What's the story with 'slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars'?

Rep. Grayson made this same point well yesterday on CNN. Its time for others to chime in. The fact that the Republicans are not on the defensive only goes to highlight further the need for unity among Democrats, something that never seems possible.

Time to cut them lose. Move ahead without them, and relegate them to the sideline.

What's the story with 'slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars'?

He is referring to the proposal, in some plans, to fund this reform by cutting about $50 billion dollars a year from medicare by eliminating waste and redundancies in the program. A lot of this is actually not money that goes to Medicare but rather to the Medicare Advantage program which is basically a giveaway to insurance companies for supplemental insurance programs that few seniors use and none actually need. So, in the guise of protecting Medicare, McConnell is actually doing his best to protect insurance company profits.

if you go back and read Obama's speech in August in portsmouth new hampshire, he explains the savings from medicare so even a three year-old could understand, but, uh, not mitch mcconnell.

mcconnell. whose head looks like a clenched fist, is just about the finest piece of work kentucky could send to the clown car senate -- except maybe for their other one, the crazy guy...

heh... 'talking to reporters on the hill'

and was mcconnell challenged on his numbers that he cited?

as usual, awesome reportering.

This fight isn't about health care. It is about who controls the White House and Congress.

Philosophically, Democrats believe in a government that helps promote the concept of 'all men are created equal', and the 'pursuit of life, liberty, and happyness.'

And the Republican philosophy is Small Government,Big Business, weak-if any- rules and regulations, and laissez faire/the Law of the Jungle.

That the American People are confused about the health care issue is largely a media generation confusion.

-Guess who owns the media. . .

This is simpler than it appears: earlier this year, Luntz told Rs that the one thing they must NOT do, is appear to be "against reform".

Obama has evidently decided for Democrats that the one thing we must NOT do, is appear to be not trying to work with Rs.

What happens when (if?) Ds simply say -- VERY publicly -- we tried, but they won't work with us. We took their best ideas, but they're simply against reform -- so we pass it and Obama signs it and we will let the voters decide what they think.

When somebody is bluffing, you call. Are we bluffing?

Like Steven Colbert Tuesday night with the Republican Word of the day calendar...Every day a big NO. Its all they've got.

The Democrats need to look at the last election and see if the American people voted for Republican philosophy or Democratic. Which is it?

If the Republicans won't constructively work with the people that we elected, then they should be relegated to the back of the bus. If the Democratic leadership think its important to let the Republicans and the blue dogs have their way and scuttle the change we elected them to enact, then the Democrats are heading back to minority party status. How the hell are they going to motivate us next election? By telling us the Republicans are worse than they are. Except that's only partly true, and it won't work. We voted for change, dammit, not "compromise" with the "no-nothing" party.

Next election many progressives will sit it out, unless the Democrats finally learn to play hardball with the Republicans.

I agree with Racer X. Bush said during the last campaign "Everybody's always for Change." Nuh-uh. Neither he nor Gore ran on a "Change" platform in 2000. Both of them ran on a platform promising incremental changes at most. That's why the press corps worked so hard to undermine Gore's personal image and perceived trustworthiness. Republicans had no issues where they were better than Democrats.

If meaningful health care reform with a public option isn't passed then 2010 will be a bloddbath for the Democrats.

If meaningful health care reform with a public option is passed then the Republicans sink into the swamp.

It's really go for broke for both sides.

Does anyone honestly think that if in 2005 during the Social Security debate the Republicans had 60 members in the Senate they would have any problem with saying, "You don't like it? Tough. We do. We have 60. We think it's best for the country. Deal with it." And the media would lap it up.

The fact that zero Republican Senators will vote for a health care reform bill that is not mutilated out of existence is of zero importance.

What is critical is that the Democrats compromise with the Republicans. If the Democrats do not compromise, then no person will be able to say that the resulting legislation has any legitimacy. Compromise does not mean that the Democrats have to give everything to the Republicans. 99.8% will be sufficient. Compromise by the Democrats does not mean that any Republicans have to vote for the compromised legislation.

