2016 – Speculation Taking Shape, Polling has begun, Clinton, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Bush III

One might think Senator Paul has made a decision - rather people (and businesses selling cups, stickers, etc.) are hopeful - image from the Jeenyus Corner

It goes without saying that the political arena, not unlike Professional Wrestling, is a sport that draws in a segment of the population that is always seeking the “next best”, yet generally winds up rooting for the “lesser of two evils” team. With each election cycle there is hope, and then, those hopes are dashed, no matter who the candidate may be – and no matter which side of the political fence one sits upon.

2016 is starting to look eerily similar to those past elections, yet, dollars to doughnuts the actual contenders are those that are not yet in the spotlight – hopefully.

Quinnipiac Polling got the ball rolling with a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and ”top 2016 GOP Presidential Picks”, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio and Paul Ryan. In this poll, Clinton bests all three by double digits. (CP Poll) Of course, that poll was conducted prior to Rand Paul’s magnificent stand in the Senate, or prior to the Bush dynasty rolling out former FL Governor, Jeb Bush as a potential.

One should understand that although it appears the spot “belongs” to Hillary Clinton, considering her own party ditched her popular vote for the more progressive and younger Barack Obama, that said, all will depend on the mood of the nation by the time 2016 rolls around. In addition, it also greatly depends on the GOP and those who would pick a McCain or a Romney rather than someone who would actually energize the base as well as appeal to individuals on both sides of the aisle. Additionally someone who would honestly treat the media, as the media is going to treat them and be prepared to go head to head, not only with the group of GOP hopefuls, but the Press and the crazies from both parties.

It is with a heavy heart, that as a feminist would felt that 2008 was a no-brainer, with an adept Clinton leading the field of lightweights and the inexperienced (from both tickets) one fears that that ship has sailed. Although she had pulled away from the Obama Administration early enough, there is that connection, her health (which can be used by her competitors, her opposition and the media) and the dark side of her party, who would choose another half-term Senator, a woman, rather than allow Clinton her “due”. Unfortunately, one cannot just vote for “any” woman, no matter how “pretty” a picture that woman might make (or grandmotherly, take your pick) – It is confidence and quality - and the fact that historically there was a three decade gap between the first woman to grace a major party presidential ticket (Democrats, Ferarro), and the last to do so (Republican’s Palin).

The polling turns: A Recent McClatchy-Marist Poll shows a general downturn in popularity (both personal and job performance) for the President, as well a general dislike to both parties in Congress – although the Democrats fare slightly better, their numbers are not much to crow about. The Republicans’ find themselves on the right side of the budget cuts, but by a mere 2 points, compared to the President, in other words there exists a general distrust for both parties.

Enter Rand Paul – Dr. Filibuster, and the son of Ron Paul, the perennial Libertarian – GOP candidate who has, what one might think a small following, but it is a significantly motivated following. Rand Paul, unlike his father is getting press that puts him in contention. He is to be admired as a principled servant of the people and his Libertarian streak is what causes groups as diverse as Code Pink and the hard right to applaud his efforts.

There are those who already speculate that he is running in 2016 - That he will be a major player, the Washington Post, for one, and the UK’s Guardian suggests Paul’s odds are better than most at this time.

Then again, Jeb Bush is out there, and although he may be extremely capable – imagine the yawn, a Bush-Clinton match-up might be?

Should the good Doctor decide to run, (at the moment he is bolstering his 2016 Senate Campaign), it would be all bets off – but again – it is far too early to tell. One things is certain, what the nation needs is someone who is not wedded to either major political party – one that is capable of pushing aside the leadership and their status quo of divisive politics, to lead both the right and the left – similar to, but not Ronald Reagan, (the litmus test must go) rather a new breed of servant that would lead with the intent to put the people over the political machine.

Paul Ryan suggests a Clinton Presidency would have solved nation’s fiscal crisis - The Political Class and Economics – Hell Freezes Over, Fox’s Hannity and New York Times on Same Page!

Photo from the Washingtonian online - article indicates the Next two frontrunners - however, is there a difference?

An article this morning from newsbusters.org, highlights a recent “Meet The Press” segment where, former V.P. Candidate, and budget wonk of the Congress, suggested that if Clinton had been President, the fiscal mess the government faces would have been dealt with by no. (Paraphrasing). The articles goes on to note that they were not sure which Clinton Ryan was speaking of – however, one look at the way Hillary Clinton voted in her tenure at the Senate, (see Thomas.gov – search by congress, and then by name of Senator), she was a) bi-partisan, working with both Republican and Democrats on a variety of bills, secondly, she was more pro-military, and defense, working on bills with Hutchinson of Texas as well as Rick Santorum – keeping children safe, credits for small businesses, and the list goes on. It is no wonder therefore, that with the Progressives in control of the Democrat Party, a moderate, such as Clinton, who may, at times, trend to the Conservative side (which Democrats were at one point), was not going to be nominated, even if she did win the popular vote going into the DNC Convention.

Those talking heads, who are now saying Clinton would be a shoe-in in 2016, obviously have no idea of who the Progressives will choose to be the next woman to run on the ticket – but one might be watching the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, the Oklahoman born, Elizabeth Warren – or the Progressives next Barack Obama.

