Reckless and Undemocratic

The following is from Congressman Rush Holt's newsletter:

Today, outrageously, our government is closed. Here’s the most important fact about this shutdown: It is not really about funding the government.

Democrats and Republicans have agreed on a short-term funding level for the federal government. That level is painful for Democrats, as it requires severe cuts in government services – to levels lower even than Paul Ryan first proposed. But I, along with almost all Congressional Democrats, am willing to accept this outcome temporarily to keep our country running.

Yet the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in the House insists they will block any funding bill unless it includes the de facto repeal of health reform.

Perhaps you support health reform; perhaps you do not. But this much is certain: It was duly enacted, and the Tea Party lacks the votes to repeal it by ordinary, democratic means.

So they are trying a reckless, undemocratic alternative. By shutting down the government and threatening to default on America’s debts, they hope to cause so much pain that Congress and the President will be forced to bend to their will.

But if one faction of one party can overturn any duly passed law at will, what will their next demand be? The privatization of Medicare? Tax cuts for millionaires? The abolition of the minimum wage or the Department of Education? Perhaps, if you are a conservative Republican, these policy changes appeal to you, but bear in mind that an insurgent liberal faction could use the same leverage to demand policies you would despise.

If this strategy succeeds and is legitimated, then the U.S. will become essentially ungovernable. Our public policy will be determined, not by the consent of the people, but by the willingness of minority factions to inflict pain to achieve their ends.

That must not happen. And this outrageous behavior is why we should not say that “Congress” has caused this shutdown, for to do so allows the blameworthy to escape blame. We should hold accountable the reckless few who are trying to break our democracy.

Understanding the Health Reform Law

Despite the government shutdown, the health reform law continues to move forward. On Tuesday, the new federal health insurance Marketplace opened at HealthCare.gov, enabling New Jerseyans to compare and purchase comprehensive insurance options and even qualify for subsidies to help cover the costs of their insurance plans.

I have added a new section of my website dedicated to health reform, including answers to frequently asked questions about the law: What is the Marketplace? What are the differences between bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans available in the Marketplace? Do you need to take any action if you already have insurance through your employer or Medicare?

The answers to these and many other questions are available online. Of course, if you find that your question is not answered, please do not hesitate to contact me at 1-87-RUSH-HOLT or by sending an e-mail through my website.

A Parable (With Thanks to Rep. Mike Doyle)

As the Affordable Care Act rolls out, I expect we will see some changes that should be made in the law to make it work better. That is true with any major law. And that is something everyone – including the President and the Democrats in Congress – agree on. There should be and can be discussions – civil, constructive discussions – within accepted legislative procedures. So too on the budget. Those who have shut the government wrongly say the Democrats won’t negotiate.

A gang corners a man and says, “We are going to burn your house down.” “No, you’re not,” says the man.

The gang says, “OK, then, we are going to burn the second floor of your house.” “No, you’re not,” says the man.

The gang says, “OK, then, we are going to burn several rooms of your house.” “No, you’re not,” says the man.

The gang leader says, “What’s wrong with you? You won’t negotiate.”

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

The Hardship Is Only Beginning To Be Felt

The following is from Congressman Rush Holt's newsletter:

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed – over my objections – the so-called Ryan budget, a grim and pessimistic vision for America’s future authored by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan.

If the plan of the budget resolution were made real in appropriations legislation, it would, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute, cost 2 million jobs next year. It would eliminate the mandatory Pell Grant program, a cut of $98 billion, and let interest rates double on student loans. It would cut key transportation investments by more than 20 percent. It would slash Medicaid support by $810 billion, and it would end the Medicare guarantee on which seniors depend.

If that sounds familiar, it should. This Ryan budget is a barely warmed over version of last year’s Ryan budget, which was so thoroughly debated during last year’s election – and so soundly rejected by voters.

It is important to remember that a House budget is only a roadmap and does not have the force of law. However, budget sequestration, which already is in effect, and the Appropriations Legislation passed today are binding. The resulting hardship is only beginning to be felt.

A Shameful Anniversary

As we now recognize that it has been 10 years since American troops were sent into Iraq, it is worth remembering that the Iraq war was a shameful example of the victory of ideology over evidence. Indeed, some leaders were so tied to their ideology that they deluded themselves and the public at the cost of more than 100,000 American and Iraqi lives.

