need to hear more from how the top of our party plans to handle this and what we should be doing, because we're fighting the top of theirs. This is a state of emergency. No more words. Plans. Actions. Barack, Hillary, Joe, Tim, Nancy, Chuck... do something. 

Back to the Bloomberg story:

"We may be crossing into a new threshold and it’s incumbent upon us to take stock of that," Monaco said. The report will “impart lessons learned,” she said.

This also cannot be about "imparting lessons learned." This has to be about stopping history from repeating itself. All of the times the Republicans have gotten away with treason. Treason. No exaggeration.

Nixon and Vietnam:

President Johnson had at the time a habit of recording all of his phone conversations, and newly released tapes from 1968 detailed that the FBI had “bugged” the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and of Anna Chennault, one of Nixon’s aides. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, “Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.”

And Johnson let him off because:

Though the basic story of Nixon’s involvement in stalling the Vietnam peace talks has been around before, the new tapes, says the Atlantic Wire, describe how President Johnson knew all about the on-goings but chose not to bring them to the public’s attention: he thought that his intended successor, Hubert Humphrey, was going to beat Nixon in the upcoming election anyway. And, by revealing that he knew about Nixon’s dealings, he’d also have to admit to having spied on the South Vietnamese ambassador.

And Nixon became President for the next two terms.

Reagan's "October Surprise":

In January 1992 I published my first journalistic article ever. Published in Puerto Rico’s Claridad weekly newspaper, it was titled “The October Surprise”. In it I affirmed that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign bargained secretly with Iranian radicals for the postponement of the liberation of 52 Americans that they were holding hostage. These hostages were employees of the US embassy in Iran’s capital city of Teheran, which had been stormed by militants loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini in November 1979. This secret deal, known as the October Surprise, frustrated the attempts of US president Jimmy Carter to obtain the hostages’ release in time for the elections in November. This failure cost Carter his reelection, and swept Republican candidate Ronald Reagan into the presidency. Polls carried out before the election showed that the hostage issue was of top importance in the minds of the American electorate.

The Republican campaign’s main negotiators in this deal were George H. W. Bush, vice presidential candidate and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, and William Casey, the campaign’s director and veteran spook who spied for the Office of Strategic Services during World War Two. Once elected, president Reagan appointed Casey to direct the CIA.

The hostages were freed the same day Reagan was sworn in as his nation’s fortieth president on January 1981. What was in it for the Iranians? Weapons, tons of them. Iran needed them badly in order to repel an invasion by Iraq.

This one's not confirmed like the others, but given the context of the others, particularly the next one, is pretty damned likely. And Reagan ended up President for two terms.

Iran-Contra:

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا‎‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]

While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]

Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13] The Iran-Contra Affair and the ensuing deception to protect senior administration officials including President Reagan has been cast as an example of post-truth politics.

And we ended up with three terms of Bush presidencies.

There are others that are less talked-about, like Dana Rohrabacher's adventures in Afghanistan and his support of Russia in Crimea. And he's rumored to be up for Secretary of State.

So checking back in with "Cheeto Benito" (TM Rick Wilson),

“Why not get along with Russia?” Trump said, adding the Russians can help defeat Islamic State. On the perpetrator of the cyber attacks, he said, “it could be Russia, and it could be China, and it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

This is what Trump sounds like when he's doing what Chez Pazienza calls acting like "the kid in their class who never studies and forgets to do his homework and so basically just wings it." We know very well by now that if he's doing it in reference to something where the truth has been totally established, he's lying. Just like Rudy Giuliani lied about his contacts with the FBI, which fit in perfectly with all of the above, and meanwhile using the following projection over and over about Clinton:

Giuliani, who said that he prosecuted and jailed thousands of people for doing a fraction of what Hillary Clinton did, said the Wikileaks emails prove the Clinton camp intended to break the law.

Which Trump also did regarding Donna Brazile (and about Hillary other times on the stump):

“She should be fired from the DNC. By the way, could you imagine if I did that? Bobby what would happen to me if I did that?” Trump said, turning to Knight, who was off to the side. “Electric chair, I think. The electric chair. If I did that, can you imagine?”

