Paul Krugman’s Explaination Of The GOP Medicare “Plan” in 200 Words Or Less

As usual Paul Krugman has it right. This time he sums up Paul Ryan’s “Medicare” “Plan” in one paragraph:

Here’s an analogy: think of Medicare as a footbridge that is deteriorating and will eventually become unsafe. You could propose structural repairs to fix its faults; Ryan doesn’t do that. Instead, he proposes knocking the bridge down and replacing it with trampolines, in the hope that pedestrians can bounce across the stream. And the Post declares that he deserves credit for pointing out that the bridge is falling down, and proposing a solution. Um, we knew that the bridge was in bad shape — and his solution is a fraud.

Personally I think my Medicare/Medicaid plan, euthanize the old and the poor, is much better.

A. It’s a structural reform
B. It reduces the deficit quicker, sooner, and cheaper
C. It involves fire (At least if you want to do it the cool way)

I mean if you’re slowly going to kill of the old and poor through inadequate health care and spending cuts “on accident”, why wait? There’s a budget crisis right now damnit! And if you’re a Republican who cares exclusively for deficit reduction, no matter how much you fuck over the elderly and the poor, you might as well skip the gimmicks and support my plan. Added bonus: dead people pay no taxes!

After all, what’s the difference between my plan and Ryan’s plan? Subtlety and the ability to use fire.

Score one for my plan.


The Simpsons Theme: In A cappella

Be honest, it won’t hurt my feelings.

I know many of you have been reading my blog thinking “Gosh, awesome blog, but there just isn’t enough a cappella on it. ”

Well my friends, ask and you shall receive.





what’s up?

The Republican Jobs Program That Doesn’t Address Jobs

The House GOP just released their “jobs program”  proposal and …weeeelp it’s exactly what you’d expect:

“House Republicans…offered a proposal that would lower the top tax rate on individual and corporate income to 25 percent from 35 percent. The plan would also strengthen patent protections against some lawsuits, require congressional approval of significant new regulations, increase domestic oil protection and promote the party’s effort to make large cuts in government spending.

Yeah…really  great fucking plan. In case you haven’t checked the scoreboard lately the Republican solution to health care, unemployment, and pretty much any problem that’s ever existed in the past 200 years is…you guessed it, cutting taxes.

Apparently the Civil War could have been avoided had the North just lowered the corporate tax on plantations. Also the Confederacy only defended slavery as a means to keep taxes low on “the blacks.” Remember, slaves have no taxable income.


Of course to 99% of American’s this is nothing new or shocking. But then again, 99% of you aren’t GOP Congressman Joe Walsh who decided to pull the ‘ TEH BLACKS MAN WON CUZ HE WAZ …” argument in an interview with Dave Wiegel.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic. And there’s nothing racist about this. It is what it is. If he had been a dynamic, white, state senator elected to Congress he wouldn’t have gotten in the game this fast. This is what made him different. That, combined with the fact that your profession” — another friendly tap of the bumper sticker —”not you, but your profession, was just absolutely compliant. They made up their minds early that they were in love with him. They were in love with him because they thought he was a good liberal guy and they were in love with him because he pushed that magical button: a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.”

This is the kind of thing conservatives say that shows they don’t hangout with many black folk. Or history professors for that matter.  Because had Joe Walsh paid any attention to the…oh the last 30 or so years of presidential politics, he would have noticed that voters tend to like candidates that have a knack for communicating their message. Which is why people voted for Reagan because he was “The Great Communicator” or Clinton because “he felt their pain” or Dubya because “he was the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with”.  And yet President Obama was elected because “he was articulate AND black”.


Forget the fact that after eight years of President Bush, the 2008 election was the Democrat’s election to lose, or the fact that he ran a revolutionary ground campaign or the fact that Republicans nominated John McCain and Sarah freaking Palin to represent their party. Obama only won because he was a black man that didn’t use ebonics and shit.

Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised that a party that doesn’t believe in evolution, global warming, birth certificates, and science in general would be shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, by an intelligent black man.

But still, if you consider yourself any type of intelligent conservative you should feel at least a little ashamed that your party is filled with candidates who so regularly say outright retarded things.

I’m just saying…

Just Because You Can Do It Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Illegal

Is it just me or does this seem kind of…illegal?

President Obama’s Interior secretary is due for a raise, but Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter threatened to block that pay increase unless the Interior Department opens more access to Gulf drilling. Democrats say that Vitter’s opposition amounts to coercion.

This morning, aides to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar say he asked the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw any effort to address Salazar’s planned salary increase over a rare and personal dispute launched by Vitter. Salazar wrote to Reid, that Vitter’s demand is “wrong” and called it “attempted coercion.”

When I first clicked on the story I figured Vitter was blocking Salazar’s pay increase as part of some trivial but symbolic budget gesture. “In times of high unemployment and record level debt why should we give public officials raises?”. Silly, but relatively harmless. Instead Vitter refuses to allow Salazar’s scheduled raise to go through unless he leans a certain way on a policy.

If this isn’t pay to play I don’t know what is.

Sure Vitters method and approach might be different, but don’t let that fool you. What he’s saying is quite literally…I will give you money if and only if you support my policy.


If this kind of political coercion is permissible what’s to stop Congress from offering bribes “pay rises” to public officials that vote favorably on certain issues are high achievers.