House GOP Cuts To Nutrition Assistance Equal To One Week Of Bush Tax Cuts For Millionaires

By Pat Garofalo

House Republicans, as part of their 2012 budget, have proposed dramatic cuts to food assistance programs, including cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) that would prevent hundreds of thousands of eligible women and their children from accessing the program. Late last month, the House Appropriations Committee approved more than $830 million in cuts to WIC and millions more in cuts to the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

To cut these programs with so many families still feeling the effects of the Great Recession is a travesty. But to do so after spending tens of billions of dollars to extend tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans, as Republicans forced Congress to do back in December, is even worse. CAP’s Melissa Boteach and Seth Hanlon found that the cost of the GOP cut to WIC is equivalent to the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires alone for just one week:

The deal struck last December to extend the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush gave the average millionaire a tax break of $139,199 for 2011, according to the Tax Policy Center, or nearly $2,700 per week. Given that about 321,000 households reported incomes of more than $1 million in the most recent year for which there are data from the Internal Revenue Service, that means the Bush tax cuts provide millionaires with about $860 million in tax breaks every week—more than enough to stave off the $833 million in proposed cuts to WIC.

Economists have estimated that every dollar invested in WIC “saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs in the first 60 days after an infant’s birth by reducing the instance of low-birth-weight babies and improving child immunization rates.”

The Hill reported today that Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) convinced GOP appropriators to reinstate $147 million of their $833 million in cuts to WIC, but she is not optimistic that the money will ultimately be approved on the House floor. “I don’t think [the Republicans] will let it stand. I think they will attack it on the floor,” DeLauro said.

Fox Medical Expert Marc Siegel's History Of Health Care Fearmongering And Misinformation

From Media Matters:

On Fox & Friends, Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel recently seized on a report of drug shortages to fearmonger about "government-controlled rationing" and to baselessly attack the health care reform law. Fox regularly turns to Siegel for commentary on health care reform despite his history of baseless fearmongering and pushing false claims about health care reform.

Siegel Seizes On Report Of Drug Shortages To Fearmonger About "Government-Controlled Rationing"

Siegel Seizes On Report Of Drug Shortages To Claim, "We're Moving In The Direction Of Government-Controlled Rationing." On the May 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Siegel seized on a recent report about drug shortages to claim that the drug shortage is "actually a form of rationing" and that "we're moving in the direction of government-controlled rationing." Siegel later baselessly claimed that government subsidization of the drug development process is "[a]nother example of Obamacare costing us a fortune." From Fox & Friends: 

KILMEADE: So what are doctors doing to counter the drug deficit? With us now is Fox medical contributor and author of this brand new book, it's excellent, called The Inner Pulse, Dr. Marc Siegel. Welcome to the show, I never thought in my lifetime I'd hear about a drug shortage. What's going on?

SIEGEL: It's actually a form of rationing and it worries me because, as I write in my book, you need one-on-one medical care in order to really make people better. And hospitals have a tremendous shortage right now of the most important medications, intravenous, antibiotics, chemotherapy, medicines for cardiac arrest to bring people back. There's a few reasons for this. Number one, they're generic, meaning that they're not making a lot of money off this, the drug companies. Number two, there's an arduous process to sterilize the drugs and number three, our military, rightly so, takes off the top, you know, the ones that are first and foremost: heparin, intravenous, antibiotics, gotta go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan first.

CARLSON: So, could anything, can anything be done to change the trend of having a shortage?

SIEGEL: Well, I'm actually thinking that doctors need to play a very strong role here. We're moving in the direction of government-controlled rationing and I, again, as I write, it's got to be on a patient by patient basis. In my book, I have patients who survive from comas, one because families are saying--a family is saying this patient is going to survive. In another case, it's the nurses and doctors who say so. I'm worried that in the future if there's a shortage of medications patients like that will have the plug pulled on them.

KILMEADE: Can the FDA to say 'listen, there's not enough of medicine x? We need to make more.' Can they mandate that?

SIEGEL:  Absolutely. But look, there's more money. That's more money flooding in from the government in order to subsidize that because the drug companies can't be forced to do it. Another example of Obamacare costing us a fortune. You know, I had a patient that lived with liver cancer for 10 years, they, he would have not gotten the treatments, the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is in the big shortages today because of the fact that it's not making money for the drug companies. They spend a billion dollars in research and development. They have to in order to keep going, keep the drugs that they're pushing out front, the brand name drugs. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/31/11; The Associated Press,5/30/11] 

In Fact, Reporting Points To Normal Market Forces For Drug Shortages, Not Rationing Or Health Care Reform

AP Lists Contamination Recalls, Raw Ingredients, Demand As Causes For Shortages. A May 31 Associated Press article listed numerous potential causes for the shortage, but did not mention "rationing" or the health care reform law as possible causes. From the AP: 

There are lots of causes, from recalls of contaminated vials, to trouble importing raw ingredients, to spikes in demand, to factories that temporarily shut down for quality upgrades.