And Qusay Trump took to the absolute lowest level with this:

"The media has been her number one surrogate in this. Without the media, this wouldn't even be a contest. But the media has built her up. They've let her slide on every indiscrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of the thing," Trump Jr. told Philadelphia-based conservative talk radio host Chris Stigall on Wednesday.

"I mean, if Republicans were doing that, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right now. It's a very different system -- there's nothing fair about it," Trump Jr. added.

Let's call them on it. Hillary did nothing wrong with her e-mails and they made references to gas chambers and execution. They are traitors and all of them should at least be in jail. LOCK THEM UP!

So, you know what? I'm not going to say this isn't normal, and I'm not going to say it's the new normal. It's been normal for 50 years, and we have to end it. Now. Democrats, are you listening? For all of our sakes, I really, really hope so. President Obama, call a State of Emergency, and sort this out. It may seem dictatorial, but we've got precedent.

Privatizing Medicare will be a Global Catastrophe

Back in 2004, many of us saw President Bush's reelection as a potential global catastrophe. We saw through the lies about the WMDs in Iraq and knew we were in uncharted territory being involved in two concurrent overseas wars.  But somehow everyone is getting the feeling that this is worse.

Guess what -- it's more than a feeling.

We can select from a whole host of issues being dredged up from feudal times and point to any of them as being wrong for this country, but to prevent a real global catastrophe, we need to point to the one thing that holds us together -- compassion.

There's no coincidence that former President Bush used the word hundreds of times during his 2000 campaign.  And while we can argue the merits of No Child Left Behind and his Medicare expansions as paydays for for-profit educational executives and investors, and Big Pharma, respectively, there's no question the average American household saw some benefit, either through expanded publicly funded tutoring or through the expanded prescription drug coverage from Medicare Part D.

Enter January 2017. Things will be different from Day One. One of the first things that the Republican Congress will pass (probably through reconciliation) is a revocation of any aspect of Obamacare that involves spending. The Republican plan would take advantage of reconciliation, a budget-related mechanism to circumvent the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and prevent Democrats from being able to block legislation on their own. From Bloomberg Politics:

The Republican plan would take advantage of reconciliation, a budget-related mechanism to circumvent the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and prevent Democrats from being able to block legislation on their own. By striking early, the GOP could set itself up to invoke the same procedure again later in the year on a broader range of targets, including tax cuts.

The quick-strike bill, like one vetoed earlier this year by President Barack Obama, H.R. 3762, would likely set what amounts to an expiration date for the law’s financial underpinnings, leaving Congress to act at a later date on any replacement plan. That’s because more than six years after the law’s passage, Republicans still don’t have a consensus on how to replace Obamacare. 

Subsidies will disappear, penalty conditions will be stripped, etc. Basically, they are going to gut the program. All signs point to the same thing happening to Medicare and Medicaid shortly thereafter. The remnants left behind will be a tax-credit based voucher program which people can use to subsidize purchases on the ObamaCare TrumpCare exchanges.

But what happens when people cannot afford to pay the difference between the voucher and the cost of being insured? If insurance companies are still mandated to cover preexisting conditions but can now use price discrimination to charge more for those individuals you can imagine that a lot of people over the age of 55 will be in dire straits.

And guess who foots the bill when people cannot pay? Through bankruptcy reform (which will be one of the next agenda items), we'll have companies like Accretive Health popping up to enforce payment before health services will be granted and/or collection agencies coming after family members.  So what then? Josh Marshall points out:

Remember the other things Medicare significantly guard against. If parents have insupportable medical bills or have no way to pay for care, they go to children. In the absence of any other options, that's how it should be. But that money comes out of other things: buying homes, putting kids through college. The social insurance model of Medicare has positive effects well beyond direct beneficiaries.

As an economist, I'd like to break this down numerically through the following scenario: In a typical American household, the Federal Reserve reports average household income is around $56,500. After taxes, that falls to around $43,000.  According to the BLS's consumer expenditures survey, $4,342 is spent on healthcare.

What happens when healthcare begins to eat up more than 10% because now each household will also be responsible for a portion of the healthcare of another household (or two or three)?  The problem is that healthcare is a necessity. And when needs take the place of wants in a household budget, that household no longer can afford to purchase as many manufactured goods because in this scenario, disposable income dissipates.  First, savings, already frighteningly meager, will dry up.  Then consumption will be hit.  That means American manufacturers will be adversely affected. That also means foreign countries like China will be adversely affected.  The inevitable result will be a global recession -- but potentially one that we cannot spend our way out of.

