Rally at Toomey's Office at Noon Today

Sen. Pat Toomey (Tea Party-PA) is a favorite son of both the Club for Growth and the teahadists. Pennsylvania's junior Senator believes in magic -- he believes that tax cuts create revenue. Not only did he sign Grover Norquist's anti tax pledge and voted no on raising the debt ceiling, he believes the best course of action during the 2008 financial meltdown would have been to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may.



Of course, this meant that he was deemed to be eminently qualified to become a member of the "Super Congress."



If you believe that what Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the country needs is jobs and not tax cuts. If you believe that the past decade of tax cuts for the "job creators" has only made the rich richer and not produced the promised jobs. If you believe your own lying eyes and not the smoke being blown up your ass, then this rally is for you:



August 2011 Recess Action

Station Square - Toomey's Office

100 West Station Square (Map)

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Thursday, August 18th, 12:00 PM

This action is being sponsored by many groups including MoveOn, OnePittsburgh, We Are One, Democracy for Pittsburgh, and, undoubtedly many more.



There's strength in numbers -- join us!



Many of the groups are meeting at the Stattion Square T station at 11:45 to walk over together.



Also, if you listened to Lynn Cullen's show yesterday, you know to expect to see her and Pittsburgh City Paper Editor Chris Potter there too.

.

Senator Toomey Votes To Phase Out Medicare

From Talking Points Memo:

The GOP continued its bloody walk into the Medicare buzzsaw Wednesday, when 40 out of 47 Senate Republicans voted in support of the House GOP budget, and its plan to phase out and privatize the popular entitlement program.

The test vote failed by a vote of 57-40. But the roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.

Here's the roll in case you don't believe me.

Ezra Klein described how the phase out would occur:

To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs.

With no guarantee, of course, that any insurance company will actually sell the senior with the voucher the insurance he or she was given the voucher to buy. Medicare is guaranteed. Hence the phase out.

And the backlash? We read this from the AP:

They're not buying it. Most Americans say they don't believe Medicare has to be cut to balance the federal budget, and ditto for Social Security, a new poll shows.

The Associated Press-GfK poll suggests that arguments for overhauling the massive benefit programs to pare government debt have failed to sway the public. The debate is unlikely to be resolved before next year's elections for president and Congress.

Americans worry about the future of the retirement safety net, the poll found, and 3 out of 5 say the two programs are vital to their basic financial security as they age. That helps explain why the Republican Medicare privatization plan flopped, and why President Barack Obama's Medicare cuts to finance his health care law contributed to Democrats losing control of the House in last year's elections.

TPM added:

To shelter GOP dissidents from the vote to privatize Medicare, but also to shore up their bona fides on the right, the Senate also held a test vote on a similarly austere alternative budget authored by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

But the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out:

At first blush, the Toomey plan may seem more moderate than the Ryan budget, which the Senate also will likely consider this week. That’s because the Toomey plan does not include Chairman Ryan’s controversial proposal to replace guaranteed Medicare benefits with vouchers that would cover part of the cost of purchasing private health insurance — a provision that would raise total health care spending attributable to Medicare beneficiaries and more than double out-of-pocket costs for a typical 65-year-old beneficiary in 2022. (Neither plan proposes savings in Social Security.)

But, in several ways, the Toomey budget is more radical than the Ryan plan. While it essentially mirrors the Ryan plan in proposing deep cuts in nondefense discretionary programs, it proposes much deeper cuts in entitlement programs other than Medicare — and relies on a rosy economic scenario and fanciful assumptions about tax collections — to claim it produces modest surpluses in 2020 and 2021 instead of the approximately $400 billion deficits in each of those years under the Ryan plan.

Meanwhile, the CBPP has something interesting to say about the deficit:

Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

Here's Figure 1:

They add:

The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.

So dealing with the deficit by phasing out Medicare (or cutting other entitlements) makes perfect sense to Pat Toomey and those other 39 Republican Senators. Let's make sure those millionaires and billionaires keep their Bush Era tax cuts! That'll solve this budget problem (the one that Bush caused) for sure!