Remember the age old saying: When you have wormy rotten apples, make apple cider. Then make it into hard cider, get drunk and be happy.

NOW can we stop listening to the Republicans? They have NOTHING to contribute.

Fine....then at any & every interview, news conference, Sunday morning show, articles and votes should reiterate these comments by the GOP leader. The Dems need to take these kinds of statements need that are the honest ones and throw them out there for all those tea baggers and town hallers, radicals, and nutjobs to hear constantly. Then and only then will people start to see the GOP for what they are - idiots.

Our elderly and the folks that have been swindled by the stupid comments from Palin & Broun & other morons from the GOP need to hear that they are not for them at all they are for themselves and only against this administration.

Shorter Mitch McConnell: "Over your dead body!"

Dig deeper under "Democrats and Republicans want different things,...", and the truth is even creepier than an obstructionist minority getting in the way of a fully well-intentioned majority. First of all, the minority shouldn't be able to require 60 votes in the Senate, and it's past due to dismantle the easy-filibuster system. Second, leading "thinkers" among Republicans want health care reform to fail for political reasons, not even just their already execrable favoring of the insurance industry and reflexive market fundamentalism. Third, the Democrats aren't as noble as they sort of seem. Although they do feel pressed to compromise to get things done (at least, under the current inexcusable power-sharing system), they get lobby money too. They are giving in too much to the industry. If mandates to be insured are combined with no public option, the result will be a tyranny and hand-off to the insurance industry, not "reform."

Steve, you need to make this case more often, not just phone in more horse-race reports

"There's (sic) supposed to oppose what the majority wants."

No. It is the duty of every responsible political party, majority or minority, to attempt to work for the best interests of the country as a whole. Opposing ideas merely for the sake of being in opposition is the mark of a bunch of selfish, power-hungry jerks.

While I admire the attempts to "bring" a bipartisan atmosphere into the political debate, I just don't think it's worth the effort anymore.

The minority has become the LOUDEST, as if shouting ever solves anything.

The minority is basically a bunch of spoil sports who would rather bully than govern.

From this point forward, let 'em either join us or shut up.

Face it folks, the rancor is getting old.

Legislation does involve compromise to a certain extent, it does not mean bending over backward so far that...well you get the picture.

Victory, you don't go far enough. If the Retricklicans had 51 Senate votes back then, they would have tried to block filibuster and ram it through. Heck, even with 50 votes, they'd have done that and gotten Cheney to put it over; could they have.

Steve, democrats can be stupid, but do you seriously believe that democrats don't know what's going on?

Democrats are not suffering from the delusion that they will get bipartisan support for their proposals for the very reasons you stated: democrats are proposing solutions that offend republicans.

The reason why they consistently harp about bipartisanship is because it polls well with independents--that's it.

In the end, democrats might secure the votes of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and that is all. But if the public believes that the democrats acted in good faith only to be rebuffed by republicans, then it all redounds to the benefit of the democrats.

I also think the Democratic base would welcome a show of strength by our weak leaders. Go over to Actblue.com and see that Alan Grayson, the rep from Florida who had the balls to tell it like it is, is now #4 on the "Hot List" for donations!

We want our leaders to lead. And to take to heart the results of the 2008 election. We want CHANGE and we voted for it in 2008. We will reward those who come through with that change in 2010.

This isn't news; it has been obvious to everyone but Obama and the Democrats since before day one. If they can't deliver robust healthcare reform, they should leave it alone.

"Republicans are the opposition party. They're supposed to oppose what the majority wants."

Mandy Cat beat me to it. This "opposition party" BS that's caught on with some liberals needs to be put down. Not just for the moral and ethical reasons MC points out, but for purely practical considerations.

