President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 26, 2011 04:46 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 86 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“More faults are often committed while we are trying to oblige than while we are giving offense.”

–Tacitus

Tweet
Share

Comments

86 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

    1. Even the AP agrees – this was a speech full of big promises that contradict each other.

      WASHINGTON – The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

      Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.” He coupled this with a call to “freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”

      But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

      I’m also disgusted by the calls for ‘working together’ only now that the Dems have no choice.  “Hey, I won” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it when you don’t have a supermajority.

      I’m beginning to identify with how some of you felt every time you heard W’s voice.  It is literally going to take a generation to undo the damage that’s been done to this country in the last two years.

        1. The big money is in entitlement reform, and he kicked that can down the road last night.  If there was ever an opportunity to fix SS, Medicare, etc., it’s right now, and he bailed because he’s more concerned with winning re-election than in fixing anything.

                1. I mean it.  I believe that Bush, with what we were faced with at the time, made the right decision to invade Iraq.

                  And I mean that respectfully, and I understand very well that people feel very, very differently than I do, and it doesn’t make me feel anything negative toward them.

                  That’s what I meant by respectfully.

          2. Between implying that the Iraq war was mandatory, reflexively posting anti-union screeds, taking up the “Progress Now” right-wing talking point on Gessler’s incredibly stupid secondary employment ploy, and not one but two lies in the above statement, you’re becoming unfortunately just another Libertad or BJ.

            Social Security does not contribute to our debt.  We’ve been over this, but you continue to use it for no other reason than to continue to pound on a successful part of our government.

            And Obama did address Medicare and Medicaid last night, indicating we needed to find ways to reduce medical costs.

            2. SS will be insolvent by the time I get there.  It needs to be fixed, or at least give me the opportunity to get out of it.

              If Obama wanted to fix Medicare and Medicaid costs, perhaps he shouldn’t have designed a bill that dumps millions and millions of people into a system that doctors don’t want any part of.

              As Paul Ryan said last night, if he’s serious about deficit reduction, start by repealing your crappy-ass HCR law.

              1. then we could discuss which approach is better.

                Absent that plan, the choice is between the new way and the old way. One can only conclude that Republicans (yourself included) like the old way better.

                All claims by Republicans about what they would do once HCR is repealed is just unicorns and ponies.

                At least Ryan has the balls to propose something, as vague and flawed as it is.

              2. SS is the most solvent, successful program going and a few adjustments, as simple and unapocalyptic as raising the cap, would be all we need to keep it that way, even for you, LB.

                I get we get how the whole rightie sales job is based on… Everybody run! We’re all doomed because of (fill-in-the-blank with your choice of socialism, they’re taking our guns, they’re taking our freedom, they’re pulling the plug on grandma, the president loves terrorists, the president is an alien, there’s a war on Christians, sharia law is coming, climate change is a job killing hoax, healthcare reform is a job killing hoax, protecting ordinary people from Wall Street bandits with regulation and oversite is a job killing hoax, investing in infrastructure is just another word for job killing spending, ditto education, ditto green energy, taxing the rich as they were taxed under Clinton will kill all those jobs the cuts will start creating any decade now, we promise) and any of several other well beloved bugaboos.

                It’s what righties use instead of reason which is very unpopular with their Palin/Bachmann idiocy loving base.  If the facts don’t suit, default to encouraging irrational hysteria to deflect from the obvious.

              3. I’ll go with the assumption that the very conservative projections put forward by our government are correct, and that SS will be short of the money it needs to pay retirees sometime around 2039.  That’s just after I get to that age, too – and you and I will still get about 80% of our expected benefits without a single adjustment.  The simple solution now is the same solution Reagan signed off on 25 years ago but was off on because, you know, even Reagan couldn’t see everything that would happen 50 years in to the future – adjust the SSI taxes to correct for the economic downturn and relatively short-term bump from baby boomer retirees.

