Poor Politicians
Headlines can be deceptive, so allow me to state up front that I don't mean "oh, those poor poor politicians," or even literally, as in "politicians who don't have millions." I mean it instead in the sense of "the politics of the poor," which could shape up to be a major issue in the upcoming elections. Why this is happening in this election cycle, I cannot really say. Poverty isn't some sort of new thing, after all. But both Republicans and Democrats seem to be showcasing their ideas in a way we haven't really seen since John Edwards trod the hustings.
For whatever reason, the poor may be front and center in the politics of 2014. Even Republicans seem to be worried about how they are perceived on the issue, which is unusual (to say the least). Paul Ryan is set to introduce the Republican answer to President Obama's budget (just released today), and Ryan's been touting it as a new Republican direction on poverty for a while now. The Republican Party famously conducted a "post mortem" of their whole platform after the 2012 election, which advised drastic changes in their approach to (and how they talk about) some major issues. Almost all of this advice was then completely ignored by the party as a whole. Republicans have not noticeably changed the way they either talk about or create policies for a wide range of people (women, minorities, gays, immigrants, young people, etc.), so it is somewhat odd that the poor are actually being addressed by Ryan's new budget.
Of course, I haven't read or even heard analysis of Ryan's budget yet, so I can't adequately address his prescriptions point by point. From what has been leaked, though, it seems Ryan wants to "reform" federal efforts to alleviate poverty by consolidating them and getting rid of duplicative programs. Now, if a Democrat suggested this, it might be a reasonable idea, since that Democrat would be more trustworthy in seeing to it that this isn't just code for "slash all federal spending for the poor." Since it's coming from Ryan -- a man not notable for his compassion for the poor previously -- this idea is a lot more suspect. I'll reserve judgment for now, until the actual details of the plan are out. The basic idea (consolidation of overlapping programs) could work, if done right, but again the proof will be in the pudding, so we'll have to wait and see.
Democrats will, no doubt, have counterproposals to whatever is in the Ryan budget. Especially if the bottom line shows that the entire exercise is just smoke and mirrors to conceal "slash federal spending on poverty." But Democrats won't just be addressing federal poverty spending in response to Republicans, they'll be hitting Republicans with two other potent issues as well.
The first is the expansion of Medicaid. This will be part of the Obamacare fight, no doubt, but with a big difference. Medicaid, after all, is not private insurance. Which means that all of the horror stories Republicans will be touting about the supposed myriad failures of Obamacare will have nothing whatsoever to do with expanding Medicaid. To review, one of the segments of Obamacare was allowing states to expand Medicaid, with the federal government paying all the bills for the first few years, and 90 percent thereafter. Financially, it's a great deal for the states. But the Supreme Court ruled that states could "opt out" of this expansion, if they so chose. So now we've got about half the states expanding Medicaid and half who have not. This is denying health insurance to millions of people.
Democrats, if they're smart, will point out that Republicans are against people being insured. The point becomes even more obvious when you point out that individual states can come up with their own plan to expand Medicaid and get approved by the federal government -- it's not a "one size fits all" program. States can just use the off-the-shelf Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, or they can come up with their own ideas to solve the same problem and get approval to try their way of increasing health insurance access for the poor. What this means, in essence, is that all those Republicans out there who have been saying "we're going to replace Obamacare, not just repeal it" have now had a chance to put up or shut up. Which, in most cases, they haven't done.
Democrats should make political hay over this one. It's pretty easy to do so, actually. "Here in [insert state name], Republicans said they didn't want to expand Medicaid even though it is paid for by federal dollars and wouldn't have cost the state anything at all for the first few years. They thought it was a bad idea for poor people to get health insurance through the dreaded Obamacare. OK, fair enough. But other states have come up with their own programs and gotten the green light to go ahead. Republicans here in our state have refused to do even this much. So they're saying they have no ideas of their own for poor people to get health insurance except 'sorry, we're not going to do that.' This is unacceptable. Democrats support the expansion of Medicaid in our great state. If Republicans don't want the Obamacare expansion, then I challenge them to come up with their own idea to solve the same problem, because what they're offering the poor right now is a whole lot of nothing."
