Oct. 7, 2013

Obama Signals: Join ‘Team Obamacare’
By Hazel Trice Edney

President Barack Obama, with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, listen as enrollees in the Affordable Care Act tell their stories in the Oval Office, Oct. 1. The enrollees later joined the President for a statement in the Rose Garden. PHOTO: Pete Souza/The White House 

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Amidst a continuing standoff between Congressional Republicans and Democrats this week, President Obama has reached out to his base, asking them to start signing up for Affordable Health Care coverage and to even embrace the Republican-invented word, “Obamacare”.

“I know there are groups that are working to make Obamacare fail, including a group of House Republicans that voted more than 40 times to derail the law,” Obama said in a video emailed to millions of people who he described as “the best grassroots team ever.”

Reminding viewers of the basic reasons for the law - so there would be no more discrimination based on “pre-existing conditions” and so that single mothers can afford both health care and college for their children, among other reasons - the President, encouraged supporters to join “Team Obamacare.”

“There are groups working against this law that are spending a lot of money to try to confuse people about health reform. That’s why it’s so important that all of us make sure that people have the facts,” he says in the video. “You know I’m on Team Obamacare. Today I’m asking you to be a part of it too. I’m asking you to talk to your family and friends, neighbors and co-workers and tell them to check out healthcare.gov for themselves, to see what plan works best for them and their families.”

What was billed as a “personal message for OFA supporters”, appeared to be a direct message from Obama to his large African-American base. OFA, Organizing for Action, is the same email target used to undergird his strategic campaign move in November, surprising Republicans with millions of votes that they least expected.

The President appears to be strategically embracing the term, “Obamacare”, and encouraging supporters to do so even as some news agencies are debating whether or not to even use it.

“The Associated Press and NPR have decided to cut back on use of the term ‘Obamacare,’ with NPR describing the word as seeming ‘to be straddling somewhere between being a politically-charged term and an accepted part of the vernacular,’” reports Richard Prince in his Journal-isms column Oct. 3. “Separately, the AP went further and said the name of the health-care law, the Affordable Care Act, was also prejudicial in that ‘its very name is promotional; opponents believe it will not be affordable for individuals or the country,’” Prince wrote.

The shut-down of non-essential services of the U. S. Government, causing hundreds of thousands of layoffs, remain in effect this week. Republicans continue to hold out on a vote until the President makes concession on the ACA or on entitlements, says Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

The President has refused to negotiate on the issue, his email appearing to making sure his base knows why.

“I couldn’t be more proud to have the support of the best grassroots team ever. Together, we’re going to finish what we started.”

Oct. 13, 2013

To Be Equal 
Don’t Play Politics with the Debt Limit
By Marc H. Morial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth—with many private-sector analysts believing that it would lead to events of the magnitude of late 2008 or worse, and the result then was a recession more severe than any seen since the Great Depression.” - U.S. Treasury

On September 21, one week before the first government shutdown in 17 years, President Obama addressed the 43^rd annual Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference in Washington.  He told the 43 members of the Caucus and thousands of its supporters the same thing he has been telling the nation ever since, “We will not negotiate whether or not America should keep its word and meets its obligations.  It’s time for these folks to stop governing by crisis.”

It is also time to set the record straight about the debt limit – what it is, what it does and why it should never be a political pawn in an ideological game (yes, game) of who will blink first.  The Treasury department defines the debt limit as “the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.”

In other words, raising the debt ceiling is not a license for unchecked partisan spending.  It does, however, ensure that our nation continues to pay our bills and abide by previously reached agreements.

Adding to the crisis is that as of the time of this writing, the government shutdown has entered its second week.  With each passing day, new burdens are added to already hard-pressed communities across the country.  Even with the recent House vote to guarantee back pay for furloughed workers, the damage to the American people and to federal employees is mounting – with almost one million federal workers furloughed and “essential” workers reporting to work but not being paid.  In addition, government agencies and organizations that provide critical services to millions of Americans – and that are still reeling from the detrimental effects of the “sequester” –  have been forced to suspend needed services, putting both the economic health of the nation and the physical health of our people in jeopardy.

But, as bad as all of this may be, it pales in comparison to what could happen if Congress creates another manufactured crisis by failing to raise the debt limit by October 17.