That aside, one has to wonder, with the constant struggle in Washington, and the “deadlock” that is faced consistently – when one reads the Congressional record, one see’s a lot of bills sponsored, and co-sponsored by those on both sides of the ails, there appears to be some comradery – and the balance, as they say –is for show.

There was an interesting video shown on Fox News Sean Hannity with documentary producer Bannon – from the New York Times:

9 P.M. (Fox News) BOOMTOWN: WASHINGTON, THE IMPERIAL CITY In this edition of “Hannity,” the host, Sean Hannity; Peter Schweizer, the president and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute; and Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute, investigate what they call crony capitalism among the city’s power elite and the tactics used by lobbyists, bureaucrats and legislators to finance their lifestyles with taxpayer money.

In watching the program, which is segments of a file, followed by discussion, one begins to get the feeling that the “rapid Republican “Hannity, has gone over the Libertarian Ledge – or perhaps Occupy Wall Street, where there is a total disgust and distrust of the new Washington, where regardless of the party – lobbyists and politicians’ have combined to create the wealthiest and productive city in the nation – on taxpayers dollars. It’s shocking itself, the concept that there is now a permanent aristocracy that rules the U.S. and its money, and basically we, the poepole, send them “tribute”.

In other words, all of those who have tenure, (2 terms or more) are in this political class – and from the sounds of the program, there is nothing to be done!

(Unless, of course, the Public decides to throw them all-out, baby with the bathwater style, and start over.)

Most shocking take on this: From the New York TimesWashingtonEconomic Boom Financed by You”

We’re in trouble when Hannity, Bannon and the New York Times agree on something. The Premise of what has happened to our once valued institutions of Democracy is that using taxpayers funds, and lobbyist funds, there is a great divide between the haves and the have nots – specifically centered In Washington DC and around the government, where – as anyone with a brain knows, as Washington Produces nothing worth value, that can be sold or traded, then the taxpayer foots the bill. This created a political aristocracy, and it is a bi-partisan fleecing of Americans.

Or perhaps, the media itself, or certain segments, are now either so concerned or disgusted or both there will be additional stories about what goes on in the nations capital. Either that or Ailes now owns the New York Times.

One then finds those dueling senators and congressmen, through the congressional record, getting along just fine when it’s behind closed doors. Conspiracy theory or a situation where the public needs to think long and hard about changing the old for the new, from the top office down. At this point, taking people off the street might not be a bad idea.

Therefore, when Paul Ryan suggests that Hillary would have done a better job, be sure of it, he would know, he’s worked with her long enough, and with all the inner power struggles of both parties, there are occasional bright spots, that will be demonized for telling the truth about one another, in the typical partisan way. It is a shame and it is a sham at the same time.

Articles of Interest: The Alaska Dispatch – health care and Americas rising income inequality – Washington DC

Biden-Ryan 2012 Debate – A Draw for the Bases– CNN Poll – Ryan 48% to Biden 44% - What of the Independents? Polling Continues in MA for Obama.

V.P. Joe Biden and V.P. Candidate, Paul Ryan - Ryan Wins Over Independents - image: Salon.com

The 2012 Vice Presidential Debate held last night in Danville, Kentucky between Vice President, Joe Biden and GOP Vice-Presidential Candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan has been considered a draw by the U.S. media. A CNN/ORC poll taken immediately following the debate indicated the following:

Ryan won the debate by 48% to 44% - with the margin of error at 5% (normally 4%) indicates a tie

50% suggested the debate made no difference in their vote for the top of the ticket, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

(CNN)

The polling sample used was smaller than average at under 400 surveyed, and CNN indicated that CBS polling gave Biden by a large margin, however, one might suggest it depended a great deal on the make-up of the viewership, and how each individual saw the exchange. From this perspective, Biden came across as more aggressive in answering questions, and, as one CNN Focus Group participant suggested (paraphrasing) following the debate, “he did better than Obama in the last debate” (which gave him the win for that man). On the flip side, Ryan came across as confident on the one hand, while being respectful of the office of the V.P. when Biden repeatedly interrupted Ryan, and allowed Biden to get away with a lot more than time, most likely allowed for Ryan to rebut. In total, it appeared to be a draw for both, a draw whereby the base on either side of the aisle would feel that their candidate won. That said, it was the independents who should have been the focus and that has not been discussed at any great length. Those watching CNN (chosen over other networks as it is not perceived to be either left or right, as in the case of MSNBC or FOX and for political junkies, has all the bells and whistles) were able to watch a focus group react to the debate in real-time. This focus group was made up of independents, using the usual dial approach, made up of male and female respondents. (The aforementioned is one of the bells and whistles.) Overall, the line was up over the bar whenever Vice President Biden spoke about appealing to the “middle-class”, however, as soon as he turned to campaign mode, it plunged, while Ryan enjoyed a steady stream of positive to flat when explaining issues, and had more ups than downs than his opponent. What was most interesting was that the females appeared to respond more positively to Ryan than to Biden.