                The Medicaid decision (I’m assuming you’re talking about the Medicaid eligibility expansion to 133% of poverty level) comes down to the same discussion we’ve been having over school lunches.  These people cannot afford health care on their budgets (it might cost a family covered by this expansion fully half of their yearly income to be covered by a plan that keeps them healthy).  Their employers do not pay for their coverage.  The people covered specifically by this expansion are people who work, and probably work hard and even when they’re sick, because they need the money and they’re hourly.  They are people who you come in to contact with on a regular basis, who can pass on their illnesses to you.  They drive the productivity of the service economy in this country.

                Many of these new Medicaid eligible workers may be able to get health care coverage from their employer by 2014, when larger companies are required to purchase such coverage.  That will once again reduce the Medicaid rolls and help relieve your tortured Republican soul somewhat.

                The rest of them – part-time workers or those working for smaller companies – still add to our nation’s health care costs, and allowing them to enroll in Medicaid is as efficient a way as any to try and reduce those society-wide costs.  (You see, just because the CBO only projects government savings, and many people only want to look at savings for this or that narrow segment of our economy, the economy as a whole benefits when any part of it becomes better.)

                1. Medicare bigger problem, but that is the problem of healthcare cost in general (and the fee for service model)

                  Medicaid actually has the biggest structural problem–it is no longer a “healthcare for the poor” program, but rather a “long term nursing home care” for the elderly program.

                  More than half of all medicare dollars (some say as high as 70%) go to pay long term care expenses.  Nursing home care is expensive and not covered by Medicare or private health insurance.  Very few people carry the type of insurance necessary to pay for nursing home care so the government pays the bill.

                  It isn’t just poor people, affluent people use Medicaid as well.  

                  Here’s how it works.  Transfer your assets directly or indirectly through a trust to your heirs (I recommend indirectly to avoid gift taxes), buy a special type of disability to get you beyond the lookback period, presto you look poor–government pays for your long term care, and now with permanently lower inheritance taxes your grand-kids get to lay on the beach with their untaxed millions while working folks pay for you to get sponge baths.

                  I agree we need to reform Medicaid.

                  1. I actually know a bit about the elderly giving up their assets to qualify for Medicaid for long term care.  It’s a generally unpaid expense, and not one that many people actually think of when buying insurance, either.

                    And it costs big bucks – far more than your average health care bill, and more than the cost of Medicare and Social Security payouts for the recipient combined.

                    I hadn’t really associated it with the rising costs of Medicaid, though – thanks for giving me reason to put two and two together.

                    2. .

                      nobody on this board knows the industry like you do.

                      You OWE us something of a tutorial.

                      .

          3. …back up something you said.

            QUOTE: “If there was ever an opportunity to fix SS, Medicare, etc., it’s right now..”

            Why?

            I have a number of compelling arguments to refute doing it now (with all of those facty-things to back it up) but if  you can tell me why we should try and do it now, I’d like to hear it.

            (No links to CATO, Heritage or their ilk, please.)

            2. The climate is such that honest deficit reduction and preparing for insolvency in our entitlements is front and center.  

              And he could even claim it as part of his fake bipartisan outreach.  He’d really pin the R’s down if he truly tried to reform those things at this point.

              1. ….I was looking for something a little more substantial. Like a professional source, or an article by someone not paid by Karl Rove.

                If the Republican’t Party really were serious about deficit reduction, they would be calling for Simpson-Bowles to be on the floor as bill #1. Ain’t happening….because the Anarchists in the Tea Party will shriek that it doesn’t go far enough.

                That, and the fact they need to have their Health Care Law Kabuki Theater moment.

                Social Security is solvent for a while – we could hoot about what specific year, but it’ll be here long enough to have some calm debate and study. TriCare payments will always be about the same, since the military may grow a bit but not much, and thanks to the Repubs who took away a promise I got when I enlisted, they’ll never bring back free health care for life for military retirees.

                Veteran Disability payments will skyrocket – but you should be prepared to pay that, regardless of the cost. You do keep cheerleading the war in Iraq, which is what’s generating all kinds of disabled vets…and will for decades.

                So that leaves Medicare and Medicaid -which we could deal with if we can have a serous debate about health care reform. But the Repubs won’t dare touch Medicare since the Tea Party Nation is their biggest user…leaving Medicaid as the lone issue that we can cut.