People often ask me whether my decision to vote against the Iraq war was a difficult one. In advance of that vote, I worked hard and thought hard to examine the evidence about whether military action would improve America’s security. But ultimately, it was an easy vote once it became clear that there was no justification to go to war.

On a Collision Course

Earlier this week, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology – spurred to action by the February meteor in Chelyabinsk, Russia that injured more than 1,500 people – held a hearing to examine methods of detecting asteroids and comets that might impact the Earth.

The Chelyabinsk meteor was, to be sure, an exceedingly unusual event; an impact of this magnitude occurs only once a century or so. Even more rarely, far larger rocks fall from the sky: Every 100 million years or so, the Earth is hit by a meteor large enough to cause mass extinctions, like the one at the end of the age of dinosaurs.

As I wrote in a Washington Post op-ed with my colleague Donna Edwards, while the threats posed by meteors are miniscule on a day-to-day basis, surely any existential threat to the human race must be taken seriously. In particular, we should provide NASA with the support necessary to meet a 2005 Congressional mandate that it detect 90 percent of all near-Earth asteroids larger than about 500 feet in diameter. Congress also should take seriously a possibility that has been raised by senior military officials: that a meteor impact might be misinterpreted as a nuclear strike, leading to dangerous overreactions from nuclear-armed states.

Recently I discussed these concerns with the journalist Chuck Todd. A video of our conversation is available online.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

Only 150 Years

The following is from Congressman Rush Holt's newsletter:

On New Year’s Day, America will recognize the sesquicentennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, which abolished slavery within the states attempting to secede from the U.S. and marked a step toward fulfilling our founding vision of a nation where all people are created equal.

It is worth pausing to reflect upon how far America has come since that January day in 1863. One hundred and fifty years is, within the long span of human existence, barely the blink of an eye – only two lifespans. In fact, my own grandfather could remember that day (yes, my grandfather). Yet in that time the Civil War has faded into the history books, the descendants of former slaves have risen to fill nearly every rank and role in American life, and the scourge of racism has diminished greatly. It required not only the leadership of a great man, President Lincoln, but also the personal involvement of millions of Americans rededicating themselves to the great unfinished work of the nation.

Indeed, history often reveals a remarkable human capacity to overcome division and hatred. I was born a few years after the United States concluded a horrific war against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Tens of millions had died. One might have imagined that the bitterness arising from such bloodshed could never be overcome – and yet now, only a handful of decades later, we count these former enemies as friends and allies.

Even during my time in Congress, I have seen progress that many thought impossible. In 2004, a president called upon Congress to amend our constitution to deny gay men and women the right to marry. Earlier this year, a different president announced his personal support for gay marriage.

Today, as America stands on the verge of a new year in which our challenges seem as great and our differences as stark as ever, I am encouraged to remember these lessons from our nation’s past. If history is any guide, the years ahead will once again bring the healing of deep scars, the bridging of great divisions, and the surmounting of insurmountable obstacles.

An Explanation to My Constituents

Last week, Congress passed a misguided bill authorizing the Defense Department for 2013. The legislation contained some positive provisions, including a (small) pay raise for troops, additional funding for family housing and support services, some provisions for additional research in breast cancer, some protections for women from sexual harassment and rape in the military, and an amendment I authored that creates a permanent National Language Service Corps within the Defense Department. It is intended to provide for the men and women we ask to defend our country.

Unfortunately, the good measures were far outweighed by the bad. For example, the bill perpetuates a bloated nuclear weapons complex that does not enhance our security and in fact compromises our nonproliferation efforts. The bill continues funding for an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle – a provocative and destabilizing system that will waste millions more on our failed national missile defense effort. Worse, rather than moving toward a realistic scale of American military commitments, the bill commits our soldiers and our dollars to defend countries in Europe and the Pacific that should be capable of defending themselves. It continues to fund our combat operations in Afghanistan instead of restricting the use of those funds to withdrawal-related operations only.

