By DAVID PAUL KUHN
First published in print: Saturday, March 27, 2010
Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.
For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters. Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election.
It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll. It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.
Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide. Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup. White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.
The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling. It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.
Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors. This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.
In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times. Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.
Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain. Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten. Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.
David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=915922&category=OPINION&TextPage=2#ixzz0jOwzVsUQ
Showing posts with label press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label press. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Little-Known Health Care Law Provision Is a Budget Buster, Critics Say
By William La Jeunesse
- FOXNews.com
While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.
The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program. Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care. The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019. Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need -- assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.
"This is a scary proposition where the government passed a huge new entitlement program with gimmicks and tricks and the American people don't know they will be automatically enrolled in it by their employer if they don’t watch out," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). Nunes says Republicans were blindsided by the provision because they were unable to see the final bill until the very end.
But Democratic supporters say the provision, which was championed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, should not be controversial. "It promotes independence and choice for people who need long-term care, and over time it will help millions stay where they want to, which is at home," says Jim Firman, director of the National Council on Aging. Scheduled to go into effect in January, actual deductions could take place in 2012.
Here's how the program will work:
-- The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.
-- The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.
-- After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care.
"Seventy-five dollars a day in flex cash will be enough for most people who are at home to stay at home, which is where they want to be," Firman said. "We are convinced a cash benefit is the best way for consumer to get what they want." While the plan's opponents don't question the need for long-term care, they say the federal government should not be managing it, and they believe the program will eventually add to the deficit.
"This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country," Nunes said. "In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won't be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program."
The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion."Supporters and detractors admit much needs to be worked out, and eventually premiums will be based on how many Americans actually sign up for the insurance.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/little-known-long-termhealth-care-provision-budget-buster-say-critics/
- FOXNews.com
While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.
The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program. Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care. The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019. Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need -- assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.
"This is a scary proposition where the government passed a huge new entitlement program with gimmicks and tricks and the American people don't know they will be automatically enrolled in it by their employer if they don’t watch out," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). Nunes says Republicans were blindsided by the provision because they were unable to see the final bill until the very end.
But Democratic supporters say the provision, which was championed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, should not be controversial. "It promotes independence and choice for people who need long-term care, and over time it will help millions stay where they want to, which is at home," says Jim Firman, director of the National Council on Aging. Scheduled to go into effect in January, actual deductions could take place in 2012.
Here's how the program will work:
-- The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.
-- The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.
-- After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care.
"Seventy-five dollars a day in flex cash will be enough for most people who are at home to stay at home, which is where they want to be," Firman said. "We are convinced a cash benefit is the best way for consumer to get what they want." While the plan's opponents don't question the need for long-term care, they say the federal government should not be managing it, and they believe the program will eventually add to the deficit.
"This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country," Nunes said. "In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won't be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program."
The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion."Supporters and detractors admit much needs to be worked out, and eventually premiums will be based on how many Americans actually sign up for the insurance.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/little-known-long-termhealth-care-provision-budget-buster-say-critics/
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Numbers
In the movie, "Good Will Hunting" a scene occurs when the seemingly malleable Matt Damon character foreshadows his deeper fearlessness by challenging a full-of-himself BMOC with the philosophically imponderable: "How d'ya like dem apples?" Well, today we have, "How d'ya like dem numbers?"
To wit:
157 New panels and commissions created
1,000s New political appointees – most start at $67,500 per year
10,000s New Federal employees for just those commissions’ staffs
16,000 New IRS agents to enforce the HC bill and to collect insurance premiums/taxes
50,000,000 New, additional people alleged by Democrats to receive insurance
11,000,000 Actual number of newly eligible who are:
A. Not illegal
B. Transient between jobs, and
C. Willing to purchase insurance
And then there's this:
66% U.S. population who believe that the HC Bill will make things worse
65% Rasmussen poll results of US population opposed to HC Bill at time of vote
50.3% Percentage of House of Representatives who voted the HR Bill into law over the strenuous objections of the two figures immediately above.