                Which is an interesting dilemma, since if the Repubs get their way and undo Health Care Reform, the Medicaid rolls will skyrocket.  

        2. was raising the retirement age, not a word about the cap on payroll taxes.

          With lest than a year to go, if he “adjusts” Social Security that way, I’ll vote for whoever primaries him.  No, I’ll volunteer for whoever primaries him.

          1. … then you’re about to retire and don’t want to wait any longer.

            I doubt, if they do raise the retirement age, that they’ll do it across the board. I’ll have to work later in life, but you can probably still draw your SS checks starting next year.

            It would probably be the best to raise them across the board and make you and others your age wait five years, but people aren’t all that utilitarian…

            1. When you get to be my age, you begin to understand that there are some things you just can’t do anymore.

              Yes, people are living longer.  But we’re still getting old at the same age.

              There is nothing wrong with Social Security that can’t be fixed for years simply by raising the cap on contributions.

              1. so I understand that full well. And I’m very open to solutions that don’t involve raising the retirement age. I sure don’t want to have to work for a living at 80. (I’ve got my investments and don’t expect to be working, but who is to say our economy won’t be fucked then…)

              2. but you’re one of the only people on here I can ask that won’t be condescending in your answer. Can you explain, as though to a 6th grader, what raising the cap on contributions means and how that would work for someone my age?

                1. on the first $X.00 you make.  After you’ve reached the cap, you pay no more Social Security taxes–you get a nice little 6.2 percent raise for the remainder of the year.

                  In 2010 (and again in 2011) the cap is $106,800; the total amount anyone pays in is $6,621.60

                  It has nothing to do with age, only earnings.

                  What that means in a nutshell is that Social Security taxes are regressive.  People who earn less than the cap pay taxes on all of their income, people who earn more are taxed at a lower effective rate because they aren’t taxed on their full income.

                    1. They pay the same until they hit the cap. But after they hit the cap, they pay no more.

                      As a percentage of their earnings it’s less, which is why I say it’s regressive.

                    3. There’s a formula that adjusts the earnings cap along with the SSI benefit payouts, based on the COLA numbers, inflation, etc.

                      The cap and the tax amount are supposed to be set (legislatively) to properly account for the amount of outlay from the system over the next X years.  Reagan and Congressional Democrats made an adjustment to increase these figures to account for the baby boom retirement, but since it was 25 years ago, they were off by a bit (hard to account for income from a variable economy over the 50-60 years they were trying to project), and we now face a potential moderate shortfall.

                      Today’s Republicans see this as proof the system is broken, but really it’s only the inability of Republicans and Democrats alike to be fully prescient.

                    5. That’s the I in SSI. It’s designed to operate as an annuity with some insurance benefits.

                      I recall hearing somewhere that raising the cap to a congressperson’s salary would fix the system. I kinda like that.

                      I’ve also read that the actuarial assumptions behind the doom-and-gloom scenarios are overly conservative (by design). They’re also based on 75-year projections(!). It’s always seemed to me that we ought to re-balance the projections periodically – like with every census.

      3. Obama, in his speech, will call for eliminating tax breaks for the oil industry. “We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,” Obama will say, according to prepared remarks of the speech provided by the White House.

        The American Petroleum Institute, the country’s most powerful oil industry trade association, is, perhaps predictably, not pleased with the speech.

        As reported in The Hill. (emphases added by me)

        The Fossil Industry is not happy that their century long sucking from the government teat might now have an additional restriction or two.

        Here’s an idea of how much we could reduce government spending if we cut some fossil subsidies:



        Graph from here.

        I’d support ending all energy subsidies, but I’d be willing to compromise with just ending subsidies for the fossil industry for now. I’ll toss in removing subsidies for corn ethanol, too.

        1. It’s a bunch of BS that is easy for most of the public to see. It’s the Black Knight move from Holy Grail- “Ok. We’ll call it a draw.” and it’s sickening.