Overall, the bill continues the acquisition programs and policies that have been in place for decades. It does not fundamentally reshape our armed forces for security today. It continues Cold War weapons acquisition programs that have no place in a 21st century, where the threats are much more diffuse and dispersed.

I deeply regret that I inadvertently cast a “yes” vote for this bill last week. There were six votes recorded in a row: a motion to recommit and then to pass of a large across-the-board cut of government programs, as proposed by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan; an honorific naming of a veterans health clinic in Spokane and another in Grand Rapids, naming a mountain peak next to Yosemite in honor of a former Olympic skier; and the Defense Authorization bill. I mistook the Defense bill. I intended to vote “no,” and I have inserted a statement into the Congressional record clarifying my intent. This is a very rare mistake for me. Although the bill passed by a huge margin, with many Republicans and Democrats voting for it, this was an important bill that in good conscience I would not vote for, and I want my constituents to know.

Stay In Touch with FEMA

If you registered for disaster aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, it is important that you keep in touch with FEMA, especially if your contact information changes. Updating contact information with current address and phone numbers will ensure FEMA can reach you with new information or questions.

To update your contact information, call the toll-free FEMA hotline at 1-800-462-7585. If you have not yet registered for disaster assistance, you may do so online by visiting www.DisasterAssistance.gov. Please note that FEMA has extended the deadline for New Jersey victims of Hurricane Sandy to apply for aid until January 30, 2013.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

Editorial: Obama for president: A second term for a serious man

Well said...

 By the Editorial Board - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Four years ago, in endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president, we noted his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure. He was unproven, but we found him to be presidential, in all that that word implies.

In that, we have not been disappointed. This is a serious man. And now he is a proven leader. He has earned a second term.

Mr. Obama sees an America where the common good is as important as the individual good. That is the vision on which the nation was founded. It is the vision that has seen America through its darkest days and illuminated its best days. It is the vision that underlies the president's greatest achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Twenty years from now, it will be hard to find anyone who remembers being opposed to Obamacare.

He continues to steer the nation through the most perilous economic challenges since the Great Depression. Those who complain that unemployment remains high, or that economic growth is too slow, either do not understand the scope of the catastrophe imposed upon the nation by Wall Street and its enablers, or they are lying about it.

To expect Barack Obama to have repaired, in four years, what took 30 years to undermine, is simply absurd. He might have gotten further had he not been saddled with an opposition party, funded by plutocrats, that sneers at the word compromise. But even if Mr. Obama had had Franklin Roosevelt's majorities, the economy would still be in peril.

Extraordinary, perhaps existential, economic challenges lie just beyond Election Day. The nation's $16 trillion debt must be addressed, but in ways that do not endanger the sick and elderly, or further erode the middle class or drive the poor deeper into penury.

The social Darwinist solutions put forward by Republican Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, are not worthy of this nation's history, except that part of it known as the Gilded Age.

Mr. Obama has not been everything we expected. In his first weeks in office, Democrats ran amok with part of his economic stimulus package. His mortgage relief program was insufficient. Together with his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, the president has been too deferential to the financial industry. The president should have moved to nationalize troubled banks instead of structuring the bailout to their benefit. Regulatory agencies and the Justice Department were unable to bring financial crooks to heel.

We had hoped that Mr. Obama would staff the executive branch with the best and the brightest. There have been stars, but there have been egregious failures, too. The "Fast and Furious"operation at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was a disgrace. The vastly expensive and unaccountable intelligence and Homeland Security agencies need stronger oversight. The now-renamed Minerals Management Service could have used some best-and-brightest inspectors before the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

People who don't understand the word "socialist" accuse Mr. Obama of being one. But as president he has proven to be pragmatic and conciliatory. He is not one to tilt at windmills. He did not close Guantanamo. He cut deals with anyone who'd come to the table. In health care, banking regulation and most other policy areas, he has practiced the art of the possible.

In foreign policy, after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing little more than not being George W. Bush, he has been a centrist. He has stood with Israel, but not as its surrogate. He brought the last of the U.S. troops out of Iraq. He began to wind down the war in Afghanistan — too slowly in our view. He let the nations of the Arab Spring follow their own course to democracy. He used thumb drives instead of bunker busters in Iran.

