Carol Shea-Porter - Yes, the Issue is Fairness

Mitt Romney’s statement about the “47%” has gotten Americans debating  “fairness.” Many families are struggling to pay the rent or mortgage, and many are unable to send their kids to college or save for retirement.  When they read about how income has soared for the top 1% and stayed flat or dropped for them, they wonder who decides fairness.

Until recently, if anyone voiced concerns about fairness, they were accused of  “class envy.” Then Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, made his now-famous statement about how he got the tax breaks, and it was not fair to his secretary. And when Buffet was challenged to prove she paid twice the tax rate he did, Buffet released his 2010 tax returns and proved the unfairness.

Buffet turned the conversation to exactly the one we need to have in this country – what’s fair.  He told ABC News, “If this is a war, my side has the nuclear bomb... We have K Street. … We have Wall Street. Debbie doesn’t have anybody. I want a government that is responsive to the people who got the short straw in life” (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/).

Wealth creation is good. People want to be able to take care of their children. It’s a lot better to live in a nice house or apartment in a safe neighborhood than in a run down neighborhood.  It’s a lot nicer when a community has the money it needs to offer quality services to its citizens. There are more civic organizations and opportunities for economic success in a community that is not poor.

The issue is not wealth creation.  It is not class envy either.  It is about fairness, about people and corporations paying their fair share.

Americans realize that the very wealthy and corporations have been very effective at lobbying, and that tax codes favor the rich.  Oklahoma Senator Coburn, a very conservative Republican, has written a report called “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous” to show how unfair it is.

People are unhappy enough when they find out they pay a higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffet. They are even unhappier when they find out that, according to CNN Money, two-thirds of US corporations paid zero income taxes.

They are upset that Mitt Romney paid 13.7% and 14% on the only two years of income taxes that he would show.

But then Romney said that 47% of people think they are victims, "entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

That was just too over the top.  Apparently, Mitt Romney and Frank Guinta, who refused to refute it, think that the government is not being fair... to the well off!

Some Republican leaders, to their credit, disavowed those remarks.  But Congressman Guinta stood by Romney and called the comments just “a distraction.” 

Frank Guinta has stood up for fairness for oil companies also.  In Conway, when somebody said it wasn’t fair that oil companies get subsidies, Frank Guinta said if we take that away, to be fair, we have to give oil companies rent-free leases. Congressman Guinta's exact words were, "… the simple point on that issue is if you’re going to get rid of that tax benefit to those 5 companies, let’s also eliminate the lease payments and make it fair…"  (at 9:13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdctx1na5A) How is taking away taxpayer subsidies from oil companies so unfair that Americans need to give them free leases to take our oil on our public lands? And why does he now deny that there are subsidies to oil companies, after admitting it in Conway?  I guess he now worries that the rest of us don't find that very fair.

I think this story is emblematic of the selfish thinking of the right wing today.  It used to be “I got mine and will hide it so you have to pay your fair share and mine.” Now it is “I’ve got mine and want yours too.”

This election is about fairness for “the rest of us.” It’s about refusing to allow the right-wing in Washington and Concord to dismantle programs that we all paid into and earned – Medicare and Social Security.

 Is it fair to hire lobbyists to write tax code for politicians to insert into bills to benefit the richest, so they can deduct yachts and horses?

Is it fair for those who claim tax deductions for everything to then turn around and insult the 47% who are really struggling?

It’s not fair, but we can make it fair.

####

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Carol Shea-Porter - The Truth about the Independent Payment Advisory Board

There are only two months left before voters go to the polls. They will cast their lot with either President BarackObama or with Mitt Romney, and they will also choose a member of Congress who will be in President Obama's party or in Mr. Romney's camp. Money is pouring into both the Presidential races now, and also into the Congressional races across the country, especially swing states like New Hampshire.  While I abhor the amount of money being spent by outside groups, and wish that Congressman Frank Guinta had agreed to sign a statement with me asking that outside groups stay out of our race, I am more concerned about the inaccurate messages that their money might spread across our state’s television sets.