The second major issue Democrats have been pushing for in 2014 is raising the minimum wage. This is a real winner for Democrats everywhere, because the public is overwhelmingly for the idea. So the concept itself doesn't have to be sold -- it's already a winner. Democrats need to loudly champion the idea and make it truly their own (which, so far, they've been doing a pretty good job of). The public doesn't need much convincing that "Democrats are for raising the minimum wage and Republicans are against it," either. Republicans have never been seen as enthusiastically supporting even the concept of a minimum wage, so it's not exactly a stretch in the public eye.
A new poll just came out which starkly shows how much of a winning idea raising the minimum wage is. While previous polls have shown public support for a raise at overwhelming levels (70-plus percent is not unusual), this poll specifically tied it to the upcoming elections by asking whether respondents would be more inclined to vote for a candidate who supported raising the minimum wage, or less inclined to support such a candidate. "More inclined" got 50 percent support, while only 19 percent said they'd be "less inclined" to vote for a candidate based on the minimum wage issue. That's a huge margin, and once again shows how potent the issue really is with the public.
It's not really a surprise that Democrats have a big advantage when it comes to addressing poverty. "Compassionate conservatism" was a concept that had to be introduced to the Republican Party as a fresh new idea, after all (not with any noticeable successes). Introducing "compassionate liberalism" is not necessary, because liberals have been compassionate all along. It's almost repetitive to say "compassionate liberal," in fact.
Democrats should use this advantage out on the campaign trail. Republicans have obviously signaled that they're now ready to spotlight poverty in the upcoming election, and this is a battleground that favors the Democratic side. So use it!
The ads really just write themselves, in fact: "Republicans say they're concerned about the poor, and then they offer up a budget which actually cuts the budget for the poor. Democrats will support any ideas Republicans come up with which actually do help alleviate poverty, but we've already got ideas of our own that are being blocked right now by Republicans. How can you say you care about the poor and then deny them Medicaid? Democrats are fighting to expand Medicaid in every state in the country. Republicans are fighting against this in many states. How can you say you care about hard work and then deny the hardest workers out there a raise in pay? Poverty is solved by putting more money in workers' pockets. Without spending a single dime of taxpayer money, we could help raise one million people out of poverty right now, and give over sixteen million hard workers a raise. Why are Republicans fighting this? Democrats are solidly behind raising the minimum wage. Republicans are against it. That's a pretty easy choice, when it comes to voting for someone who wants to improve the lives of millions and attack poverty directly. Democrats are for higher wages for poor people and for giving them the financial security of health insurance. Republicans are against it. It's a pretty clear-cut choice, folks."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Democrats are for higher wages for poor people and for giving them the financial security of health insurance. Republicans are against it. It's a pretty clear-cut choice, folks."
It's equally "accurate" to say that Democrats are for decimating the economy and insuring a nation of government dependent slaves and Republicans are against that...
(sung to "Blowing In The Wind)
"The answer my friend, is all in the spin.
The answer is all in the spin"
:D
Michale
I mean, let's face reality here.
If Democrats were REALLY interested in helping the poor, then Obama could forgo the lavish multi-million dollar vacations and extravagant star-studded Hollywood parties and use all those hundreds of millions of dollars for anti-poverty programs..
Democrats are only interested in making Americans dependent on the continuation of a Democrat controlled government..
It's how tin-pot dictators and mafioso/mob bosses ensure loyalty.
By making sure that loyal underlings are taken care of... But ONLY if they remain loyal underlings...
It's the same concept..
Michale
I'm sensing a return of the "compassionate conservative" CW.
The beauty is, you almost don't even have to read Ryan's recommendations to know what he's going to say.
It will go something like this. Tax cuts for the rich to grow the economy and create jobs. Then, we must cut government services for everyone because government isn't what made our country great. What made our country great was freedom and democracy ... err, well, not so so much democracy because that could be misconstrued as government ... but freedom and liberty and hating liberals! And all of this freedom and liberty will bestow gold upon the poor and lift them up to the glorious gates of heaven!
:)
Any bets?
-David
Why not focus on what DEMOCRATS can do to make things better instead of knocking your heads against the wall trying to change Republicans??
I mean, it's like I always say.. Clean your own house first..
Get Obama to stop taking multi-million dollar vacations and having extravagant Hollywood parties at the White House??
It's hard to take Democrats seriously about the poor when they are stuffing their faces with caviar and champagne and hobnobbing with Hollywood starlets..
Set your own people straight first. THEN you can whine and complain about lack of compassion from conservatives..