Against the advice of his senior advisers, he approved the SEAL mission that killed Osama bin Laden. He has been almost ruthless in his pursuit of terrorists, reserving to himself the right to approve targets. Regretfully, he massaged "due process" to allow himself to assassinate an al-Qaida leader who was an American citizen.

He is not a happy warrior, literally or figuratively. He is careful, cautious, private and deeply thoughtful, almost introverted. His rhetoric soars because he is a good writer, and good writers tend to be solitary souls. He is not as good working off the cuff, as was demonstrated in Wednesday's debate with Mr. Romney. But being careful and thoughtful is a good thing in a president.

As to Mr. Romney, we are puzzled. Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? The one who said of himself, in 2002, "I'm not a partisan Republican. I'm someone who is moderate and ... my views are progressive."

Or is it the Mitt Romney who posed as a "severely conservative" primary candidate? Is it the Mitt Romney who supported abortion rights and public health care subsidies in Massachusetts or the one who is pro-life and anti-Obamacare now?

Is it the Mitt Romney who wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion or the one who can't remember saying that now? Is it the Mitt Romney who said in May that 47 percent of Americans are moochers or the one who said last week that's not what he believes?

Mr. Romney apparently will say anything that will help him win an election. As a president, he might well govern as a pragmatic chief executive, or he might sell himself to the plutocrats and the crazies who have taken over his party. He is asking Americans to take a lot on faith — there's nothing to see in his tax returns; he can cut taxes and whack away debt while trimming deductions he will not specify.

Mr. Romney's business career is the only way to judge his foundational beliefs: He did not run a company that built things and created jobs and strong communities. He became fabulously wealthy by loading up companies with tax-deductible debt, taking millions out up front along with big management fees. Some companies were saved. Others went bankrupt. Mr. Romney's firm always got out before the bills came due, either in lost jobs, bankruptcies or both.

If the nation's most pressing issue is debt, why elect a president whose entire business career was based on loading up companies with debt?

In picking Mr. Ryan as his running mate, Mr. Romney signaled that he's ready to perpetuate that model in public office. The middle class hasn't had a raise in 20 years. Income inequality has reached record heights. Mr. Romney is the very embodiment of what's gone wrong with the economy: Too many people at the top create vast wealth that they do not share, either by creating jobs or by paying fair tax rates.

If more Americans were paying attention, this election would not be close. Barack Obama would win going away, at least 53 to 47, perhaps even 99 to 1.

But the atmosphere has been polluted by lies, distortion, voter suppression and spending by desperate plutocrats who see the nation's changing demographics and fear that their time is almost up. They've had the help of a partisan Supreme Court.

The question for voters is actually very simple. The nation has wrestled with it since its founding: Will this be government for the many or the few?

Choose the many. Choose Barack Obama.

5 Reasons Why The Ryan-Romney-Ryan Economic Plan is Wrong

On Wednesday, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) delivered a speech on the Senate floor to expose VP Candidate Paul Ryan's budget impact on middle-class families.

Hope & Change

Mr. Romney Reinvents History

Mitt Romney and his fellow Republican's - Paul Ryan, Condoleezza Rice, John McCain and others -  attempts at reinventing history this week at the just completed 2012 Republican National Convention, were obvious and confounding to many, but their blatant attempts at rewriting the history books won't be tolerated or go uncorrected.

Here's a very good New York Times Op-Ed that addresses a few examples of what transpired over the 3 days in Tampa :

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security — and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy.

For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.

Mitt Romney has tried to sound tough, but it’s hard to see how he would act differently from Mr. Obama except in ways that are scary — like attacking Iran, or overspending on defense in ways that would not provide extra safety but would hurt the economy.

Before Thursday night, the big foreign policy speeches were delivered by Senator John McCain and Ms. Rice. Mr. McCain was specific on one thing: Mr. Obama’s plan to start pulling out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is too rapid. While he does not speak for Mr. Romney, his other ideas were unnerving, like suggesting that the United States should intervene in Syria.