It's Not Only In The House

The anti-science, I mean.

Yesterday I blogged on this curious piece of anti-science legislation. In it all the House Republicans and 19 House Democrats (including our own local Jason Altmire) voted in favor of, among other things, voids the EPA finding that:

[G]reenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.

The EPA administrator based that finding on science. The House of Representatives didn't.

The thing I didn't notice last night was that the legislation has oozed it's way over to the Senate as an amendment from our good friend Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The amendment, to S.493, is according to Thomas.gov:

SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 - Title I: Reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs - (Sec. 101) Amends the Small Business Act (the Act) to reauthorize through FY2019 the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The SBIR and STTR programs are meant to spur on scientific and technological innovation. How you get that from voting down a scientific finding is beyond me.

Guess, just guess, who's a cosponsor of this lil bit of anti-science?

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

Looks like more evidence supporting the general idea that the GOP is the anti-science party.

More On Toomey's "Pay China (And The Banks) First" Bill

Remember that bill?

We updated you on it here. Before we go any further, we should reiterate who would get "paid first" with Toomey's bill. In my blog post, I quoted TPM and they wrote:

According to economist Dean Baker, who heads the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the debt is fairly spread out, but a disproportionate chunk is held by large financial institutions -- the same institutions that triggered the financial crisis. That crisis, and the economic downturn it created, cost the Treasury a tremendous amount of revenue, and accelerated the country's march toward its debt limit. Now, many of those same financial institutions want to be at the front of the line if the country nears default.

That's who Toomey wants to pay off first.

The bill's been tabled. For more, here's Dan Malloy of the P-G:

The Toomey bill -- brought to the floor as an amendment to a patent reform bill and co-sponsored by Louisiana Republican David Vitter -- would have required the government to service the debt first if the cap is reached. Toomey argued this would take the threat of a default off the table, thus giving him and his cohorts more room to negotiate budget concessions (probably the real reason the bill went down).

Toomey mixed it up with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke about his proposal in hearings, but the Obama administration kept up its line that failing to raise the debt ceiling would bring on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or something like that. Congressional Democrats also had a snappy nickname for the bill: Pay China First (pay no mind to the fact that most of the debt is domestically held).

That last link goes back to the Christian Science Monitor piece mentioned by TPM. But let's put some nuance into Malloy's "most is domestically held." From the CSM:

At the end of 2010, about 53 percent of US debt held by the public was held domestically, according to a recent study from the Congressional Budget Office.

Within this slice, the largest category is individuals – Treasury notes are good solid additions to any portfolio. US individuals hold 12 percent of the country’s debt. Next under the domestic category comes the Federal Reserve, which holds 9 percent of US debt, then pension and retirement funds, mutual funds, and state and local governments.

Foreigners hold about 47 percent of US public debt. And yes, the largest foreign holder here is China – but only by a hair. Chinese investors are owed 9.8 percent of US debt. Next comes Japan, at 9.6 percent, and the United Kingdom, at 5.1 percent.

53-47 ain't that much of a spread. So yes most is domestically held (and of that a large chunk is held by some of the same financial institutions that triggered the downturn in the first place) but almost the same amount isn't. And about 10% of the National Debt is owed to the Chinese.

That's who Toomey wanted to pay off first. Good thing he failed at getting his bill passed. Let's hope he continues to fail similarly.

The message from the GOP is that money protects money and the rest of us will just have to learn to sacrifice.

More on Toomey's "Pay China First" Bill

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey has a great idea for if (IF) the Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling.

TPM has a closer analysis of who would get paid (hint: it ain't only China):

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) recently proposed a stop-gap measure to prioritize paying off interest on U.S. debt in the event that the country reaches its debt ceiling. Democrats have attacked this plan as a "pay China first" proposal, which will disadvantage American retirees and veterans who are also owed money by the Treasury.