Doesn't that make more sense??
Michale
Michale,
I know its a mistake to take any of your fact-free anti-Obama tirades seriously--still... President Obama doesn't get to decide to spend money on the poor instead of State dinners. CONGRESS determines what federal dollars are spent on, NOT the President. And since, unlike Congress, Obama "works" 24/7/365 instead of "going on vacation" 200 days a year you're latest rant is particularly insane.
While I'm glad to see you finally accepting the virtues of "wealth redistribution" it'd be far more productive, and rational, if you'd also adopted some tenuous hold on reality instead of yet another fantasy in service of bashing Obama.
LD,
As usual, you start from the premise that OBAMA IS ALWAYS RIGHT and move on from there...
Taking 5 million dollar vacations and having extravagant parties to hobnob with Hollywood Starlets (the only thing missing is Bill Clinton's hookers) puts one in an EXTREMELY poor position to lecture ANYONE about how to care for the poor.
I know you can't see this because you are neck deep in Obama koolaid, but it is a fact nonetheless...
Michale
President Obama doesn't get to decide to spend money on the poor instead of State dinners.
If we were talking about "State dinners" you might have a point.
But we're not, so you don't.
Obama could decide NOT to take a 5 million dollar vacation to Hawaii..
Obama could decide NOT to send his wife on an 18 million dollar whirlwind vacation to Europe..
Obama could decide NOT to have wild parties at the White House and hobnob with hookers and starlets.. Oh wait. The hookers are for Clinton's parties. My bust..
Anyways, Obama could decide NOT to do all of those things and so much more...
If he did, then he WOULD have a moral leg to stand on...
But alas, Obama decides to live like royalty and so he DOESN'T have a moral leg to stand on lecturing others about the plight of the poor..
But don't tell me. Let me guess.
It's all Bush's fault, right??
Michale
Very nicely done, David.
Michale,
Presidential trips cost millions because of security. If you're so concerned about America's image, about any appearance of weakness, NOTHING could be more damaging than the President holed-up in DC, afraid to leave the Whitehouse. Or worse, getting blown by some terrorist, foreign or domestic. THAT'S why WE pay for security. It's in OUR national interests, and its at OUR expense. Same goes for Air Force One, WE want the President to be in touch and in charge 24/7/365 so WE have to pay to make it happen.
Again, these are NOT discretionary expenditures. They are NOT determined by the President. ALL federal spending is determined by CONGRESS. If you've got a beef take it up with the Republicans. The House originates spending measures NOT the President. The Congress has the EXCLUSIVE Constitutional authority to appropriate funds, NOT the President.
As has become your norm, your latest rant against Obama has no relation whatsoever to reality.
From what has been leaked, though, it seems Ryan wants to "reform" federal efforts to alleviate poverty by consolidating them and getting rid of duplicative programs.
Well, I'm surprised. I was sure the Republican plan for helping the poor was going to be cutting taxes on the rich.
Of course, it may yet be.
Obama could decide NOT to take a 5 million dollar vacation to Hawaii..
A five million dollar vacation to Hawai'i?
Oh, I'd like one of those, please and Mahalo nui loa!
Oh, I'd like one of those, please and Mahalo nui loa!
Who wouldn't?? :D
LD,
Nice rant. Doesn't cover all of the First Lady's entourage trips, though. You also don't touch all the Hollywood White House parties.. How come?? :D
But nice try..
As usual, you miss my point..
Let me dumb it down for you...
Because of Obama's extravagance, he and all the other Democrats are not in a moral position to lecture anyone on the poor...
Does that make it clear enough for you??
Michale
Again, these are NOT discretionary expenditures. They are NOT determined by the President. ALL federal spending is determined by CONGRESS. If you've got a beef take it up with the Republicans. The House originates spending measures NOT the President. The Congress has the EXCLUSIVE Constitutional authority to appropriate funds, NOT the President.
Obama has absolutely NO PROBLEM ignoring Congress and doing what he wants when it suits his agenda.
He could do the same thing to help the poor people, if he TRULY wanted to help the poor people.
But Obama and the Democrats don't give a rat's ass about the poor people.
Obama and the Democrats ONLY care about Obama and the Democrats. That's it..
I challenge you to find ANY facts that refute this conclusion..
ANY facts at all besides lofty rhetoric..