Mr. Romney reportedly considered Ms. Rice as a running mate, and she seems to have real influence. But Ms. Rice is a reminder of the colossal errors and deceptions of George W. Bush’s administration. She was a central player in the decision to invade Iraq and the peddling of fantasies about weapons of mass destruction. She barely mentioned Iraq in her speech and spoke not at all about Afghanistan. She was particularly ludicrous when she talked about keeping America strong at home so it could be strong globally, since she was part of the team that fought two wars off the books and entirely on borrowed money.

Ms. Rice said the United States has lost its “exceptionalism,” but she never gave the slightest clue what she meant by that — a return to President Bush’s policy of preventive and unnecessary war?

She and Mr. McCain both invoked the idea of “peace through strength,” but one of the few concrete proposals Mr. Romney has made — spending 4 percent of G.D.P. on defense — would weaken the economy severely. Mr. McCain was not telling the truth when he said Mr. Obama wants to cut another $500 billion from military spending. That amount was imposed by the Republicans as part of the extortion they demanded to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. Rice said American allies need to know where the United States stands and that alliances are vitally important. But the truth is that Mr. Obama has repaired those alliances and restored allies’ confidence in America’s position after Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice spent years tearing them apart and ruining America’s reputation in the world.

The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr. Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently.

But after watching the Republicans for three days in Florida, that comes as no surprise.

Which Is More Disturbing

A Paul Ryan Primer: Deficit Hawkman

by markfiore

Cut taxes and cut services for the poor, yay! Finally, Mitt Romneys everywhere have a hero.

If Mitt Romney wouldn't choose Chris Christie, why should N.J. voters

In case you missed it, this op-ed that ran in The Times of Trenton and NJ.com earlier this week.

By Joshua Henne

With Chris Christie's lackluster record at New Jersey's helm, it's no surprise Mitt Romney passed on the Garden State's governor when selecting a running mate.

Ever a shrewd businessman when it comes to enriching himself, Romney knows he would get a poor return on a Christie investment.

In one regard, sure, it would have made sense, since they both look out for the "One Percent," believe corporations are people and share a worldview that promotion of the powerful, super-wealthy and politically connected should be put ahead of the well-being of children, senior citizens and middle-class families.

But it's also obvious that Christie's negatives would outweigh the positives on the national stage. That's why Paul Ryan got the call.

Clearly, Mitt Romney has made many mistakes on the campaign trail.

But he learned at least one lesson from John McCain's biggest folly of 2008. There's no way a presidential candidate could possibly pluck a first-term governor with more sizzle than substance - again.

The parallels between Sarah Palin and Chris Christie are remarkable: Both burst onto the national scene and quickly became addicted to the adulation. And both care more about personal brand, generating headlines and garnering attention than actual results. Neither are team players.

Christie relishes his reputation as a loose cannon.

At one point, his sporadic "straight talk" set him apart from the vanilla political speak we've become far too accustomed to - especially compared to his aloof predecessor. But no longer are these merely isolated incidents that spew from Christie's lips.  Rather, New Jerseyans are now subjected to a steady stream of hair-trigger, out-of-control antics unbefitting a public servant. So, it's a huge question mark as to whether Christie is even cut out for the rigors of a national campaign - where his record can't be glossed over and he'd have to actually answer for his substantial failures.

Once the rest of America looked past the bluster, hype and manufactured YouTube moments, they'd quickly see how New Jersey has unrelentingly trailed the country when it comes to jobs.

From an image standpoint alone, the fact that New Jersey's economy ranks a dismal 47th would remind voters that Massachusetts' economy was 47th in job creation under Gov. Romney.

In June, New Jersey's unemployment jumped nearly half a point, which was the largest monthly spike since 2009. The rate rose again in July to 9.8 percent, as the state lost another 12,000 jobs – 7,100 of which were in the private sector. Today, New Jersey's unemployment stands a full 1.5 percent higher than the nation's rate. This is the widest gulf from the national average since Jimmy Carter's first months in office.

Job creation and retention aren't the only areas where the governor has been a disappointment. Christie is the A-Rod of politics - lots of ego-driven, self-serving stats and self-promotion, but little by way of tangible benefits to the team (the residents of the state).

While Christie's policies have surely warmed the hearts of right-wing think tanks everywhere, they've had a chilling effect on New Jersey's families.