        1. As soon as you can comment on the substance of what I’m saying, then I’ll start replying to you.

          Sorry, but being honest is part of my alcohol and drug addiction problem you thankfully were able to sniff out from my posts yesterday.

          1. sorting through the haystack of your blather and misrepresentations on the promise of a needle of substance — what’s say we just keep poking at one another until one of us runs out of barbs instead?

            (I’ll forgo commenting about your reading comprehension.)

    3. They say that like it’s a bad thing.

      35. Ohio: nerdiest state claim based on highest number of library visits per capita (6.9)

      Seriously, there’s no greater notoriety to be found about Ohio? The state where Republican legislators toilet paper each other’s houses?

  4. As reported in a blog by the City Hall reporter for the local paper (never sure how I can cite or quote), Mr. “Destroy Council Springs” (his words) is POSSIBLY announcing today that he intends to run for a Council seat in the April election.

    While this would be an embarrassment of National proportions, I actually think the voters will reject his negativity.  But, then again, he only needs to be one of the top five vote getters.

    As Colorado Springs prepares to move to a “Strong Mayor” form of government this Spring, and with a majority of the new Council being freshmen (as a result of term limits) his election would throw so much turmoil into the local scene that the City could effectively shut down.

    Stay tuned.

      1. After seeing how the CD-5 primary turned out in 2006 (where six candidates did their best to out-rightwing each other, and yes, the most rightwing guy won), I expect their council race to be all about who hates government more.

  6. (From The Onion):

    WASHINGTON-Citing historical legislative accomplishments, an improving economy, and the American people’s resilience in the face of adversity, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that the state of the union-aside from all the weirdos, freaks, and truly bizarre citizens out there who are “just really, really strange”-is strong.

    “Mr. Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans,” Obama said, “nearly two years into our recovery from a recession that left our financial system on the verge of collapse, I stand here today confident that America is on a path to a better tomorrow, despite all the nutjobs and lunatics out there whose behavior is, honestly, kind of weirding the rest of us out.”

    “I mean, there are some serious wackos in this country,” added Obama, singling out those with pierced eyelids and those who are always loudly clearing their throats for some reason. “But together, with the exception of those 9/11 conspiracy theory freaks, we can answer history’s call and lay the foundation for future generations.”

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…

  7. “More faults are often committed while we are trying to oblige than while we are giving offense.”

    The last thing I need is another excuse to be offensive.

    2. She’s done a good job. Public records are very easy to search, filings are simple, recent elections went smoothly. She’s an excellent agency head. Hope to see her continue in a public role.

  9. Already documented the Republican’t War on Veterans, but now the Queen of the Teabaggers is ready to slash and burn the VA’s budget:

    “Veterans: $4.5 Billion [cut] Cap increases in [VA] health care spending, and reduce disability compensation to account for SS disability payments. Reduce Veterans’ Disability Compensation to account for Social Security Disability Insurance payments.”

    http://bachmann.house.gov/Uplo…

    Huh…Rep Bachmann, you DO recall your out-and-out support for the Surge in Iraq, correct? So, did you think all of those servicemen and women just went back into a box of GI Joes when the war was over?

        1. I figure I’m only right on this sort of stuff about once per calendar year. Given that I’m flat out of political insider mojo for the next 49+ weeks, I’d like the privilege of gloating for an evening.

          Request for DavidThi – please get one of your daughters to record your head explosion and post it here on COPols. j/k

            1. But based on the tack Hickenlooper is taking, we’ll have fewer new jobs in the state than we would if he focused his efforts on improving the climate for more jobs.

              My company is fine, we put in the time it takes to figure it out taxes when we sell in state. And fortunately, we rarely sell in Colorado so it’s not that big of a hit.

              But this does impact lots & lots of companies. The new growing ones that are the engine of job growth. I feel bad for the people that would have had jobs, but now won’t.

        1. When my Aunt got her first summer job, she rearranged all the files in the office so only she could find things. That way they couldn’t fire her. At the end of the summer she put them back in alpha order.

          Any chance Roxy Huber did something similar? Screwed up DoR so bad that no one else will touch it to hang on to a job that pays her well to do nothing?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!