Some experts pointedly note that pricier brand-name drugs seldom are in short supply. The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the overarching problem is that fewer and fewer manufacturers produce these older, cheaper generic drugs, especially the harder-to-make injectable ones. So if one company has trouble -- or decides to quit making a particular drug -- there are few others able to ramp up their own production to fill the gap, says Valerie Jensen, who heads FDA's shortage office. [The Associated Press, 5/31/11] 

FDA Lists Normal Market Forces As Reason For Drug Shortages. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Drug Shortage Program lists numerous market and business decisions as causes of drug shortages. From the FDA: 

Why are there so many drugs in shortage?

Over the last ten years, the number of shortages has continued to increase.  There are many reasons for this increase in shortages and some of the causes are as follows:

• Manufacturing issues - this may include problems with manufacturing, enforcement activities, raw material shortages, packaging shortages, and other reasons
• Business decisions may be made by firms to discontinue manufacturing of a drug - newer products continue to replace older products due to better safety profiles, better efficacy, more convenient dosing regimens, etc.
• Limited manufacturing capacity - often multiple products are produced on the same equipment which means that an increase in production of one product will usually result in a delay for another product produced on the same production line
• Market concentration - as firms discontinue manufacturing of various products, only one or two firms may remain as producers of a product. [Food and Drug Administration,3/30/11]

Siegel Has A Long History Of Fearmongering, Misinforming About Health Care Reform

Siegel Seized On Story Of Canadian Baby To Fearmonger About Health Care In U.S. On the February 24 edition of Fox & Friends, Siegel used the story of a 13-month old Canadian baby in a permanent vegetative state to fearmonger about health care reform. Siegel claimed that, unlike in Canada, parents in the United States have the freedom to make decisions about their children's health, but that "we're worried about" issues such as health care rationing "happening here." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/24/11]

Carlson And Siegel Fearmonger That Health Care Reform Will Cause "People With Heart Attacks" To Not "Be Seen" By Doctors. On the September 17, 2010, edition of Fox & Friends, Siegel and co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that the coverage proposals in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) could "bankrupt America." Siegel further claimed that health care reform will mean "people with heart attacks are not going to be able to be seen [in the emergency room]" because "it will be loaded with people with Medicaid cards with colds." [Fox News, Fox & Friends,9/17/10]

Siegel Used "Not Scientific" Poll To Attack Health Care Reform. On the March 17, 2010, edition of Fox News' America Live, Siegel cited a 3-month-old email survey which found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform passed. Siegel claimed that the poll "reflected what was found in an IBD/TIPP poll that was done back in September [2009] whereInvestor's Business Daily also surveyed over a thousand physicians." But even Fox News acknowledged that the poll Siegel cited was "not scientific," and statistician Nate Silver called the poll "simply not credible." [Media Matters, 3/17/10]

Siegel: Task Force Recommendations On Mammograms "Absolutely" About Health Care Reform. During the November 17, 2009, edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Martha MacCallum asked Siegel, "You hinted at something that I want to just close with here. Are you suggesting that there's a link between health care reform and the battle to bring down costs overall and the decision to tell women not to get mammograms?" Siegel responded, "Well, absolutely," and, "[T]his kind of health reform is not what we need. We have the technology and quality of care in the United States. We don't need to see it sacrificed." In fact, as Media Matters noted, the recommendation made by the United States Preventive Services Task Force that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms was not legally binding on health care providers or insurers; also, the task force made similar recommendations before health care reform was passed, under the Bush administration. [Media Matters, 11/18/09]

Siegel: "[U]nder ObamaCare, Guidelines Will Quickly Become Mandates." In a November 19, 2009, New York Post column, Siegel again used mammogram screenings to claim that "under Obamacare, guidelines will quickly become mandates" and that reform efforts will "create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to 'suggest' things doctors shouldn't do."  From the New York Post:

This week's decision by a government panel to discourage most women in their 40s from having routine mammograms isn't just bad medicine, but also a small taste of what ObamaCare will mean.

[...]