I have listened to the false charge that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats “robbed” $716 billion from Medicare. The press and factcheck.org have done a good job explaining the facts about the $716 billion—how it actually was savings generated by stopping insurance companies who run Medicare Advantage from charging taxpayers 14% more, and by other administrative cost savings. Seniors now realize that not one dollar in benefits will be cut from their Medicare, and they also know that, as former President Clinton said, it was "brassy" of Paul Ryan to accuse Democrats of "robbing" Medicare and then include those savings in his own budget. Case closed.

However, there is a new claim about Medicare, a scary claim that is also false.  I heard our congressman, Frank Guinta, say it to a room full of seniors this week. This new claim insists that that a new board established under the Affordable Care Act, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), will, in Congressman Frank Guinta's words, "make decisions for every Medicare recipient as to change whether, say you need a hip replacement or some sort of surgical procedure." Congressman Frank Guinta went on to say, "We're talking about every single procedure, this board will make those decisions." If that were true, that would be terrifying. Fortunately, it is false, and we need to reassure people that nobody is going to stop their hip replacements.

So, exactly what is the IPAB, as it is commonly called, and what do they do?  The Republicans falsely accuse them of being "bureaucrats." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities describes it very well. "The board must include physicians and other health professionals, experts in health finance, health services researchers, employers, and representatives of consumers and the elderly. To prevent control by special interests, health care providers may not constitute a majority of the board's membership.”

So, clearly these are not bureaucrats. But Pat Boone and others have misled seniors in political attack ads that are funded by an outside conservative group called 60 Plus Association.

FactCheck.org says that the health care law, "explicitly says that the IPAB's proposals ‘shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums...increase Medicare beneficiary costsharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.’”

This does not stop Republican politicians from shouting the word "rationing," although it is wrong and shameful to mislead seniors who rely on full access to medical treatment to keep them well. It is particularly "brassy,” since Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans actually voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

Let's let USA Today, a very sensible, right-in-the-middle newspaper, have the final say on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. In a 4/9/12 editorial called "Medicare Cost Panel is Common Sense," it says, "The Medicare board seems like a common-sense mechanism. The reason it engenders such heated opposition is that like the ‘death panels,’ it's a convenient way to scare people into opposing health reform—facts to the contrary."

Don't be fooled by these false claims, or any others. Educate yourself and your neighbors before Election Day. Facts are stubborn things, as we all know, and we should all be armed with the truth if we are going to be fully informed citizens at the polls. Knowledge is power—use it.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Carol Shea-Porter - The Truth about Medicare

Republicans and Democrats have been all over television and radio, and giving speeches all over the country, talking about the Ryan plan for Medicare. The Ryan plan turns Medicare into a voucher plan. Democrats say a voucher plan is an awful idea, leaving senior citizens financially vulnerable when they are most likely to need medical care. Republicans insist that it will give people more choices, as they can shop around for a plan.  To complicate matters, Republicans also claim that Democrats cut billions from Medicare in the Affordable Care Act.  First they claimed Democrats cut $500 billion, and now they have upped the claim to $716 billion. All this leaves senior citizens, their families, and those who will someday be senior citizens wondering what exactly are the facts.

First, we need to discuss the Ryan plan for Medicare. The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. It would provide a flat premium support payment, a voucher, that senior citizens would use to shop around to buy private insurance or Medicare. This would intentionally undermine Medicare, since the private plans would take the healthiest away and leave Medicare with the most expensive, least healthy seniors, making it too hard to compete.  Even worse, the Ryan plan ties any voucher to the growth rate of the gross domestic product (called GDP) per capita plus one-half percentage point. It would cost them thousands more out-of-pocket each year, using this formula.

If your eyes are rolling already, just consider this.  Health care costs grow faster than the GDP, so seniors would have to make up the difference. They also would be responsible, along with the insurance companies, to pay the bills. Medicare currently is a remarkably easy and efficient program. Older people do not have to submit their paperwork to Medicare. When people are not feeling well, it is extremely difficult to keep track of paperwork, so this is a blessing. Also, Medicare has about a 3-7 percent overhead, so it is very efficient, which helps to hold costs down. All this would change with the Ryan plan.  This is truly a terrible deal for older people in this country, and they should reject it. 