Property taxes have increased a staggering 20.4 percent since he took office, and one in every three children is now considered poor. New Jersey is also home to the second-highest percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure in America, even though rates across the country are falling to their lowest levels since 2008. And due to Christie greasing the wheels for corporations at the expense of small businesses on Main Street, New Jersey's business climate ranking has slipped all the way down to 41st.

From the moment he lifted his hand off the Bible, Christie's been looking to trade up from the Trenton Statehouse to a grander stage. And he's used his constituents as stepping stones to accomplish this goal. Christie has taken his eyes off doing the work needed to make life better for New Jersey's families, and instead spends boundless time and energy on a magical mystery tour promoting his own objectives. With priorities like that, why would Romney ever want someone who cared more about personal ambition than doing the actual job at hand? As a running mate, Christie would have simply used the opportunity to audition for a future gig at Romney's expense - just as he's pursued regressive policies at the expense of New Jersey's middle class.

Yes, Christie and Romney share an agenda of looking out for those in the upper echelon of the economic strata while leaving everyone else in the dust. However, Christie's political baggage, fiscal shenanigans and abject failures would have been far too much of a distraction over the campaign's stretch run. Christie would bring virtually nothing to the table. Even worse, he would cut at the very heart of what little narrative Romney has left and torpedo his Hail Mary pass for the Oval Office. 

If Mitt Romney wouldn't choose Christie, why should New Jersey voters when he stands for re-election? The governor can only hope Romney wins the White House and hands him a plum Cabinet post. This way, Christie can enjoy a face-saving exit before he has to answer at the polls next year.

Joshua Henne is co-founder of White Horse Strategies, a communications and political consulting firm, and spokesman for One New Jersey. Find him on Twitter@JoshuaHenne.

* * * *

One New Jersey is shining a light on politicians who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents and who seek to divide our state for their own political gain. It is giving voice to the important issues that affect our daily lives. One New Jersey will closely monitor policy positions and actions of elected officials and expose their records on the issues that matter. You can follow One New Jersey on Twitter (@OneNJ) or search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

The Medicare Whiteboard

Stephanie Cutter breaks down how the Romney-Ryan plan will end Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system and making seniors pay up to $6,400 more. She also shares how President Obama is already strengthening Medicare and helping seniors save money.

Medicare Madness

ThinkProgress - 

This week, the Romney/Ryan campaign has twisted itself into a pretzel attacking President Obama for “stealing” $716 billion from Medicare, while trying to explain why Paul Ryan included the savings in his FY 2013 budget.

The infographic below offers a rundown of the campaign’s contortions from Sunday’s proclamations that Romney would have signed the Ryan budget and its Medicare cuts into law, to Romney’s announcement on Tuesday that he would restore the Medicare savings that both Ryan and Obama supported:

(Infograph by Adam Peck)

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: Back To The Failed Top-Down Policies That Crashed Our Economy

Learn more about Romney and Ryan: http://OFA.BO/hunUfC

Paul Ryan is the mastermind behind the extreme GOP budget plan. It's a plan Mitt Romney endorses.

But what does that budget mean for America? The GOP budget plan hurts seniors, it hurts middle-class families, and it hurts students. All to pay for tax cuts for those at the top..

Congressman Frank Pallone on Selection of Paul Ryan as Romney V.P. Running Mate

LONG BRANCH, NJ - Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) released the following statement regarding Governor Mitt Romney's selection of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate:

"By selecting Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney has sent a potent message to seniors and all Americans that he supports the dismantling of Medicare and an economic plan that puts millionaires above the Middle Class.

"For months, Democrats in Congress have fought against the Ryan Budget because we are entirely committed to maintaining the Medicare guarantee and making sure that seniors continue to have access to affordable health care. The Ryan plan ends the Medicare guarantee as we know it and turns it into a voucher system, eliminating benefits for millions of Americans. The Romney-Ryan Budget hurts Americans, inhibits economic growth and will set our nation back decades.

"Today's news makes the GOP agenda clear: priority #1 is to eliminate Medicare and ALWAYS put the interests of millionaires over the needs of the Middle Class. Democrats have a different view and remain committed to putting the Middle Class first, and we will continue to fight every day for seniors and keeping the Medicare guarantee."