It is the practice of rating on performance and points, and for that Ryan gets the nod for the win overall. He was not overly aggressive with Biden, nor the moderator, while Biden clearly was agitated and bombastic when asked questions that made him obviously uncomfortable, specifically the issue with the Libyan embassy attack. He answered the questions posed as clearly as possible, with the exception of one, and that was the challenge by the moderator to both men that they tell the voting public what each would personally bring to the office. Biden used the time to attack the Romney Campaign and Ryan defended Romney as well as reiterated the campaign messaging. Although neither candidate gave a direct answer, Ryan may have been able to define his relationship to those in his district and suggest that his bi-partisanship and record proved him the better V.P. That said, it is easy for anyone, the pundit or the opinionated, to “Monday-morning quarterback”. What to take away, Ryan won on points in the debate arena, not on “feelings”. Although others, (a conservative, a Democrat-liberal-turned independent and a staunch, right-leaning Republican) – all felt otherwise and gave the nod to Ryan overall. Granted that is an extremely small sample, but it does indicate that four people watching the same debate on different networks come away with a different point of view. Given the CNN after poll and the CNN real time independent polling, one would think that Ryan gave a bonus to the Mitt Romney team by appealing to more Independent voters than Biden. The polls taken over this weekend, however, are likely to indicate a total draw.

Worst moment for Biden: Looking into the camera and asking the public “Who are you going to Trust?”, Best Moment, speaking about Scranton and the middle class background. Ryan, steady, no one particular moment that was a negative, overall he appeared confident, if, and this is a note, he did appear on edge (either that or the man was extremely thirsty). Best moment for Ryan: his closing statement. It was that last statement that gave clarity and made the absolute difference clear between both camps. Biden’s laughter also was a bone of contention for some, however, one must understand that he had to appear more aggressive, the pressure was on from the Campaign to be aggressive, and he most decidedly overdid it, perhaps not for the base, but the base does not win an election.

The next debate is this coming Tuesday between President Obama and Govenor Mitt Romney, one might expect that Romney’s performance will remain status quo, given his ability, while President Obama is expected to be more aggressive. That said, Obama has to top expectations across the board, and the bar has been set pretty high, perhaps too high. Should the President have to defend his record, with Romney standing opposite, it will be a repeat of the first debate. (Which, in the first debate, is what derailed the President in the first five minutes of the first debate and Romney ran with it.) Should that happen and the final jobs numbers for September be revised upward to 8.2% due to the sudden revelation that a large state was not included in the mix, then this close to an election, with polls as they now stand and a draw with the VP debate for the base, while a win for Ryan with the Independents, one might suggest that Romney will remain in the lead through the finish.

One thing of note: During the debate, the VP referred to the Romney campaign as “not competing in Massachusetts”, which is not necessarily true, given the Campaign headquarters in Boston, and a very high profile Senate Race (Brown-Warren) in the equation. There have been several polls over the past three to four weeks, which focus exclusively on the Presidential race, another taken last night based on the Obama-Romney matchup, including questions for union members, such as: have you been approached by your Union to vote for President Obama, have you been called by a union member about voting for President Obama, do you think Mitt Romney or President Obama has the more negative ads, and so on.

This would suggest, with the focus so heavily leaning towards the President and union members, in Massachusetts, that there is indeed a need to secure the state by the Obama Campaign. The calls were made on the 11th, between 5 and 8 p.m., received at approximately 6:00 pm in Western Massachusetts households. At first neighbors were flattered, simply because no one, ever polls Massachusetts, now they are simply suspicious that there is more going on with the state and the Obama campaign specifically. To be fair, the area in which this is taking place in primarily Independent (or designated Unenrolled), the support and nod are going to Romney/Brown, but further west and north in the Western end of the state which is much less populated, the support should, by logic, be going to Obama. If this is occurring in a scenario similar to the 2009 special election, then the unthinkable may happen – Massachustts would, temporarily and on the surface be a red state. These are big if’s, the biggest being turnout for the Democrats (who can miraculously pull 30,000 votes out of a hat in under 13 hours), and the level of national interest in the Senate race, keeping eyes on the state (which would then make that 30,000 miraculous votes a bit more difficult to achieve –as was the case in the 2009 race for the “people's seat”. Suffice it to say, it may appear that the Romney Campaign may not be competing in Massachusetts (other than the television ads, and some door to doors, and phone calls which may be third party) but the Obama campaign certainly is.

Left Counting on Biden in Debate to Keep Obama Campaign Afloat – Biden Takes Six Days To Study Debate – Updated Predictions from the UDenver: Romney Wins – Grab the Popcorn

Image from the Guardian UK - One might anticipate this expression on Ryan's face while Biden is either a) telling an uncomfortable truth, or b) (pick an outrageous statement or expletive

From the Daily Beats Headlines: Joe Biden’s Turn to Take down Paul Ryan, can only be characterized as denial. It is apparent, of course, that this particular blog is “carrying water” for the Obama Administration, and anyone knows that Biden is fine in the debate area – however, fine against Paul Ryan is not going to cut it. The Daily Beast goes on to say that Ryan has zero experience in debate in front of millions, rather has spoken only to a few hundred here and there. Apparently forgetting about that Convention in August, where he as indeed in front of millions, granted that was the convection. One might also understand that Ryan is used to being in debate, as he is in the Congress, and spends, just like Biden, the majority of his time, debating legislation, one way or the other.

From the other side of the political spectrum, the Weekly Standard is reporting Joe Biden takes 6 days off campaign trail for debate prep. The Weekly Standard notes the following:

For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."