This is the one issue that is worth dying on a hill over. Call your Senators. Especially the GOP Senators. Tell them that healthcare should be untouchable. Tell them that a reconciliation vote to dismantle Medicare would be catastrophic. And then call your best prospects to challenge those Republicans in upcoming elections. They need to hear that their constituents are against privatization so they will be willing to challenge incumbent Republicans. Call family members and tell them what's  coming. But whatever you do, don't sit on this one.

Taking Action Against Tom Price

I don't think I do this sort of thing enough, but this one's both too important and at the same time potentially realistic to prevent:

Let's start calling to save Medicare, the ACA, Medicaid, abortion rights, and contraception, as well as to get Senators to reject Tom Price, period. We need all 48 Dems and three Republican Senators to hold the line firmly on this.

From Richard Mayhew:

Democrats who need a call to remind them that their base has their back:

• Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (202 224 6154) 

• John Tester (D-MT) (202 224 2644)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) (202 224 2043)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH) (202 224 2315)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV) (202 224 3954)
• Bob Casey (D-PA) (202 224 3954)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL) (202 224 5274)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN) (202 224 4814)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) (202 224 4822)

All of these Senators represent states that voted for Trump. Let’s get them some support and pushback.

The pressure [JASON'S EDIT: REPUBLICAN] list is much shorter

• Dean Heller (R-NV) (202 224 6244)

• Jeff Flake (R-AZ) (202 224 4521)

These Senators are up for re-election in 2018. Heller is actually vulnerable, Flake is a stretch goal.

The next round of Republican calls are to either the old line establishment (Bob Corker, Orrin Hatch) or to Senators who represent a lot of retirees (Shelly Moore Capito, Marco Rubio, both Georgia Senators, both North Carolina Senators)

So get calling.

I'm actually headed to a Planned Parenthood event, but I'll update this post later with phone numbers a few additions to these lists.

UPDATE (11/29/16 11:20 PM): Added phone numbers for above group and a couple of additional Republican Senators who I think MIGHT have a semblance of a soul and/or are also up for reelection in a blue state:

• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (202 224 6665)
• Cory Gardner (R-CO) (202 224 5941)
• Kelly Ayotte (R-ME) (202 224 3324)
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC-I'M REALLY REACHING) (202 224 5972)
• Bob Corker (R-TN-DITTO) (202 224 3344)

Just call the shit out of them...

Sticking with Jill Stein

... yes, I said that. I do not trust her motives for requesting the recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. I don't think I'd trust her motives for brushing her teeth in the morning.

It doesn't matter why she's doing it. What matters is that it happens. Trump's people, as well as the House Republicans, have showed us they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. So anything we can do to complicate their lives will slow down the rate at which they can roll back the 20th Century. And I'm not exaggerating here... I was going to write a post about the first casualty of the Trump administration being Obama's executive order expanding overtime (which, hopefully, Obama appeals in the next two months), but that's stuff that's expected from the Republican Party in 2016.

No, looks like they're thinking bigger. Child labor laws. Really.

The Acton Institute, a conservative nonprofit that is said to have received thousands of dollars in donations from Betsy DeVos and her family, posted an essay to its blog this month that called child labor “a gift our kids can handle.”

“Let us not just teach our children to play hard and study well, shuffling them through a long line of hobbies and electives and educational activities,” said the post’s author, Joseph Sunde. “A long day’s work and a load of sweat have plenty to teach as well.”

Lest you think Betsy is alone on this, remember Uncle Newt's comments on the topic a few years back:

Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.

Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called "truly stupid."

I guess it makes sense, given that these kids are going to have to save up to pay their parents' medical bills. (An aside here: Dems seem to think that they can beat the Republicans on Medicare in the court of public opinion. I have doubts that the Republicans care about public opinion right now. Medicare is a huge get for their donors. The cost of giving a few hundred Republican elected officials who lose their seats by ending Medicare pales in comparison to not having to pay payroll taxes on their employees for decades, let alone the benefits of removing a hefty piece of stability and security from the workforce.)

Hot off the presses, it looks like the Clinton campaign is joining the recount efforts, if only to demonstrate the integrity of the system.