How Ryan budget plan would hurt New Jersey

BY GORDON MACINNES

Cross posted from The Record

NEW JERSEY is hurting. It’s hurting so bad that the only way the governor could pay for his proposed tax cut is to borrow the money from our kids and grandkids. Float a bond for $260 million to pay for the $200 million or so tax cut proposed for this budget year. Benefits to future taxpayers? Zero. No matter, we can all enjoy a night out with the reduced taxes and let our kids pay. Given the amount we’ll get back, most of us can reserve a spot at the nearest White Castle.

This is not the condition one would expect of the “Comeback” state. But it gets even worse.

The United States has suffered a cut in its prime credit rating because Congress wouldn’t provide timely funds to repay the nation’s debt.

To add to our growing burdens, the House of Representatives has passed a plan that is supposed to balance the federal budget without increasing revenues. It’s called the Ryan Plan for its Wisconsin sponsor, Paul Ryan.

The first-ever state-by-state analysis of the Ryan Plan released this week by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities presents the bad news. The plan, if approved, would dig the New Jersey hole even deeper, about $760 million deeper in the budget year that begins next July.

That may not sound like enough money to worry about in a $32 billion state budget. But the reason the governor was driven to borrow money for his tax cut was that tax collections came in $700 million short between the time he delivered his budget message in February and when the receipts were counted in May.

1.5 billion in the red

By July, the non-partisan legislative research arm estimated the hole was $1.5 billion; Moody’s — the credit rater — suggested that it was closer to $2 billion and counting.

So, a reduction in federal aid of $760 million has significant and negative consequences for New Jersey citizens. Is the state helping to pay the bill for your grandmother in a nursing home? If so, you might have a problem since Medicaid — the federal-state program that pays for most nursing home care — is due to take a one-third cut between 2013 and 2021.

Other programs would suffer as well — programs for special education kids, for putting cops on the street and for providing emergency aid following fires, floods and hurricanes.

The companion proposal to the Ryan Plan is to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. The combination of repealing the act with its Medicaid expansion and the one-third cut proposed by Ryan is to add another $500 million per year to the budget burden.

This time the addition comes because there will be no expected reduction in the charity care payments to hospitals that treat uninsured patients. With the health care act and the existing Medicaid population, the state could assume a sharp falloff in its hospital payments (that now total about $1 billion).

Blance cuts with revenue increase

As New Jersey residents, we might hope that our governor would use his influence with Governor Romney and the national Republican Party to call on the House of Representatives majority to balance some of its tax cuts with revenue increases. Not only would such a move increase the chances of avoiding the “fiscal cliff” we all jump off on Jan. 1 if there’s no agreement on taxes and budgets, but it would do less harm to New Jersey, which is still crawling out of the Great Recession.

So far, instead of making the call for New Jersey, the governor has applauded Ryan, hailed the cuts in Medicaid and remained silent about the negative consequences facing his state. It’s not too late for him to show that he puts New Jersey above party politics.

Gordon MacInnes is president of New Jersey Policy Perspective

The Not So Dynamic Duo; Romney Picks Paul Ryan as V.P. Running Mate

(shared from Re-Elect President Obama)



Holly Obamaloney!! Mitt taps Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his Obama fighting sidekick.


 

Cuts Have Consequences

From the e-Newsletter of Congressman Rush Holt

Hunger is a very real and mounting problem in our community. The Community FoodBank of New Jersey reports that, since 2008, demand for their services has increased by an unprecedented 46 percent. Much of the need has come from families who were firmly anchored in the middle class until, through no fault of their own, they suffered a job loss in the recession.

Yet even as the toll of hunger has increased, the House Majority has sought to radically cut programs that fight hunger in New Jersey and across America. The Ryan Budget, which I opposed, would slash the Food Stamp program by $36 billion over ten years, leading 2 million Americans to lose access to Food Stamps and curtailing benefits for 44 million more.

Let’s be clear: Food Stamps already provide only the barest of safety nets to vulnerable families. The average benefit is just $31.50 per week – about a dollar and a half per meal. If you are fortunate enough to ordinarily live on a much more comfortable food budget, I encourage you to try purchasing a week’s worth of food at this price, as I did late last year. You will discover, in a profound and troubling way, the fragility of our safety-net programs. Now imagine how much more difficult your task would be if Food Stamps were cut further!