As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled." – (Weekly Standard)

On the Paul Ryan Watch Raw Story reports Ryan taking three days to prep for the debate with Joe Biden Ryan spent the day yesterday with with his family, away from debate prep,(Minneapolis Star Tribune. Apparently Ryan, who is , from some points of view, not only a policy “wonk’ but an outright genius may have all facts, figures, and taking point down in 3 days, rather than the 6 days it might take V.P Biden. Biden may have to learn not to tell the truth or be outrageously over the top, something that has dogged the Obama campaign every time the V.P. is out campaigning. Biden can at one time appear reasonable, then Biden the truth-teller shows up in his remarks about the middle class suffering since 2008, or the other Biden may show up – making claims about Romney putting people in chains. – Either or, it’s going to be worth the price of admission.

Ryan, for those who have only seen him on the clips, might want to go back through c-span footage and take a look at how he handles the Congress, one might also want to take a look at Ryan’s ability to resonate with all voters, despite the election partisan hype – he was the very few GOP Congressional Rep in 2008 that won reelection in his district. One might say so what? –True, Ryan’s winning his own district, may be a big so what? – However, his district voted for Obama, by a smaller percentage overall than for Ryan – and that District favors the Democrats disproportionately.

That’s something to chew on.

Of course, just like Mitt Romney’s first debate with Barack Obama, in which Romney’s performance can only be characterizes as stellar, the Pres will be “fact checking” fast and furiously (pun intended) Ryan’s’ every word. And every word of it, not unlike Romney’s, will be “suspect”. Of course, when reading or listening to these articles or newscasts, there is not specific reasoning for the statements to be suspect, except they were “fact-checked”. Which brings up the question, if one can debunk the Romney fact checkers in less than 30 seconds, how much more quickly can on debunk the “fact checks” against Ryan.

Romney did not lie in his debate, the statements he made and the programs he offered were just not in agreement with the narrative of the sleeping Obama, so the press had to jump in.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Denver, there are some science wonks – they deal in numbers and statistics especially when it comes to predicting who will win the Presidential race. Previously it was Romney, and it is still Romney only this time, Obama lost 5 more points. The new prediction gives Romney 330 Electoral votes to the Presidents’ 208. They will update that model again before the election. This model has been accurate for the last several elections. Of course, not to be outdone, Cambridge, offers a variety of Election models to contradict –they are available at Campbridge.org,.

On things is certain, models, polls and the like are grabbing attention – but the question remains whose? Most of those living and breathing polls are the pundits and the media, while the general public is generally not either buying it, or too financially depressed to care.

The VP debate is this Thursday. The next Presidential debate will be held on Foreign Policy – one would think that is the President’s bailiwick, as the media has portrayed Romney as a dolt when it comes to foreign policy – that said, SoundBits and carefully parsed phrase, can indeed make one appear less knowledgeable. However, unless the moderator has a stun gun pointed at Romney, the general public will be allowed to hear his plans and policy in their entirety, and so will the public. At the same time, one might ask if the President, taken off his stride by the sheer knowledge of Romney unleashed, might go into his Denver State of Mind (unlikely as he’ll be fighting for his life), but regardless, Romney will be prepared. For those who look for lively debates, all three offer a bit of something, no matter to which side of the aisle one is politically wed.

Romney-Ryan on 60 Minutes – Media response: Crickets – Choice of Ryan Ignites Race – Thousands Show Up To Rally - Fund Raising Up in first 24 Hours

Ryan and Romney in Wisconsin - photo: Drudgereport.com


Four years ago when Sarah Palin gave her first CBS interview to Katie Couric, the media blitz was immediate and negative – thousands of articles appeared on Google outlining the highlights of once 7 hours interview edited to a short segment. Fast Forward four years to last night’s interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, which was announced by several news outlets in advance – with articles highlighting the choice of Ryan as “risky”.(Orlando Sentinel). The segment which aired at 7:00 pm (approximately after the U.S. Open), apparently did little to diminish Ryan or Romney. They faced off against Schieffer who was quickly “handled” by both Romney and Ryan when he trailed away from policy issues. Ryan’s, “that’s distracting from the issues” moved the topics forward. The interview, in its entirety is below.

CBS Interview with Romney and Ryan


The “risky” choice of Ryan, according to the media has framed the debate for the election as one that is ideological, however, one might also consider that the debate is now issues based – specifically the issue of the economy. Although the left, and the media are doing their darndest to tear about Ryan’s budget plan, there are zero links in articles to the actual plan on the Congressional Record's site, which is written in, shockingly, plain English. Normally, bills, budgets and resolutions are written in legislative jargon one must look at 60 days till Sunday to glean meaning (unless one is trained as a lawyer, or is a career politician – but not the average citizen). Therefore the claims of Ryan’s policy affecting Seniors, the Middle Class, and tax cuts for the “rich” – are not based on Ryan’s actual budget proposal. The key word there is – proposal. Ryan’s plan seeks to close loopholes on the highest income earners, it does not change Medicare one whit for those 55 or older, while suggesting an option of purchasing private pay plans for those under 55. The Ryan budget does, in fact, reduce taxes on the middle class. However, that’s a fairly mute point, considering Romney is at the top of the ticket and will be making the final decisions on budgets, of which he has his own. Romney made that clear in the 60 minute segment.