Because I can find fact after fact after fact that PROVE beyond any doubt that Obama and the Democrats only care about their agenda..
Michale
Liz,
Obama declining to take vacations wouldn't save any money. The agencies budgeted with it would just spend some other way. "Use it or lose it" is an old game, and those feeding at the federal trough invariably find ways to use it rather than lose it. And little of the five million is spent on Obama or his family, its spent on the requirements of the federal government. Michale's absurd argument is like saying Obama could save millions by moving out of the Whitehouse and into an apartment. If he's so concerned where're the complaints about Republicans spending enough for FIVE five-million dollar trips repealing Obamacare 50 times? Obama can afford his own vacations to Hawaii, and he wouldn't spend five million to do it. Obama simply isn't responsible for everything that happens on any weekday whose name ends in "day," in spite of what Republicans, and Michale, claim.
LewDan,
Yes, well, that was a little joke. Ahem.
Seriously, though, I think Obama should take more vacations.
And, one more thing, LewDan ...
Obama would do himself a favour by listening less to his political advisors and more to the advisors around him who have forgotten more about foreign policy than he will ever really know. That much has become crystal clear over the years.
LewDan,
Obama simply isn't responsible for everything that happens on any weekday whose name ends in "day," in spite of what Republicans, and Michale, claim.
Hey, I'm just happier than a pig in mud that no one around here is blaming or ridiculing Biden. :)
Michale,
As I've stated, REPEATEDLY, ALL federal appropriations originate in the HOUSE. CONGRESS is responsible for ALL federal spending, NOT the President. That IS fact. It DOES prove your claims about Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are lies.
Obama is the Chief Executive, its HIS job to set priorities and determine how laws are implemented and enforced. It is NOT the job of Congress. You and the Republicans seem to think that the President works for the Congress. That losing the Presidency but controlling the House means Republicans can run the Presidency by remote control. Doesn't work that way. The Presidency is a branch of government EQUAL to Congress. You and Republicans keep claiming Obama is "ignoring" laws, real and imagined, because Obama is doing his job. The power of Congress is not absolute. Just because Congress passes a law does NOT mean it must be administered the way Congress wants or intended. Congress isn't the Chief Executive. Congress usurping the prerogatives of the Chief Executive is violating the law.
lol, Liz,
Biden's been having some good weeks... BORING! (And great for all of us.)
Indeed.
Liz,
Obama came to office to "change" things not strictly follow the status quo. Not all his ideas are good ones. And he's always been more of a conservative, generally, than I'd prefer. But let's not be greedy! Any foreign policy that doesn't embroil us in costly lengthy wars to little or no purpose is a vast improvement.
I can subscribe to all of that, LewDan.
And, by the way, yours has been a true voice of reason here and a very welcome one at that!
LD,
Obama declining to take vacations wouldn't save any money.
In politics, perception is everything..
Obama coming home off a five million dollar vacation and then lecturing Americans that the poor MUST be taken care of, well that's just moronic..
But Obama thinks he can get away with it because he knows that there are those who will follow him not matter what..
Obama's poll numbers are tanking and underwater EXACTLY because of this DO AS I SAY, I AM THE ONE attitude that Obama has and his fanatical supporters lap up...
That's the point you refuse to see..
Michale
Michale,
That's a difference between left and right. Perceptions are important nut they don't trump reality. You, and the right, are all about appearance and spin over substance. "Perceptions" won't solve our problems. Solutions, and governing, require accepting facts and addressing reality, not the fantasies you choose to perceive do to your personal prejudices.
Perceptions are important nut they don't trump reality.
In politics, they sure as hell do...
Every beef the Left has against the Right is based on perception, not reality...
Solutions, and governing, require accepting facts and addressing reality,
So THAT's why Obama and the Democrats are screwing things up so badly...
They are clueless when it comes to reality..
All they have is spin and BS...
Michale
Liz,
Obama would do himself a favour by listening less to his political advisors and more to the advisors around him who have forgotten more about foreign policy than he will ever really know. That much has become crystal clear over the years.
EXACTLY!
There are so many things Obama could do that would make him a better and more efficient leader..
But it's just NOT going to happen because the VERY first step that must be taken is for Obama (and his worshipers) to ADMIT that Obama is not perfect..
And that is simply not possible..