The U.S. government is not built and does not function like a Euro-style parliament. How does this "opposition party" BS work when the Senate is split 52 to 48? When one party has the Senate and the other controls the House? When one party has Congress but the President is on the other side? How's it supposed to work when one party runs the federal government but the other party controls a state?

The duty of a politican and a political party is to do what they think is best for their constituents and their country, not just try to fuck up the other side.

Mike

Of course Republicans are offended that you guys only want to make concessions if you get something in return: us voting for your bill. Any decent person would be disgusted by this level of self-absorption and quid pro quo.

You should give us everything we want because it's the right thing to do, not because you want votes.

Try virtue for its own sake for once. I know, a radical concept to lefties.

I'm sorry to say that you're starting to sound like a broken record when it comes to this topic, Steve.

Steve wrote:
And here's the kicker: there's nothing wrong with that. Republicans are the opposition party. They're supposed to oppose what the majority wants.

I'll pile on with Mandy Cat and MBunge: this is a load of crap. Any party is supposed to represent their constituents and the country as a whole. Opposition for the sake of opposition only serves the short-term interests of the party structure itself.

On CNN's Situation Room yesterday, the Republican talking head (the consultant guy - Castellano?) was adamant that Republicans have ideas. They are: Tort reform, allowing policies to be purchased across State lines, and making it illegal to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions. Later on, C-Span showed Orrin Hatch offering his amendment re federal funds and abortion.

Either these guys have no idea what is really going on in this country, or they are cynical enough not to care. I think that when times are relatively good, people will approve of or at least tolerate a hands-off/passive approach to government, because there is a fundamental and I would say healthy skepticism about government's ability to solve problems in a way that doesn't restrict economic growth. But now, with the exception of a relative few at the top, things are harder than ever and people are hungry for change.

Democrats need to use this time wisely. This is an historic opportunity. We won because Republicans failed to lead. It's our turn. Democratic leaders: Lead! You have to take risks and put it on the line. It's difficult and scary, but that's what leaders do. It's up to you.

Steve says: "And here's the kicker: there's nothing wrong with that. Republicans are the opposition party. They're supposed to oppose what the majority wants." I think you are too ready to let them off the hook. Your comment applies to a "loyal opposition," one that carefully considers the needs of the country, compares those needs to their political principles, and then carefully formulates alternative proposals. Because all the GOP can seem to do is reflexively oppose any Democratic proposal, they have ceased to be a "loyal opposition" and have simply become the party of NO. You have stated time and and again that the job of the GOP is to be the opposition, and that is true, so far as it goes -- but this comment should be applied to a reasoning, sentient group, not the abalone-brained knuckleheads they have become.

Josef, Mandy Cat, and MBunge -- Well, this is what you get when you read the post and skim fast to the end of comments ...

One assumes McConnell is too dull to appreciate the irony here: if the dems make a bill that doesn't fix the problem, because they caved to GOP demands--demands about a bill they'll never vote for, no matter what--it's possible Dems will lose some part of congress in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012, to goopers who were RESPONSIBLE for the bill being a failure.

I love our political system. It makes sense for the rich and powerful, but for no-one else..

"The steps necessary to resolve the problem...are entirely antithetical to the Republican Party's approach to public policy." Steve Benen.
Didn't use to be, at least not "entirely antithetical". And what's this about "public policy"? The only public policy of any contemporary GOP incumbent is: What's In It For Me? The entire raison d'etre of the GOP is to win elections. Winning elections gets the contributors' money flowing in so you can win more elections. While you're in office you funnel some government contracts back to those contributors as a repayment. Then, when you retire from public "service", you get rewarded with a high-paying job, sinecure, whatever.
I repeat: the GOP has NO public policy interests that can't be solved by a campaign donation. I say this, because that is what their actions show.
It's either that or the present GOP is the biggest collection of cold-hearted, hypocritical, public-trough swilling swine ever seen in the history of this country.
Your call.