As to the choice as “risky” – that may be true if one were trying to attract the Progressive arm of the Democrat Party – otherwise, Ryan’s appeal was immediately evident as rally’s over the weekend saw crowds in the thousands waiting to hear the new V.P. nominee speak. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “VP candidate Ryan returns to Wisconsin to adoring crowd” – of 10,000 – in Waukesha. According to the U.S. Census that would be one in 7 of every single resident of the City of 70,000, 23.7% of which are under the age of 18. That’s quite a “homecoming” in a State that has been seen, until recently, as more of Democrat, rather than Republican in voter identity.

The Boston Globe reported on the rally crowds in North Carolina:

“A buoyant Mitt Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan propelled their bid for the White House through a series of boisterous events Sunday in the first day of extensive campaigning together since the former Massachusetts governor chose Ryan as his political partner.

His events having the energy of a rock concert, Romney fed on the fervor of the crowds, dispensing high fives, effusively praising his new pick, and at one point joined a chanting crowd: “Paul, Paul, Paul.”

Supporters stood in line for hours to get a glimpse of the new Republican ticket.”
(Of course, no article about Romney-Ryan would be complete without quotes from the White House.)

“Congressman Ryan is a right-wing ideologue, and that is reflected in the positions that he’s taken,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He is quite extreme — good, good person, you know, genial person — but his views are quite harsh.”

President Obama, who has sparred several times with Ryan over economic policies, made his first comments on Ryan’s selection during a fund-raiser in Chicago.
“I know him, I welcome him to the race,” Obama said. “He is a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney’s vision. But it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.”

Axelrod and the “new kid on the block” Progressive Democrat Senate Candidate in MA, Elizabeth Warren, were on the attack immediately, Warren quipped ”'Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy', specifically highlighting the economy (Springfield, MA Republican), which drew an immediate response from commenters that was less than kind to Ms. Warren’s point of view. One commenter noted that

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy and leave working people and small businesses to struggle in the mess.

It's already a mess... is she kidding with this statement... what planet are you on
Ms. Warren?

(Read balance of 60 plus comments at the Springfield Republican’s, Masslive site here

The “risky” pick also had the effect of the campaign raising 3.5 Million (in 24 hours) after the Ryan announcement (thehill.com)

The Romney choice of Ryan is also shedding new interest on the V.P. debate that will take place between Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan, insuring a ratings boost for the network which will broadcast the October 11th Debate at Centre College in Danville, KY.

From this perspective Mitt Romney chose a Vice President he felt was first, capable of not only working within the administration, but that would be able to assume the Office of the Presidency. Romney took the risk of choosing Ryan as the State of Wisconsin is not as strategically important as, Florida (Rubio – electoral votes). Additionally, Romney who is focused on policy and economics, chose someone who is of a similar mindset - in doing so, he would have a Vice President that would work, rather than one which was used for the Senate tie-breaker as the occasion might present, or someone who was not involved in policy of any kind - in other words, a proverbial ribbon-cutter.

In addition, Ryan stands for his principals, and respectfully agrees to disagree, even with the President especially when it comes to numbers, budgets, and what might be in the aforementioned. Ryan comes armed with statistics and facts, not pulled out of left or right field, but from reliable and non-partisan sources – Ryan, as a choice, was not in the least risky, rather brilliant, and above all, one that would work for the American People, rather than one that is merely politically advantageous. Of course, one must expect that the Press and the Obama Campaign must stress the negatives in order to attempt to achieve parity, however, one can anticipate a compare and contrast, uplifting tone from the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Pushing Grandma Over the Cliff - Senior Citizens, age 55 and older and The Ryan Budget Plan – What’s In the Ryan Plan and Why!

Paul Ryan Budget Solutions: Image From the New York Daily News Article: "Youthful, ambitious, and controversial: What you need to know about Romney's running mate Paul Ryan"

Cons: Voters, particularly seniors in the key swing state of Florida, may find Ryan’s proposal to radically overhaul Medicare a bitter pill to swallow. Romney will be forced to either embrace his running mate’s sweeping plan or distance himself from some of its more controversial proposals - a tricky political move in either case.

A note on the above reference to Ryan's Budget plan from the Media - the author has obviously not read Ryan's plan, and is betting on the fact that Seniors in Florida (and nationwide) have not read it either.




Perhaps he United State Citizen’s who are nearing age 55 and over have seen the ad below. In this ad, it is suggested that the “Republican Budget Plan” (Which Paul Ryan wrote), would take away Medicare as it is known and replace it for all seniors with a “privatized” plan.

Ad which ran when Paul Ryan wrote the budget



However, those who would have retirees on Medicare and those approaching Medicare believe that Ryan is some sort of monster, along with the rest of the “Republicans” that would push “Granny” over the cliff, have something else in mind – protecting the President’s “Affordable Health Care Act”. What those that would turn an actual solution into a nightmare for seniors are more interested in maintaining public office than actually protecting the benefits that seniors and those now nearing retirement age receive. In addition, by "scaring the bejesus" out of seniors and those nearing retirement age, they insure votes for the Democrat Party (or more appropriately – the Progressive Democrat Party). What hit the fan in 2020 after Nancy Pelosi famously said, (paraphrasing) that since the Presidents Bill was being passed in haste, and those Congressmen and Senators were complaining that they did not have time to read the act and, were therefore, leery of signing it, “they should just sign it now, and then they would find out what was in it.”