Hey, I'm just happier than a pig in mud that no one around here is blaming or ridiculing Biden. :)
Compared to Obama, Biden is another JFK... :D
Michale
Michale,
I'd like to know what you think of Biden WITHOUT comparing him to Obama.
I'd like to know what you think of Biden WITHOUT comparing him to Obama.
Honestly??
I know I have been critical of him in the past. He IS a Democrat after all.. :D
But I truly believe that a lot of what Biden HONESTLY believes is at odds with the Party dogma. Gun control for example...
Because he is an open and straight-shooter kinda guy and his beliefs are at odds with the Party Line, that's why you see an inordinate amount of gaffes..
But I honestly think he is a nice guy. Someone that I could sit down with over beers and shoot the shit and not be uncomfortable with at all..
In short, I feel about Biden about the same as I feel about a lot of Weigantians..
Present company included. :D
Michale
I think your analysis is pretty spot on, Michale.
You know, I have always used how people feel about Biden as an extremely reliable measure, if not completely fool-proof, of the kind of people they are ... such as whether they are credible (on any issue) and whether they deserve respect.
You, my friend, are good people! Of course, I've known that from the beginning. :)
You, my friend, are good people!
You take that back!!! :D
Thanx Liz :D
Michale
akadjian [3] -
Yeah, I'm not going to take that bet. Heh.
Michale -
Seriously? You're going to get into presidential vacations again? Bush: all-time winner of time off. There. End of argument. Look into how many millions the Bush twins spent on their vacations, if you want to get upset about taxpayer dollars paying for extravagence...
As for extravagence, here's a Bush quote: "These are my people... the 'haves' and the 'have-mores'." Still waiting for your outrage on that one...
Also waiting for any pushback on Bush from ANY Republican while he was hobnobbing with the wealthy, himself. Obama Derangement Syndrome, pure and simple...
It's not all Bush's fault -- it's the way EVERY SINGLE MODERN PRESIDENT LIVES. Deal with it.
LizM [11] -
Hey, I'd take one for a lot less than that, and say "Mahalo!"
:-)
Michale [12] -
OK, you're getting tedious. I challenge you, say 1000 quatloos at stake, to present ANY evidence that Obama is spending more money than Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan on such things. You know, solid evidence of "extravagence." I bet you can't provide such numbers. Because nobody ever complained about such things until Obama took office. And, as I said, nobody's ever going to beat Dubya's record for most days spent away from the White House, or Ike's record of most days on the golf course, sorry.
LewDan [14] -
Michale's absurd argument is like saying Obama could save millions by moving out of the Whitehouse and into an apartment
Actually, this is precisely what Jerry Brown did when he first became governor of California in the 1970s. Look it up. He was, of course, ridiculed by Repbulicans for doing so.
Heh.
OK, that's it for now...
I'm going to watch Craig Ferguson now, so I'll have to get to the rest of this week tomorrow, just for everyone's information...
-CW
Seriously? You're going to get into presidential vacations again? Bush: all-time winner of time off. There. End of argument. Look into how many millions the Bush twins spent on their vacations, if you want to get upset about taxpayer dollars paying for extravagence...
What would those "millions" be?? Cite??
Regardless my point is simple..
Obama can't lecture and preach about the poor "poor people" after coming home from a 5 million dollar vacation..
He has NO credibility.. No moral foundation...
OK, you're getting tedious. I challenge you, say 1000 quatloos at stake, to present ANY evidence that Obama is spending more money than Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan on such things. You know, solid evidence of "extravagence." I bet you can't provide such numbers. Because nobody ever complained about such things until Obama took office. And, as I said, nobody's ever going to beat Dubya's record for most days spent away from the White House, or Ike's record of most days on the golf course, sorry.
I could, but what would be the point??
Will anyone admit that Obama is wrong for what he is doing, even with the financials to back it up??
Will it actually convince anyone that Obama is NOT a god, NOT a king, DOESN'T walk on water??
Of course not..
So, why bother??
Michale
Put it this way, CW..
Obama coming home from a 5 million dollar vacation and then preaching and lecturing about the poor "poor people" is as hypocritical as DiFi complaining about the CIA spying...
I am also constrained to point out is that the people are POORER and there are more "poor people" under Obama and the Democrats..
So, as I am wont to say, maybe Democrats should clean their own house first before the presume to lecture the rest of America...
I'm just sayin'....
Michale