And I'm on board with this recount effort too:

With the 2016 presidential election results having turned out to be the most bizarre and unlikely in our nation’s history, public sentiment has been growing by the day for a full recount in every close swing state. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than two million votes, meaning that the Electoral College mathematical path which Donald Trump took to victory is so incredibly narrow as to be highly suspicious. Even as a crowdfunded effort is well underway to cover the costs of recounts in the close swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, it turns out Florida state law does not allow a losing candidate to request a recount. Only Florida’s Secretary of State can call for a recount, and we’re calling on him to do just that.

If Trump can go Russian, we can too. Not one step back!

Can the States Protect Us?

I honestly don't know the answer; since the beginning of time, mostly for pretty nefarious reasons, including in recent years, have used the term "states' rights" and thrown around the Tenth Amendment to justify things like slavery, Jim Crow, and resisting federal measures like environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act.

Now, the shoe may be on the other foot, though we're in very strange and extreme territory, given that we've elected an unabashed fascist who is planning acts that are beyond the pale, including going door to door and rounding up immigrants, demonizing entire groups of people, and deporting American citizens.

So far, I've seen two states saying they're ready to step up and protect us against the looming storm.

One is New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo has been issuing a number of messages such as this one:

Those of us who have spent time in politics know that losing is part of the experience. Still, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s defeat on Tuesday was a particularly difficult experience, heartbreaking and bewildering and indeed frightening all at once. I wanted to share some thoughts on how we must acquit ourselves in the days ahead.

As Clinton said, when Donald Trump takes office, we will owe him an open mind and a chance to lead. The fate of the ship always takes precedence over the identity of the captain, and we must loyally do our part to protect the ship.

The night he became commander-in-chief, Donald Trump said he wanted to be President of all Americans. Despite the divisiveness of the campaign, he has an opportunity to live up to that promise by acting first on issues where there is common ground with his opponents. He said he wants to govern on behalf of forgotten Americans, and any time he does that, he can count on both Democrats and Republicans to help him achieve success.

Trump also said that he wants to rebuild America’s infrastructure. In that effort, he will find New York a willing partner as the Tappan Zee Bridge, a new La Guardia Airport, a new cross-Hudson Tunnel, and a revitalized Penn Station continue to rise.

But while we honor America by honoring the results of the election, we will fight as fiercely as we can, at every opportunity that presents itself, to reject the hateful attitudes that pervaded throughout the 2016 campaign. We cannot unhear what we have heard. The voices of the Ku Klux Klan, white nationalism, authoritarianism, misogyny and xenophobia. A generally disdainful view of American ideals.

We all hoped that when we woke up on Nov. 9 the ugliness of this campaign season would finally be gone. But on the day after Election Day, a swastika and the words “make America white again” appeared, spray painted on a softball dugout in Wellsville — in our state of New York.

 I cannot and will not pretend that these things are normal even if millions of Americans voted for a campaign either because of these values or in spite of them. I know there are millions more people like me — both Democrats and Republicans who reject them. As I said on other occasions, this election was for the soul of America, and that is why today so many of us feel as we do today; we are soul sick. But as we accept the results of the election, we do not accept these positions.

Americans fought these attitudes before the 2016 election, and we will fight them for as long as it takes to vanquish them. That is our mission, and our dedication to its success does not depend on the occupant of the White House. Americans pledge themselves to “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” One election does not erase that commitment.

We Democrats are not without resources. In Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats in Congress have leaders who are brilliant parliamentarians, and who will advance our causes even as they will provide a bulwark for our values. But let us also look to our state governments as places where progress can be made. One of the reasons why so many of the programs of President Roosevelt’s New Deal proved effective is that he had tried them out while he was governor of New York. Initiatives like Marriage Equality were enacted in New York and other states before they became the law of the land. Congress has refused to act on gun control, but we enacted a tough law in New York, and California, Nevada, and Washington strengthened their gun laws on Tuesday.
While the world struggles to come to consensus on how to combat climate change, we in New York have banned fracking and set a renewable energy standard requiring 50% of our electricity to come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2030. This year in New York State, we enacted a $15-an-hour minimum wage, the nation’s best Paid Family Leave program, and dedicated more funding to education than ever before. And in this state, we accomplished these successes with a divided legislature: Democrats and Republicans coming together, proving you can be progressive and bipartisan. Indeed, there is more than one path to progress.