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened.

Before the Bill was signed into law by President Obama, member of Congress and the senate, as well as private citizens began to read parts of the legislation that was pending signature - and the result was abject horror. This is why those town hall meetings held prior to the bill’s passage were so incendiary and Democrats either attended grudgingly or not at all. This is why after the Bill was signed into law in early 2010, the Tea Party grew substantially, and why in 2010, there were historical gains made for Republicans in the House. One should be aware that the Tea Party is not particularly partisan, the Tea Party is pro-individual rights, and anti-excessive taxation. Members are from all political parties, and if they tend to trend towards particular Republicans, they so do because of that individuals record on protecting individual liberty and their fiscal record.

In the coming months many will read about how Seniors will have no coverage under Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan, and most likely as he is now the Vice Presidential nominee on the GOP ticket with Governor Mitt Romney, the Democrats, out of political necessity, will make claims that are not close to the truth. This is because they want to hold onto an office, and an ideology, not because their policy or the Affordable Health Care Act, protects those at or nearing retirement age.

That’s a pretty wild statement itself. But one has to look at the Ryan Budget to understand, Congressman Paul Ryan, now V.P. nominee, cares more about those in or nearing retirement that the Democrats. In reading the budget summary below, what one finds is the following: The budget specifically states that those age 65 and older receiving Medicare will not lose any benefits, their program will stay the same, Also, those age 55 and older will receive those very same benefits. However, those under age 55 will be offered a choice, either they will be able to stay on the same program those now receiving benefits under Medicare have, or they can buy affordable alternative insurance. That’s it, no smokes, and no mirrors. The text as well as links to the budget that specifically address Medicare is show below – It is clear, it is understandable as written by Congressman Paul Ryan.

There is a rebuttal as well from the Democrat members to Paul Ryan’s budget (which Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, will not allow to pass). (This also answers the question of who is responsible for the gridlock in Congress, and why nothing is getting done. Republican’s offer reasonable solutions and Harry Reid doesn’t allow passage.) In that passage it specifically states: That the Ryan proposal undermines the President’s Health Care Act!

What’s in the President’s Health Care Act that should worry every citizens and especially seniors. A video of a Health Care conference appears below – in that Video, Congressman Ryan is politely explaining to President Obama why the Health Care Plan is dangerous for Seniors, and that he has solutions that would offer a fix, as Congressman Ryan believed that the President and House and Senate Democrats really wanted to help Seniors.

CSPAN Video


In that video, Paul Ryan suggests that the present system (Affordable Health Care Act) hurts all families, and that analysis that the Congressional Budget Office provided – showed that Medicare funds were being taken away and used to fund the Affordable Health Care Act – Ryan wanted to work with the President to fix the problem, and pointed out that they had two bills on the floor that were not allowed (by Harry Reid) to go to the Senate. One has to wonder why? The why is because, Seniors and women and name a “minority or group” “vote for Democrats” and the President, as head of the Democrat Party, need to keep it that way.

If they were to actually let the American voters find out “what’s in the bill”, that darn Paul Ryan and those “Republican’s” would look very attractive to voters, and well, the President and Harry Reid might lose their jobs.

It’s very simple: Paul Ryan wants to help the American People, it is an election year, and those up for election want to “scare the American people” – It does not matter if, when they run ads, or make speeches or remarks that they are stretching the truth (or outright lying) to the American people – they will say anything to get elected.

When one does read the Affordable Health Care act (sections shown below regarding Medicare, how it will become part of Medicaid, how they will remove funds from Medicare to pay for other parts of the programs), it becomes apparent that Congressman Ryan has a real plan to save Medicare and Social Security for those who are age 55 plus, and for those who are not? They will have an option – (an individual choice) of either keeping Medicare, or buying private health insurance.
Surely there is nothing wrong in that? Why would Democrats and the President up for Reelection call Paul Ryan’s very good and decent plan, something it is not? The only possible answer to that question is that they are attempting to maintain a group of voters in their pocket, while actually endangering the health and well being of that group. It should also be noted that Congressman Ryan has held these positions for some time, all this took place well before Mitt Romney was even assured he would be the GOP Presidential Nominee, nor was Paul Ryan, therefore, in consideration of any VP slot. Mitt Romney, a bit of a budget crunching, numbers man who ran Massachusetts based on fiscal restraint, while raising jobs, and trying to improve the costs and benefits of those in the states health care system, most likely chose Congressman Ryan to be his running mate because he is smart, does not duck the issues, but instead, takes on anyone, even the President of the United States, in order to try and protect his constituents.


The Paul Ryan Budget From www.paulryan.house.gov/legislation> (with a direct link to the Congressional Library)

FUNCTION SUMMARY
With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly Americans without exhausting their life savings or the assets and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. In urging the creation of Medicare, President Kennedy said that such a program was chiefly needed to protect, not the poor, but people who had worked for years and suddenly found all their savings gone because of a costly health problem.
But spending for Medicare has grown quickly in recent decades--in part because of rising enrollment and in part because of rising costs per enrollee--and has reached unsustainable rates. Between 1970 and 2011, gross federal spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7 percent. Under the alternative fiscal scenario in CBO's The Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2011), mandatory spending on Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14 percent of GDP by 2085. CBO's March baseline projects that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt by 2022.

