Why Does The Republican Party Hate Consumers?

There will always be things I don't understand about the universe, how we all came to be here, how life evolved, and why the Republican Party hates consumers. The Republican Party jihad against Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is only the most high profile and peculiar demonstration of that hatred.

Behold the Awesomeness of Voucherized Medicare

I wonder, though, how and when did voucherized Medicare become the GOP’s, or anyone’s, health care gospel? All during the HCR debate progressives were all over the place complaining (with some justification) of the inadequacy of the plan, the need for something more progressive, for something less wedded to prior GOP ideas (like the individual mandate). But every Repub except the Newtster is suddenly all on board with a proposal that got no campaign attention—because it didn’t exist—and was unveiled and passed (“rammed down our throats”) with lightening speed as soon as Boner got the gavel.

I Can't Believe We're Losing To These People

Republicans still hate consumers:

Republican senators vowed Thursday to block any nominee to lead the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless stronger limits are put on its power, in the latest blow in a long-running battle to rein in the watchdog agency before it officially launches this summer.

In a letter to President Obama, 44 lawmakers called for a board of directors to run the agency, rather than a single leader. The letter also demanded tougher oversight of the CFPB by existing banking regulators, such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and that the new agency be funded by congressional appropriations. Under the current structure, the CFPB’s budget is carved from the Federal Reserve.

“How the CFPB director exercises his or her authority . . . will have a profound influence on the future of our economy and job creation,” the letter said. Lead signatories were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), ranking Republican on the Senate banking committee.

The proposals mirror three bills passed by the House Financial Services Committee a day earlier. Rep. Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.), who sponsored one of the bills, said he believed that “the movement here on both sides of the aisle is to make sure we have a system that’s going to work for our consumers.”

But consumer advocacy groups lashed out at the proposals, arguing that they would give banks undue influence over the CFPB and jeopardize its independence.

“Enactment of these measures would virtually guarantee that the CFPB would be a weak and timid agency,” said Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.

Let the gushing begin

Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Chair, and Ayn Rand lunatic, is proposing to phase out Medicare and Medicaid as we know it. To the tune of $5 trillion or so over the next 10 years, give or take. But our "liberal" media is pretty nonplussed about all of this at best, practically orgasmic at worst (see David Brooks today).

This NYT article by Robert Pear this morning is a case in point, although I'll admit it read a little better the second time than the first. Still, Pear refers to the whacking of these important programs and social safety-net pillars of our economy as merely a "fundamental rethinking of how the two programs work", excused as the need to "address the nation's fiscal challenges". As to the scope of the cuts, Pear understatedly reports that

the proposals on Medicaid and Medicare could shift some costs to beneficiaries and to the states.

Later, Pear discusses the plan's Medicaid component:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that a Medicaid block grant, of the type proposed by Mr. Ryan and Ms. Rivlin, could save $180 billion over 10 years. House Republicans could save an additional $434 billion by eliminating the expansion in Medicaid eligibility scheduled to take place in 2014 under the new health care law.

Just think of it--if we could just whack that rather silly expansion in Medicaid provided by Obamacare we could save a whole nuther $434 bill. Wouldn't that be great?

The whole thing is a radical, drastic proposal to increase poverty, misery and economic inequality (as the plan also includes further cuts in the highest marginal tax rates).

Of course, if President Obama had not given away the store already in agreeing that "middle class" taxes can never be raised by any amount, ever, there might be the basis for offering an alternative to this nihilism. In the absence of that, in the "fierce urgency of now", our medial villagers will likely work double-overtime to assure us all how wonderful this fabulous budget blue print is.

I Can't Believe We're Losing To These People, Vol. 382

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) recently accused Warren and the CFPB of leading “a regulatory shakedown,” because of their aggressive push for strict penalties against servicers in the pending settlement negotiations.

(snip)

Warren quickly encountered skepticism from House Republicans who criticized the broad powers granted to the new bureau and its seemingly untouchable budget, both of which they argued could lead to a lack of accountability and the creation of unnecessary and burdensome new regulations.