Soon enough we will see what proposals will find their way into the President-elect’s agenda. Already it seems almost every far-right Republican under the sun is seeing Trump’s electoral college victory a mandate to enact sweeping ideas and radical proposals, regardless of the pain that is inflicted and the turmoil that is caused. I have great faith that common sense will eventually prevail, and that our traditional American values of justice, liberty and equality will eventually rule the day.

In the end, they always have.

Both Democrats and Republicans have fought for these values throughout our nation’s history — from the time when Abraham Lincoln declared we were a nation with malice toward none and charity for all, to when a young Senator from the State of Illinois said: There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The way has not always been easy, nor has the cost been cheap; but for whatever this moment demands of us, we are ready.

My father Mario Cuomo spent his entire life fighting against the death penalty, even when it wasn’t popular, even when it cost him the governorship, because he knew it was right. I will fight against the targeting of Muslims, immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and for the rights of all Americans every day I hold office and every day after that.

For our values, for our rights, for our vision of America, for the people who depend on us, we will fight. And for that, we are unwilling to compromise. 

 

I've also seen something similar from the California state legislature:

 

SACRAMENTO – California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) released the following statement on the results of the President election:

 

Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California.

 

We have never been more proud to be Californians.

 

By a margin in the millions, Californians overwhelmingly rejected politics fueled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny.

 

The largest state of the union and the strongest driver of our nation’s economy has shown it has its surest conscience as well.

 

California is – and must always be – a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love.

 

California has long set an example for other states to follow. And California will defend its people and our progress. We are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress at the height of our historic diversity, scientific advancement, economic output, and sense of global responsibility.

 

We will be reaching out to federal, state and local officials to evaluate how a Trump Presidency will potentially impact federal funding of ongoing state programs, job-creating investments reliant on foreign trade, and federal enforcement of laws affecting the rights of people living in our state. We will maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal.

 

While Donald Trump may have won the presidency, he hasn’t changed our values. America is greater than any one man or party. We will not be dragged back into the past. We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.

 

California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.

I have more questions than answers on this.

Immigration is an area where I think these states can step up; perhaps I'm naïve, but I just can't see Donald Trump sending ICE agents in huge numbers from door to door in New York or Los Angeles. But will these states openly continue to invite in new immigrants?

How about the following areas addressed in one or more of these letters?

Trade: How free are the states to set their own trade deals with foreign countries or violate ones made by the federal government?

Energy: Can the states block the federal government from opening up lands to extraction, particularly interstate projects like the Dakota Pipeline? Additionally, "dirty" energy companies have taken some actions to prevent renewables from taking over; what happens if they lobby the federal government to outright ban them? Renewables are a huge industry in many states.

Gun Control: The Supreme Court has certainly overruled the decisions by municipalities to control the types of weapons they can prevent from entering their communities. This could certainly get hairy... what if the federal government manages to legalize open carry everywhere, for everyone, and members of one state, say, New Hampshire, start brandishing guns in Boston?
Minimum Wage: In 2014, Oklahoma banned any local municipalities from raising their minimum wages above the state minimum wage. What would happen if the federal government abolished the federal minimum wage and then banned the states from having their own? Or even if they did the former, but not the latter? An increase of a few dollars has been shown not to affect employment levels, but what if New York has a $15 minimum wage while its neighbors have none at all?

And even beyond that, a lot of funding for Medicaid comes from the federal government, and Medicare and Social Security are totally coming from the government. It's likely block grants for Medicaid are coming down the pike, and more responsible states like California and New York will probably make that work. How about Social Security and Medicare? Can states collect their own taxes and make distributions for that purpose? Would that concept even be popular in "blue" states? See what happened in both Vermont and Colorado when they put single payer health care up for a vote.

What if federal housing and education grants disappear? Can the states make up the difference by not sending money to the federal government? In general, can we change tax policy so the residents of these states remit less in income tax to the federal government and more to the state? I'd be inclined to think that even if allowed, it would be politically unfeasible.

Boy, is John Calhoun probably laughing in his grave...

Some More on Medicare

I'm feeling a little paralyzed tonight, so I'm going to just share some reading.

Here's an update on Ryan's plans for Medicare from TPM.