Medicare's imbalance threatens beneficiaries' access to quality, affordable care. The program's fundamentally flawed structure is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the Nation. Without reform, the program will end up causing exactly what it was created to avoid: millions of America's seniors without adequate health security and a younger working generation saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained.

Letting government break its promises to current seniors and to future generations is unacceptable. In addition, placing Medicare on a sustainable path is an indispensable part of restoring the Federal Government's fiscal balance. The reforms outlined in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the program so future generations can count on it when they retire.

The Medicare program's spending appears in Function 570 of the budget resolution. The function reflects the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance [HI] Program, Part B Supplementary Medical Insurance [SMI] Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and Part D Prescription Drug Benefit, as well as premiums paid by qualified aged and disabled beneficiaries.

The various parts of the program are financed in different ways. Part A benefits are financed primarily by a payroll tax (currently 2.9 percent of taxable earnings), the revenues from which are credited to the HI Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums paid by beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and the Treasury General Fund covers the rest. (Payments to private insurance plans under Part C are financed by a blend of funds from Parts A and B.) Enrollees' premiums under Part D are set to cover about one-quarter of the cost of the basic prescription drug benefit, although many low-income enrollees receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the remaining cost.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE-REPORTED RESOLUTION

The resolution calls for $510 billion in budget authority and $510 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and $6.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is $503 billion in budget authority and $503 billion in outlays. The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.5 trillion and $6.5 trillion respectively.

ILLUSTRATIVE POLICY OPTIONS

The Medicare program attempts to do two things to make sure that all seniors have secure, affordable health coverage. First, the program pools risk among a specific population of Americans, ensuring that seniors enjoy secure access to coverage. The policies supported by this budget strengthen and enhance this aspect of Medicare so seniors will have more health-care choices within the same stabilized risk pool.
Second, Medicare subsidizes coverage for seniors to ensure that coverage is affordable. Affordability is a critical goal, but the subsidy structure of Medicare is fundamentally broken and drives costs in the wrong direction. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy fuels health care inflation, threatens the solvency of the program, and creates inexcusable levels of waste in the system.
While the committees of jurisdiction will make the final determinations on specific Medicare reforms, the options described below offer one clear and reliable path toward solvency.

In the Medicare system, the Federal Government--not the patient--is the customer; and the government has been a clumsy, ineffective steward of value. Controlling costs in an open-ended fee-for-service system has proved impossible to do without limiting access or sacrificing quality. Over the program's entire history, in a vain attempt to get control of the waste in the system, Washington has made across-the-board payment reductions to providers without regard to quality or patient satisfaction. It has not worked. Costs have continued to grow, seniors continue to lose access to quality care, and the program remains on a path to bankruptcy. Absent reform, Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors and future generations.

Reform aimed at empowering individuals--with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick--will not only ensure the fiscal sustainability of this program, the Federal budget, and the U.S. economy, but also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.

The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those 55 and older, the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as they are, without change.

For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known as `premium support.'
Starting in 2023, seniors (those who first become eligible by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2023) would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost.

The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a list of guaranteed coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program; a Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to that of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums. Also starting in 2023, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with Social Security's retirement age.

This approach to strengthening the Medicare program--which is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans--would ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the future. It would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years, all seniors would have the choice to opt-in to the new Medicare program once it began in 2023. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health security throughout their retirement years. It would also expand that freedom to non-retirees by giving certain employers the option to offer their employees a free choice option, smoothing the transition from their working years to when seniors become Medicare-eligible. This would enable workers to devote their employer's health coverage contribution to the purchase a health insurance plan that works best for them.

This reform also ensures affordability by fixing the currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality.

The Democrat Rebuttal:


The Republican budget takes away important new Medicare benefits already being provided to seniors and disabled individuals through the Affordable Care Act.(From the Congressional Library)

From our current Health Care Law, the Act for “Affordable Health Care” (large PDF from www.gop.gov

(11) INTERACTION OF MEDICAID AND MEDICARE.—The Commission shall consult with MACPAC in carrying out its duties under this section, as appropriate. Responsibility for
analysis of and recommendations to change Medicare policy regarding Medicare beneficiaries, including Medicare beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, H. R. 3590—215 shall rest with the Commission. Responsibility for analysis of and recommendations to change Medicaid policy regarding Medicaid beneficiaries, including Medicaid beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, shall rest with MACPAC.

DETERMINATION OF PATIENT ASSESSMENT
INSTRUMENT.—The Secretary shall determine which patient assessment instrument (such as the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation (CARE) tool) shall be used under the pilot program to evaluate the applicable condition of an applicable beneficiary for purposes of determining the most H. R. 3590—283 clinically appropriate site for the provision of post-acute care to the applicable beneficiary.