Throughout our nation’s history, our government has never defaulted on our legal obligations.  In fact, the debt limit has been permanently raised, temporarily extended or has undergone a revision of its definition 78 distinct times since 1960 (49 times under a Republican president and 29 times under a Democratic president).  According to the Treasury Department, if America defaults on our global financial obligations, it would likely send our economy back into a deep recession – with high interest rates, reduced investment, higher debt payments, and slow economic growth – that could last for more than a generation.

This issue is not one to manipulate for political power plays or to use as a stick to force repeals of passed legislation.  With the world watching and China – our largest creditor – using this as an opportunity to remind us of “the lessons of history” from our 2011 credit rating downgrade due to Congressional deadlock,  the stakes are high and the consequences of inaction are even more dire.  Political grandstanding isn’t worth it for anyone, and in the end, it will be the American people – not one party or political figure – who lose if we continue down this path.

Let’s be clear – principled, partisan fights are a part of democracy.  But we must never become so irreconcilable that rigid ideology is valued above the needs of American citizens.  Our message to Congress is clear:  Don’t play with the full faith and credit of the United States.  Act now and demonstrate to our nation and the world how democracy can be – at its best.

Nice House, Kid in College
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - While some members of Congress are foregoing pay as long as other government workers are shut out of their offices, Republican Congressman Lee Terry (R-Neb.) says he won’t be giving his up. He told his hometown paper that he had to pay for his “nice house” and that he also had a “kid in college”.  I guess he needs his pay more than the others who also have nice homes and college tuitions to pay for. 

The gall of these do-nothing Republicans is amazing.  If I had my way - NONE of them, no Democrat, no Republican, no President, no Supreme Court Justice would be able to collect a penny.  Lest they forget, they are government workers just like the clerical worker or statistician that earns a government check.  While Republicans bear primary responsibility for the stalemate, if the collective had to suffer, there might be a way to get Congress moving.

Congress did the right thing in saying that federal workers will get retroactive pay when a budget or continuing resolution is passed, but that won’t help the folks who live from paycheck to paycheck when nothing is coming in.  Perhaps if Congressman Terry were paid retroactively and only after this mess were settled, perhaps if he had to miss a payment on his nice house, and seek a Parent Plus loan for his child’s college tuition, then he might take a less flippant view toward those whose survival he holds in his hands.

With House Speaker John Boehner typing debt ceiling talks to budget talks, there is little incentive to fix this mess before October 17, the debt-ceiling deadline.

Even if an agreement comes before October 17, people won’t get paid until government gets back up and running.  Some paychecks may be delayed as long as a week, but I don’t think that a credit card payment, rent, or a mortgage bill can be delayed.  AS this Congress continues ego-tripping, too many people are being tripped up by their economic circumstances, which have not been helped by mandatory furloughs that some have already taken this year.

 It is interesting, though, to ponder the Congressional meaning of “essential” services.  Almost half of the 800,000 government workers who have been locked out of their workplaces work for the Department of Defense.  Because they support the military, they will be allowed to come back to work because the military is “essential”.  I don’t think it takes 350,000 people to support the military.  I think this is a ploy to show the importance of the military as opposed to the rest of government service.  The “starve the beast” crowd who would eliminate most of government is undoubtedly delighted at the illustration that the world will not come falling down if government stops working.

 Why is feeding people less essential than protecting them?  I’m not suggesting that the military is expendable (though, frankly, at least part of it should be).  I’m simply suggesting that it is as essential to protect people from hunger, as it is to protect them from other threats, real or perceived.  And bringing 350,000 Defense Department workers back suggests that they are more important than their colleagues, the other federal employees who are still locked out.

Our Congress simply doesn’t know (and hasn’t tried to know) how the other 99 percent live.  California Republican Darrell Issa is worth $355 million. I guess he would not know what it feels like to miss a mortgage payment.  Neither would Texas Republican Michael McCaul, who is worth at least $100 million, not including his wife’s worth. 

This is not “class envy” just an observation.  Many members of Congress are independently wealthy and they earn at least $174,000 for their “service” to the nation, along with a series of perks worth thousands more.  The average household has an income of about $51,000.  Congressional representatives like Lee Terry say they have "earned" their salaries and won’t give them back because they have nice homes and children in college.  That speaks volumes about their contempt for fellow government workers who have obligations they can’t meet thanks to our do-nothing Congress.