Fellow Dems! Are you thinking of running for Kristi Noem's U.S. House seat in 2012 but worry you won't be able to come up with enough campaign material?
Please. Worry no more. Thanks to Rep. Noem's vote for the draconian, unserious, and unpopular Paul Ryan budget, your one-two punches for the campaign are ready to go.
First, start with the anecdote. Adapt this new Democracy for America ad criticizing New Hampshire Congressman Charlie Bass. Find a South Dakotan in a similar situation (relying on Medicare, son or daughter in military, voted for the incumbent last time), run pretty much the same text.
That ad will hit so hard, Kristi will come crying to KELO begging them to stop running it.
Then follow-up with the numbers. The House Democrats have prepared state-by-state breakdowns of how many Medicare and Medicaid recipients the Ryan budget screws. The documents sumarize the damage Kristi's Ryan-budget vote would do just in South Dakota:
First Medicare:
- Increase prescription drug costs for 11,300 Medicare beneficiaries.
- Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries.
- Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 125,000 South Dakotans who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
- Require the 125,000 individuals in South Dakota between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $29.2 billion for their retirement &ndash an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual &ndash to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes.
...then Medicaid:
- Reduce coverage for 12,000 dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible seniors and individuals with disabilities.
- Jeopardize nursing home care for 3,600 recipients.
- Impair the health care of 73,000 children, including 3,300 newborns each year.
- Cut payments to hospitals for 18,000 emergency room visits each year.
- Cut payments to hospitals for 7,900 inpatient visits each year.
As Jon Stewart would say, this [bleep] writes itself.
Read the full breakdown of Noem's loathful (but not unexpected) votes against Medicare and Medicaid. Then line up some donors and get set to run against Kristi in 2012!
Herseth could likely win in '12 against Noem just because she could say Noem lied to everyone last year.
I guess you could say Noem has about a good of a track record as Obama. I guess Obama would be worse since he has deceived so many more people.
Wow, from what planet do you hail, Jenna?
Jenna's comment is baseless, unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Obama's record is better, saving money, covering more people.
Amazing....Noem says one thing and does another, hang her high. Obama says one thing and does another, you give him a plaque. Can you honestly sit there and say one is OK and another is not? I guess a lie is not a lie when it is your guy.
The War Toilet will love you, Jenna; perhaps you should visit it with all the gusto of a redstater.
Where? What plaque have I given him? You're hearing things, Jenna. Argue the points made, not the points Rush and Glenn wish you could make.
i am 100% behind getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS even though I have paid in the last 30 years. I stand behind Noem and a majority of South Dakotan's that support her. Condemn the right all you want, but realize you are no better when you give your own people a pass.
Before we dismiss the Ryan plan concerning Medicare, I think we'd do well to listen carefully to everything substantive and specific that the man has to say on the subject.
Then we'd do well to compare everything substantive and specific that the Democrats have to say on the subject.
I'd love to see a one-on-one debate between Paul Ryan and Barack Obama on this issue.
Thus far, to the extent that I can see, the Democrats have pointed out myriad horrible consequences of the Ryan plan, without acknowledging the presence of the tyrannosaurus in the tea room ...
If we want to keep Medicare and Medicaid intact as they are now for people currently under age 55, we will have to implement a massive tax increase, and the only type of tax that will do the job is a new national sales tax or value-added tax.
Ryan at least tries to present his case in a clear and honest way.
The Democrats seem (to me) to argue their case in a muddled and dishonest way -- dishonest by failing to say how we will pay for allowing the status quo to continue indefinitely.
I've made my position clear here and on other blogs: I think we should consider "Medicare for all" (e.g., "KucinichCare" or its equivalent), to be paid for entirely and exclusively by a national retail sales tax with groceries exempt.
I say consider, in the sense that we should conduct an economic feasibility study. I'm entirely willing to accept the possibility that my idea can't work -- but only after someone demonstrates, with hard and well-obtained data, that it can't work.
Ryan and his colleagues argue that "free market competition" will bring down medical costs. I harbor deep doubts about the notion of free market capitalism (with all of its virtues) having realistic applicability to something as fundamental to human life as our health-care system. Ryan will have to deal with his own reptiles in the rec room, but at least he appears willing to deal with them, and they look smaller (to me) than the big T that the Democrats won't even look talk about -- yet!
The Democrats are demogoguing this issue and playing "chicken" with the lives of more than two hundred million people. Charles Krauthammer calls that approach "cynical." I'd call it something worse.
Stan, I'm still not convinced that the national sales tax is the only way to go here. What about repealing the Bush-Obama tax cuts, bringing tax rates back to Clinton-era levels, and drawing down military spending? And don't forget: Kucinichcare done right brings net savings: you can raise my taxes $3000 a year, and I'll still have more money in my pocket, since I won't be throwing my money away on wasteful for-profit health insurance.
Dear, sweet Jenna. As usual, nothing to add to the conversation--just slinging talking points and hoping to muddy the issue.
Cory, by all means, repeal the Bush-Obama tax cuts, bringing tax rates back to Clinton-era levels. Draw down military spending. I'd like to see a roadmap something like the one proposed by the original "deficit commission" (the one with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles on it), in addition to other measures.
I don't like the idea of a national sales tax or value-added tax at all. In fact I loathe it -- except for the fact that, given the magnitude of our impending cash-flow problems as a nation, there'll likely be no other way out in the medium-term and especially in the long term. I think the Democrats know this as a fact, but won't tell the people that fact. They need to start coming out with hard truths. Otherwise, some years from now, they risk not only plunging this nation into something worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s, but also damaging themselves politically.
I do not want to see a new national sales tax or value-added tax unless it's devoted entirely and exclusively to funding Medicare (in whatever form it ultimately takes, expanded or not). I would insist on a constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to "raid" either the Social Security fund (paid for by the current payroll tax) or the Medicare fund for any other purpose.
Paul Ryan, by the way, has accused the Democrats of "raiding" the Medicare fund for the first time in history, in the same way that admistrations have been "raiding" the Social Security fund for some time. Does this accusation reflect the truth, or is Mr. Ryan lying?