Fortunately, it sounds like Warren got in a few good licks herself:

“If there had been a cop on the beat with the authority to hold mortgage servicers accountable a half dozen years ago, if there had been a consumer agency in place, the problems in mortgage servicing would have been exposed early and fixed while they were still small, long before they became a national scandal,” Warren said in testimony before a House Financial Services subcommittee. She is the Obama administration’s point person for setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

If anything, Warren said, the uproar over shoddy foreclosure practices illustrated the need for an agency dedicated solely to protecting ordinary borrowers from abuses by lenders.

“I am glad that the consumer agency has been able to provide assistance in this important matter,” Warren said. “I thank Congress for creating this agency to provide a voice for American families. That’s why we’re here, and that’s what we’re doing.”

The GOP's Entitlement Game

Matt Yglesias has an extremely shrill post up about the GOP and Social Security:

Right now we have conservatives simultaneously calling for huge spending cuts and also getting the line’s share of old people’s votes even while the vast majority of non-security spending is on old people. In essence, by first separating the domestic budget into “discretionary” and “entitlement” portions and then dividing the entitlement programs up into “what today’s old people get” versus “what tomorrow’s old people will get” the political class has created a large and vociferously right-wing class of people who are completely immune from the impact of their own calls for fiscal austerity. In my view, that reality is the biggest driver of our current political dysfunction. There’s some need for spending to be lower over the long term than it’s currently projected to go and I think it’s politically and morally vital that the adjustments be made in a balanced way. You frequently hear of the need to exempt everyone over the age of 55 from any possible cuts. That’s nice for them and encourages them to go right on complaining about out of control spending. But the average 55 year-old will still be alive and collecting benefits in 2035 so the long-term budgetary implications of this “let the geezers keep their full benefits while they whine about how Democrats are bankrupting the country” are actually pretty significant.

I agree with Yglesias and others in pointing out that Social Security is not the cause of the deficit or the debt that's accumulated over the past decade. All the same, if conservatives, teabaggers, and Media Villagers are going to clamor for "entitlement" cuts generally, and Social Security cuts in particular, then the cuts should apply to everyone, right now. No more of this "austerity for thee, but not for me" shell game.

Proof-texting

I guess I'm not surprised Republican opted for the white-washed version of the text for yesterday's Let Us Read Our Glorious Constitwoshion Day.

It parallels the Bible fundamentalism popular among the conservative coalition in which while the whole of the Sacred Text is defended vociferously against all potential defamers and urged upon all heretics, literalist believers actually make very little use of the full material available.

For example, while Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments) are a key part of Christianism's creed, I have yet to hear a sermon based on Exodus 21:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
15 “Anyone who attacks[c] their father or mother is to be put to death.

16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

So when conservatives talk about Constitutional "originalism" and Biblical inerrancy/literalism, they don't really mean it.

Genocidal Deregulation

Steven Pearlstein is really shrill:

What's particularly noteworthy about this fixation with "job killing" is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs.

Repealing health-care reform, for instance, would inevitably lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of an inability to get medical care.

Although lack of effective regulation led directly to the deaths of 78 coal miners last year in West Virginia, Republicans continue to insist that any reform of mine safety laws is bad for miners' employment.

Republicans also continue to oppose food safety legislation that could save the lives of hundreds of Americans killed each year by contaminated food, just as they oppose any regulation that would effectively keep assault weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals and narco-terrorists who kill thousands of innocent victims on both sides of the Rio Grande.

And although a blue-ribbon panel has now concluded that a lack of effective government regulation contributed to an explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that led to the deaths of 11 oil rig workers (along with countless numbers of birds, fish and other wildlife), all Republicans can talk about is the jobs that might be lost as a result of more vigorous oversight of deep-water drilling.

I wonder how Republicans and their media posse would like it if Democrats started referring to "genocidal" deregulation or the "murderous" repeal of health-care reform. Or if Republican economic policies were likened to the infamous neutron bomb - they kill the workers but leave their jobs intact.

More of this, please.

There are numbers from the CBO, and then there are numbers...

Republicans have scribbled on a napkin:

House Republicans countered with their own report, containing their portrayal of the financial effects of keeping the law intact. The report, filled with the incendiary language the GOP has adopted to discuss the law, is entitled: "Obama-care: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law" and features on its cover a gate padlocked with a thick chain.

Considering napkin-scribbling gang is also the same outfit whose new House rules stipulate that tax cuts won't increase the deficit, it's not hard to decide who's being more truthful here.