But who would really get the money? Well, yes, China. But so too would many other countries, institutions, and individuals in the United States. The Christian Science Monitor has a handy breakdown here.

About 53 percent of U.S. debt held by the public was held domestically. Says CSM, "Within this slice, the largest category is individuals - Treasury notes are good solid additions to any portfolio. US individuals hold 12 percent of the country's debt. Next under the domestic category comes the Federal Reserve, which holds 9 percent of US debt, then pension and retirement funds, mutual funds, and state and local governments."

According to economist Dean Baker, who heads the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the debt is fairly spread out, but a disproportionate chunk is held by large financial institutions -- the same institutions that triggered the financial crisis. That crisis, and the economic downturn it created, cost the Treasury a tremendous amount of revenue, and accelerated the country's march toward its debt limit. Now, many of those same financial institutions want to be at the front of the line if the country nears default.

As I wrote back then, money protects money - and the rest of us will just have to sacrifice.

Even the House Republicans are "quietly dismissive" of the Toomey plan:

The conservative Republican Study Committee, which boasts a membership that comprises two-thirds of the Republican Conference, is pushing a bill that would forestall a “must pass” vote in Congress by giving the Treasury Department added authority to prioritize debt payments and prevent a full default if the ceiling were reached.

The legislation “assures lenders that their investments in the United States government are entirely safe,” said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), the lead House sponsor. “Congress will still have to deal with the issue of the debt limit. It simply takes a default off the table.”

[Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner has called the legislation, originally authored by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), “unworkable” and potentially “quite harmful.”

Boehner has ignored the proposal, and GOP leadership aides are privately dismissive of it. One staffer said the bill would give “unprecedented power to the White House and the Treasury Department to pick who’s going to get paid.”

Yea, that's the reason it's such a bad idea. The House Republicans fear the wrong people might get paid first!

Money protects money.

No surprise

Hmm, the DSCC looks fairly prophetic right about now, no?


(From October 2010)
.

Senator Toomey's Solution To Our Debt Ceiling "Crisis"

He spelled it out in this WSJ piece:

For months, some political leaders and commentators have argued that failure to raise the debt ceiling would necessarily cause the U.S. to default on its debt. President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors chairman, Austan Goolsbee, recently warned, "If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity. I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling."

In fact, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 67% of all government expenditures. With roughly 10 times more income than needed to honor our debt obligations, why would we ever default?

To make absolutely sure, I intend to introduce legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised. This would not only ensure the continued confidence of investors at home and abroad, but would enable us to have an honest debate about the consequences of our eventual decision about the debt ceiling.

He doesn't want to do this, [nudge] but if the ceiling isn't raised, then [nudge, nudge] spending cuts will have to be [wink, wink] sudden and severe [say no more!].

TPM has an analysis of Toomey's legislation.

If passed, Toomey's plan would require the government to cut large checks to foreign countries, and major financial institutions, before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury -- that is, if the U.S. hits its debt ceiling.

In three words: Pay China First!

But let's be clear. As The National Review Online points out:

The Full Faith and Credit Act, as the bill is called, would “require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised.” However, as Toomey points out in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, he is not arguing that the debt ceiling should not be raised. Rather, he argues that the impending vote is an opportunity to enact meaningful spending reductions and reform. “Congress should make increasing our debt contingent on immediate cuts in spending and effective reforms of the spending process that helped get us into this mess,” he writes. “We can do so without jeopardizing the full faith and credit of our country — and we should.” [emphasis added.]

That's where they're going. If you don't let us cut the spending now, we'll have legislation in place to severely cut the spending later. Banks first, people later.

The folks who caused the economic downturn (aka those benefiting from the GOP-led deregulation of the financial industry) will still get paid while the people who need the help have to shoulder the burden.

Money protects money. The rest of us have to sacrifice.

That's what the GOP wants. That's what Pat Toomey wants.

Greetings from Pennsylvania

.

AP calls it for Toomey

.