(h) FUNDING.—For purposes of administering and carrying out the demonstration program, other than for payments for items H. R. 3590—290
and services furnished under this title and incentive payments under subsection (c), in addition to funds otherwise appropriated, there shall be transferred to the Secretary for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Program Management Account from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 and
the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841 (in proportions determined appropriate by the Secretary) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Amounts transferred under this subsection for a fiscal year shall be available until expended. ‘

Durbin (IL-D) To Introduce Bill on Forced Internet Retail State Sales Tax – State of Maine Legislature Passes Sovereignty Resolution

Indiana Takes Advantage of Illinois Taxing Climate: image theblaze.com

Illinois Democrat State Senator, Dick Durbin is set to introduce a bill on the floor of the Senate today that would force Internet companies such as Amazon.com to collect state sales tax from consumers. (CNET News). The fact that a Federal elected official finds no qualms about interring in the free market and the individual state’s ability or inability to affect a business model is somewhat chilling. Understanding that certain business may be struggling in states where excessive taxes may induce the individual to purchase via mail order (the web), and that States with deep debt would benefit, belies the fact that federal interference is stepping on the U.S. Constitution.

Case in point, in 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sought to force the State of New Hampshire to collect sales tax from the company , Town Fair Tires, with the result that the Massachusetts Supreme Court, one of the most constitutionally interpretive courts in the nation, shot down the Bay State’s suit. Although the Court side-stepped the Commerce Clause, rather pointing to the fact that one could not specifically know where a consumer might use a product, therefore, Massachusetts could not collect sales tax from cross border retail entities (these were tires mind you), the message was clear – don’t overstep and drag the Supreme Court into this mess.

In April of that year, Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts State Legislature had just passed a round of new taxes and fees, on everything from meals to telecommunications (cable, Internet, cell phones), and these were followed in 2010 by an increase in the State Sales Tax (25%). Enough is never enough in the Commonwealth – which – apparently is the model for the Federal Government as of late (See Health Care, Patrick’s Campaign style as a model for Obama’s Presidential run (beware the Independent Candidate in 2012).

That said certain State Legislatures have been pushing back at Federal Interference. Beginning in April of 2009 (at the same time Massachusetts was passing massive tax increases), Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), passed the first States Sovereignty Laws. Other states followed suit, with twenty-one States having passed similar resolutions in 2009. The latest State Legislature to announce its intent to declare itself free from unconstitutional federal interference is theState of Maine (Press Herald Portland).


Maine - a possible Safe Haven - image travelpod.com

Both Maine and New Hampshire, incidentally are not only retail, but vacation and change in lifestyle destinations for those overly taxed Massachusetts Residents. So much so that a loss of population in Massachusetts (or slow growth to be precise), has cost the Commonwealth a Seat at the Federal Table. One of the Massachusetts Congressional Districts must go, the question still remains, through redistricting, which District? Massachusetts is chock full of dedicated tax and spend with no restraint Democrat Lawmakers who held previously powerful positions up until this past November, 2010. In charge of the Congress (which pays the bills and spends the cash), these Democrats owned the purse strings from 2006 - a fact so often glaringly left out of so much finger pointing at everyone but, that these Representatives should be carrying mirrors with them at every turn in order to set the record straight. They are all, to some measure, from Richard Neal to Barney Frank, to Nicki Tsongas all responsible for the fiscal mess in which our nation finds itself. In fact, it is rare that a press release or mention of the current MA2 district’s Richard Neal does not include a new grant, new monies given to this or that, from the Federal Government – or as one would accurately put it, the same Massachusetts Tax Payer who is already taxed to the teeth (that may be next).

Therefore with yet another of Illinois Finest (Tax and Spend) Politicians is at the gate ready to tax, so one must understand where the earnest Senator receives the most financial support: Lobbyists, Lawyers, Insurance, Pharmaceuticals, Business Services, Commercial Banks – all give generously to Dick Durbin (explains votes on Health Care, Bank Bailouts, etc.) It is not that the august Senator Durbin is any different than any other one of the clowns in the Senate (with some glaring exceptions – see Budget Fixer Paul Ryan (KY-R) to notice the difference between the “haves of Durbin” and those that may not “take so much” (all previous source Open Secrets.org)

It comes down to who the particular Senator feels they are personally, and what they think they can get away with by virtue of the same, and how much they might “owe” the lobbyists or special interest groups for which they are in a particular tank.
Frankly, Dick Durbin should look to his own State of Illinois to find that the loss of population was perhaps not due to a fiscally conservative form of governing and that assessing more taxes, on the back of the middle class (whom the Democrats are always “trying to protect”), is worthy of criticism.

What is perhaps, most amazing, is that those in key positions within the Democrat Machine, as well as certain members of the Republican caucus, have short memories, and/or are delusional in respect to the impact of the 2010 mid-terms and the fact that the people continue to be aggrieved by the lack of understanding on the part of such allegedly bright individuals. There has to come a time, when enough is enough, and business and government separate (corporate welfare another subject), the free market prevails, and the United States Federal government gets back to business (the ordinal intent of its role in the grand scheme of things). Paul Ryan gets it, there are those that “get it”, and now, somewhere on the horizon there may be a new President elected in 2012 that understands and supports the Constitution and is not afraid to make those tough choices, popular or not, that removes those grants to study scallops, or to build high speed rails that no one will use… the list is endless.

There may be only one option left: move to Maine – it’s a big state!