As for the Republican claim that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats "robbed" $716 billion, this is an outrageous claim. That $716 billion is just savings from the program, and not one dollar is taken from seniors or traditional Medicare. That savings, a good effort to control costs, comes from several sources. The Affordable Care Act addresses the difference in costs for traditional Medicare vs. private Medicare Advantage plans.  Private Medicare Advantage plans were costing the taxpayers 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. That was stopped, and will save a lot of money. The Affordable Care Act also instituted administrative savings. Everyone should be happy that money is saved. Here is the kicker though. Paul Ryan's own Budget includes that savings—they just don't return it to the Medicare program.

This has been a difficult few years, and another ugly campaign season is here. The stakes are high, and every vote counts. But we should not drag our elders into the fight, try to alarm or confuse them, or use them like pawns. We should be better than that. Just in case though, I recommend that people go to FactCheck.org (http://factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/) and look for themselves, because knowledge really is power.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Jackie Cilley - Facing the Silver Tsunami

Maybe you've heard about the "silver tsunami." It started last year, when the first of the baby boomers (those born between 1948 and 1964) turned 65. Nationally, the number of people aged 65 and older will double by 2050. Here in New Hampshire, nearly a third of our people will be 65 or older by 2030. Research by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies suggests that this huge shift in our society means "pledge" budgeting won't meet our state's needs, especially when it comes to health care costs. The aging of our population presents us with unprecedented challenges to be sure, but also a wealth of opportunities.

This week marks the forty-seventh anniversary of Medicare. Before it was enacted in 1965, half of America's seniors had no health insurance. Today, this successful government program covers nearly 50 million people in the country, roughly 220,000 right here in New Hampshire––with overhead and administration costs, by the way, of just 3%, a figure the insurance industry can't begin to touch.

I believe that making sure people's basic needs are met is the essential first step for a productive economy and thriving society. This is true whether you come at it from the moral perspective that we should take care of each other (I am my brother's keeper) or from an economic perspective based purely on self interest: it's more cost effective to meet needs in the first place rather than address all the compounded costs down the line. In other words, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Our elders understand this. They know this from experience. In fact, it is their wisdom and foresight  that makes our state and country great. Our seniors worked hard all their lives, not just for their own present, but for our future. They raised families, sending out the next generation on stronger footing than where they stood. In doing so, they also built a society. My own parents and grandparents––and yours too––through their hard work, through their taxes, built and maintained the foundations of our prosperity today: a strong system of public education and transportation infrastructure, environmental protections, programs that support people to make their fullest contribution to society. They understood they were building our future.

They did this for me, for all of us. So first and foremost, I honor them and thank them. And second, I insist, they have earned more than our gratitude and our respect. They have earned our support. They have earned the right to a healthy and secure retirement, and to the support they need to participate fully in our communities. We owe them this.

So yes, our seniors have earned our thanks and our support. But they have earned even more than that. They have also earned the right to expect that we carry on their work, that we maintain the foundations of society that they laid for us. And not just maintain them, but build upon them, for our children and their children. Pay it forward, if you will. To let what they built crumble, to throw up our hands and say "we can't afford it" ("it" being good schools or sturdy bridges or reststops on our highways or care and treatment for our most vulnerable)––this isn't just an excuse, nor even political pandering; it's an insult.

I was born and raised in the North Country.  I love New Hamsphire.  I stand where I do today because the generations before me paved the road. They built the road. We're at a real turning point in our state. Decisions we make today have impact farther than the eye can see. Times are changing, calling us to decide together the best direction for our future. That means an uncensored, grown-up conversation, no pledges, no taboos. We owe it to our children––and our seniors, too.