My long experience with this is that members of Congress will try as hard as they possibly can not to state a position. It keeps their options open. There's safety in numbers. But that's how deeply unpopular laws get passed. People can't figure out who is doing what. A bill passes. And then it's too late. Real reporting on an issue like this means finding out where people actually stand. They will only say so if there's political pressure.

I've had a few conversations with people who say Medicare can't be repealed or privatized because people won't let it happen, and this is how it does. Congress doesn't say much so people aren't aware about what's going on.

We really need solutions, and I'm not seeing who is going to step up. All of my heroes -- Obama, Hillary, Bernie, Liz Warren -- all seem to be conciliatory towards Trump and ready to accept what happens next. Perhaps that's because there is no mechanism for stopping any of it, or because they're afraid Trump might "lock them up," or perhaps they have something up their sleeves. I just hope the best Democratic minds are working hard on this and the other disasters the Republicans have planned.

It's going to be a long four years, and we're still two months away from it.

Damage Control: Medicare Privatization

As I mentioned overnight, I will be creating a list of things that Democrats have to try to block the Republicans are doing, and trying to come up with ideas for how we can do so.

I've been warning people around me for more than a decade that Medicare was on the chopping block if the Republicans ever consolidated power. The response was usually, "They wouldn't really do that. The seniors would protest." Well, it appears to be the first item on dead-eyed Paul Ryan's agenda, and it's coming soon to a country near you:

Paul Ryan has been pushing to phase out Medicare and replace it with private insurance for several years. But now it's real with unified Republican government. He just said he will try to rush it through early next year while repealing Obamacare.

 .

.

.

There are a couple key points to note here. 

First, Ryan claims that Obamacare has put Medicare under deeper financial stress. Precisely the opposite is true. And it's so straightforward Ryan unquestionably knows this. The Affordable Care Act actually extended Medicare's solvency by more than a decade. Ryan's claim is flat out false. 

Second, I've heard a few people say that it's not 100% clear here that Ryan is calling for Medicare Phase Out. It is 100% clear. Ryan has a standard, openly enunciated position in favor of Medicare Phase Out. It's on his website. It's explained explicitly right there. 

Ryan says current beneficiaries will be allowed to keep their Medicare. Says. It's the cord is cut between current and future beneficiaries, everything is fair game. For those entering the system, Ryan proposes phasing out Medicare and replacing it private insurance with subsidies to help seniors afford the private insurance. That is unquestionably what it means because that is what Ryan says. So if you're nearing retirement and looking forward to going on Medicare, good luck. You're go on to private insurance but you'll get some subsidies from the government to pay the bill.

So yes, he's planning to do it, and I don't even know why he's bothering to lie about it at this point. Unless Mitch McConnell is not going to kill the filibuster (and I see no reason why not), this will be fairly easy for him to do legislatively. Practically, it's a lot more difficult (making the move to private insurance subsidies, if it can be done at all, will be pretty tough to pull off). It wouldn't shock me if he just left us with nothing.

We could protest, but as I mentioned in another post, Republicans just aren't grassroots people. Nobody other than their donors are asking for this. People love Medicare, and Ryan knows it. Still, if he could get rid of Medicare taxes, that's more money in the pockets of billionaires. Say he replaces Medicare and Social Security (that's coming too) with nothing, and gets rid of the 7.65% payroll tax on both the employee and employer side for them. Yes, that's $3,825 annually in the pocket of someone making $50,000. However, one cancer surgery could cost $200,000 and that would no longer be covered. And that person would also likely not receive $15,000+ annually in Social Security after turning 65. And from an employer with 5,000 employees, they're saving $19,000,000+ per year, which of course will not go back into the hands of employees. Additionally, and this is probably more important to employers, it leaves workers with no guarantee of anything when they retire, so the employees will do anything to keep their jobs, even if it means significantly lower pay.

Like nearly everything else the Republicans are chomping at the bit to do, this is horrible for the American worker.

In the absence of a legislative solution, what can we do? Outright protests against "privatization" (just like with "repeal and replace Obamacare." I'm pretty sure they'll replace it with nothing)? Mass targeting of Republicans 55+ for defection from the party?

For each of these issues, I'll be looking for thoughts and out-of-the-box solutions from readers. There are plenty of others coming.

Any thoughts? List 'em in the comments.