Other numbers, such as the understated costs and the overstated revenues lose meaning when needing to have 12 zeroes lined up behind them; so also when conjuring imaginative numeric metaphors like the stars in the sky, angels on a pin, chad in Florida or the blatant misstatements made by the poseur president. That doesn’t even touch on the little matter of counting the Medicare money twice. How is it that the press hasn’t skewered that matter?
No conversation on the subject of government and governing is thorough without citing the pathetic lapse, the maladroit casting of the national dialogue by a malpracticing press.
Mr. Boehner is right, of course, in calling shame upon Pelosi and her confederates. But face it, like the Irishman who was told on the occasion of being bitten by the snake he had taken in and nursed back to health, “You knew I was a snake when you met me!” Pelosi, Reid, Durbin without any shame evident whatsoever even forsaked their professed religions' core tenets to win this political prize. That itself delineates their reptilian natures more than mere words could ever do effectively. (Come to think of it, it was the snake Satan impersonated in Eden to offer Adam and Eve the conceit to believe they were greater than and independent of God, our Creator. Hmmmmm.)
No, the real shame inures to a press profession that would have us believe that it is objective and thoughtful. Emotionally charged sentimental slop, yes. They can ooze that all day long. But hard data? No. Too much thinking required there. Since it can’t seem to gather critical facts especially when they are numeric, much less triage them, it is not in the cards to expect them to report, certainly not to evaluate, numbers.
Maybe we should think of the press as a cold blooded reptilian crawler whose arithmetic skills are limted to the number of appendages they have.
To wit:
157 New panels and commissions created
1,000s New political appointees – most start at $67,500 per year
10,000s New Federal employees for just those commissions’ staffs
16,000 New IRS agents to enforce the HC bill and to collect insurance premiums/taxes
50,000,000 New, additional people alleged by Democrats to receive insurance
11,000,000 Actual number of newly eligible who are:
A. Not illegal
B. Transient between jobs, and
C. Willing to purchase insurance
And then there's this:
66% U.S. population who believe that the HC Bill will make things worse
65% Rasmussen poll results of US population opposed to HC Bill at time of vote
50.3% Percentage of House of Representatives who voted the HR Bill into law over the strenuous objections of the two figures immediately above.
Other numbers, such as the understated costs and the overstated revenues lose meaning when needing to have 12 zeroes lined up behind them; so also when conjuring imaginative numeric metaphors like the stars in the sky, angels on a pin, chad in Florida or the blatant misstatements made by the poseur president. That doesn’t even touch on the little matter of counting the Medicare money twice. How is it that the press hasn’t skewered that matter?
No conversation on the subject of government and governing is thorough without citing the pathetic lapse, the maladroit casting of the national dialogue by a malpracticing press.
Mr. Boehner is right, of course, in calling shame upon Pelosi and her confederates. But face it, like the Irishman who was told on the occasion of being bitten by the snake he had taken in and nursed back to health, “You knew I was a snake when you met me!” Pelosi, Reid, Durbin without any shame evident whatsoever even forsaked their professed religions' core tenets to win this political prize. That itself delineates their reptilian natures more than mere words could ever do effectively. (Come to think of it, it was the snake Satan impersonated in Eden to offer Adam and Eve the conceit to believe they were greater than and independent of God, our Creator. Hmmmmm.)
No, the real shame inures to a press profession that would have us believe that it is objective and thoughtful. Emotionally charged sentimental slop, yes. They can ooze that all day long. But hard data? No. Too much thinking required there. Since it can’t seem to gather critical facts especially when they are numeric, much less triage them, it is not in the cards to expect them to report, certainly not to evaluate, numbers.
Maybe we should think of the press as a cold blooded reptilian crawler whose arithmetic skills are limted to the number of appendages they have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)