The Ryan Budget would do even more to take food off the table of the hungry. It would permanently eliminate the Social Services Block Grant program, which provides vital support for Meals on Wheels, child care, and child protective services. New Jersey has received $48.1 million through this program in 2012 alone.

In a time of great need, I find it incomprehensible that the Republican majority would further shred our social safety net in order to cut taxes on millionaires and preserve a bloated Defense Department budget.

This is one in a series on the impact of the so-called Ryan Budget, the House Majority’s plan for the federal government. The budget passed the U.S. House of Representatives in March on a mostly party-line vote.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

House Passes Bombs Not Bread Budget

By Imogen Reed



Paul Ryan

The House of Representatives voted 218-199 to approve Paul Ryan’s ‘bombs not bread’ budget last Thursday. The vote means that America’s military will be exempted from all budget cuts over the next decade. The same cannot be said for the poorest and weakest elements of society who will continue to feel the brunt as the budgets for Medicaid, federal worker benefits and food programs are cut to ribbons.

This new budget will actually allow the defense budget to grow by 20 percent and was designed in order to head off an automatic budget of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which would have kicked in during the summer. Termed a ‘reconciliation’ budget by the Republicans, the budget has effectively saved the military from a budget cut of about $600 billion.

Instead, the Republicans will force retired federal employees to take a 5 percent pay cut to make an $83 billion saving, cap malpractice lawsuits for Medicaid thus saving around $49 billion and by cutting another $48 billion from Medicaid programs in general. In addition to this, the budget is due to slice $36 billion off the food aid budget. It is the kind of budget to make the blood boil, and it even riled 16 Republicans into rejecting the deal; sadly their votes were not enough.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D. Mass.) exploded during the floor debate and said:

"I am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country, especially the [food stamp] program. This is not some extravagant, overly generous benefit. Rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. You know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that."

Dennis Kucinich asked Republicans how they could “reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread?”

The question is especially pertinent as the Congressional Budget Office reported that the number of people requiring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has increased by 70 percent in five years from 26 million people in 2007 to 45 million in 2012. As a result of this, the cost excluding administration, has increased over 100 percent from $30 billion to $72 billion. As a result of this budget, less money will have to help more people.

Speaking in a Catholic Church, Paul Ryan defended his budget as a moral budget by saying that he supposed “that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church." Also that the poor should see independence from the state as a preferred option, but Ryan is ignoring or not realizing that many depend on the state not out of choice, but out of necessity.

90 faculty members and priests of the Catholic Church, however, deigned to disagree with the rising star Republican. In their letter, they said: "We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few."

In a final quip and attack on Ryan’s budget, the letter added that his “budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Ayn Rand, born Alisa Zinoy’yevna Rosenbaum was a Russian-American philosopher who died in 1982. She is most famous for her novel Atlas Shrugged and for her philosophy of Objectivism whereby she put cold calculated reason ahead of ideas such as faith and religion. The Church, therefore, was calling Ryan amoral.

While certain Republicans who voted in favor of the bill and those who support it like Mitt Romney have accused the Democrats of playing politics with the budget, it is clearly a case of accusing someone else of doing exactly what you are. The budget helps to draw the battle lines for the forthcoming election by pitting the party of the poor against the party of the rich, with the former ranting from the unemployment lines while the latter prosthelytizing from their expensive chaise sectionals and luxury yachts. Republicans will point to creativity and venture capital, to small government and the rich creating jobs.

The budget, in actual fact, is a godsend to the Democrats. It emphasizes all of the negative perceptions people can have about the Republicans. The party of small government is expanding the Pentagon while cutting back on care to the vulnerable, is penalizing the poor’s pockets while not taking a cent more from the rich, the party of the Church and of religion, is being left behind by those very institutions.

Romney Plays the VP Vetting Game

From Mother Jones

"...GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney plays the Vice President vetting game. Who will his VP pick be? Paul Ryan, the darling of the let-them-eat-cake crowd? Chris Christie, who doesn't take orders from anyone who makes less than a million dollars? Or maybe it will be Marco Rubio, the Latino Tea Party favorite?..."