ABOUT JACKIE: Jackie Cilley is proud to have earned the support of nearly 17,000 union households across New Hampshire for her campaign for governor. Jackie, who served in both New Hampshire's House and Senate representing Barrington, built a successful business and taught more than 2500 New Hampshire students over her 20 years as a highly respected business professor with UNH's Whittemore School for Business and Economics. A Berlin native, Sen. Cilley earned a BA in Psychology from the University of New Hampshire and an MBA from the Whittemore School.  Jackie and her husband Bruce have lived in Barrington for more than 20 years.  They have five sons, 12 grandchildren, and two dogs. 

Carol Shea-Porter - The Path to Budgetary Destruction

The United States House of Representatives Budget Committee got a budget bill this week and passed it within 24 hours, without even reading the bill. While Chairman Ryan spoke in soothing tones about  “the path to prosperity,” the bill upset so many Republicans and Democrats that it barely squeaked through the committee. Congressman Frank Guinta cast the deciding vote, which was 19-18, because, as he said, he helped craft it.  When a Republican bill barely gets through a majority Republican Committee like this, it is probably doomed, as it should be.

Why will this budget bill die on the floor of the House?  Because, unless your name ends in Inc. (Incorporated), or you are a millionaire, this bill is not for you, and Republicans know it will be too hard to sell to a very skeptical public.

What are the problems with the bill? To start with, Americans do not like the changes to Medicare in this budget. The budget pushes seniors into vouchers, or what Ryan euphemistically calls  “premium support.”  Seniors could use the vouchers to buy their own insurance with a private company, or they could stay in Medicare, but either way, when the amount of the voucher runs out, an individual’s wallet comes out, and it would be extremely expensive. The vouchers would not reflect the rising cost of health care, because while health care costs are expected to rise around 7% per year, Medicare spending would be kept at the CPI plus 0.5%.  Also, if people are in a lot of different plans, Medicare would lose its ability to control costs and to negotiate better deals for seniors and other taxpayers, and that would push costs up as well.

No wonder presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, in an unguarded moment, called this plan “right-wing social engineering.” After being clubbed by the even further right-wing branch of his party, Gingrich was forced to embrace this disastrous plan, but his first analysis was dead-on, and Americans need to pay close attention if they want their loved ones or themselves to get full medical coverage when they are old or disabled.

If you are trying to pay the bills, you might not appreciate the fact that the wealthy and corporations will get bigger breaks than they already receive. This budget cuts taxes by roughly $3 trillion dollars, but most of those tax cuts would go to higher income earners. All of the Bush tax cuts would become permanent cuts, and there would be just two brackets, 10% and 25%. The top corporate income tax would fall from 35% to 25%. (Remember, 2/3 of US corporations actually pay zero.) And to top off awful ideas with another awful idea, Republicans want to end US taxes on any corporate money earned abroad, which could lead to a rush of jobs headed overseas.

So, if we cut taxes by $3 trillion dollars, and we have no new revenue, what happens? While Congressman Ryan and his followers are not saying exactly what they will cut for the most part, we can all figure out that the middle class and the poor will be out of luck if they cannot find members of Congress who will fight for them. Luckily, Democrats and some Republicans are going to defeat this budget.

They know that cutting money for education, from Head Start through college, is an assault on the poor and the middle class. It also would hurt business, because businesses require a labor pool of well-educated people in order to successfully compete.  As Dr. Jill Biden says, the country that out-educates us will out-compete us. This budget would cut our research in science and technology at exactly the time when we need to step up our investments.  Congressman Ryan has us spending 6% less on “general science, space, and basic technology.” Why?  So we can give more tax breaks to oil companies? The world will not stand still, even if we do.

Transportation, nutrition programs, health care, research, environment…all these and more will have to be cut if the Paul Ryan plan becomes law. Thankfully, it won’t.  But what are Representatives Ryan and Guinta thinking? In this time of high deficits, why would they cut taxes for the rich and US and multinational corporations? Why would they put forward a budget that would require massive cuts in the very areas that require our investment?  The Budget Committee owes America an answer.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.