Happily, these rulings from on high don't have much force now. But under ObamaCare, guidelines will quickly become mandates, and patients will routinely face the choice of paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket or accept higher risks of cancer. It will take government bureaucrats years to admit mistakes, if they ever do -- and by that time thousands of women will have needlessly gotten sick or even died of cancer.

All the major "reform" bills create lots of new panels and other bureaucrats empowered to "suggest" things doctors shouldn't do -- and even to penalize doctors who order "too many" tests. [New York Post, 11/19/09]

Siegel Compares War in Afghanistan To The "Bloodbath Going On Over Mammograms." On the December 2, 2009, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Siegel used a controversy over mammogram screening recommendations to claim, "[Y]ou're going to see another war. You have the war in Afghanistan; you're going to see -- there's a bloodbath going on over mammograms." [Fox News,America's Newsroom, 12/2/09]

Siegel On "Rationed Care" Under Health Reform: "[I]n A Way, It's A Form Of Eugenics."Discussing "rationed care" that he said would occur under health care reform, Siegel asserted: "There's going to be more people trying to get in [to my office]. I'm going to have less and less time to take care of them. Reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are being cut. If I'm being paid less, I got to work faster. That means I send more and more people for expensive tests. He's going to try to cost cut, which means he's going to ration care. So he's going to tell me what I can order, what I can't." After co-host Steve Doocy suggested that "unfairly, the elderly are the ones who are going to get shortchanged," Siegel responded: "That's so true. I mean, in a way, it's a form of eugenics: 'Oh, you're not good enough to live.' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/22/09]

Siegel Promoted End-Of-Life Counseling Myth. In an August 3, 2009, New York Post op-ed, Siegel promoted the myth that the House health care reform bill would have required end-of-life counseling for seniors every five years. Siegel falsely claimed that a "prime example" of the health care bill introducing too much medical oversight "comes in the section starting on page 425 of the House bill. This dictates that an Advanced Care Planning Consultation must take place every five years from the age of 65 -- with the intervention of so-called counselors, trained and appointed by the government." As Media Mattershas documented, the bill does not implement mandatory counseling sessions, and Politifact rated claims like Siegel's "pants on fire."  [New York Post, 8/3/09; Media Matters, 3/22/11]

Snyder and Wealthy CEO Buddies Playing ‘Michigan Monopoly’

From Michigan Democratic Party

LANSING – The Michigan Lottery just announced a brand new Monopoly game last week, but Governor Rick Snyder and his fellow GOP lawmakers have been playing “Michigan Monopoly” ever since they took office in January.

“In Governor Snyder’s ‘Michigan Monopoly’ game, Snyder and his corporate buddies hold all the cards and get rich while everyone else in Michigan suffers,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “Corporations are taking money from seniors, kids, middle class families, and low-wage workers just so CEOs can enjoy a nearly $2 billion tax windfall. Snyder and his buddies are busy hoarding Boardwalk and Park Place while everyone else is stuck on Baltic Avenue.”

“Snyder and the wealthy are passing ‘go’ and collecting $2 billion while the rest of us are left to pay the higher taxes, and endure cuts to public education and public safety,” added Brewer. “That’s not how we ‘reinvent’ Michigan, that’s how we ruin Michigan.”

The Michigan Democratic Party will be reminding people on the island about Snyder’s “Michigan Monopoly” by handing out Snyder’s “Chance” and “Community Chest” cards attached to Monopoly money.

Ohio Republicans attack state’s minimum wage law

By Sahil Kapur

Republicans in the Ohio State Senate are pushing to weaken a minimum wage law that was enshrined in the state's Constitution in 2006.

A provision in the Ohio Senate GOP's omnibus budget measure aims to raise the eligibility requirements for beneficiaries of theconstitutional amendment establishing the state's minimum wage at $6.85 per hour, slated to rise annually alongside inflation. The state's minimum wage has since been higher than the federal minimum wage.

The language, first caught by the Ohio political blogPlunderbund, reads:

By narrowing the parameters of the constitutional amendment, Ohio's Legislative Service Commissionconcludes that the bill "[m]ay result in fewer individuals subject to the minimum wage."

The legislation comes after Ohio's Republican Gov. John Kasich signed a controversial GOP-led measure to weaken collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Recall elections approved for 6 Wisconsin Republicans

By David Edwards

The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Tuesday approved recall elections for three Republicans, bringing the total number to six. At the same time, the nonpartisan election officials put the recall elections of three Democrats on hold.

Recall elections for Republican state Sens. Rob Cowles, Alberta Darling and Sheila Harsdorf were unanimously approved. The board had previously approved recall elections for Republican state Sens. Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke and Luther Olsen.

Republicans cried foul after the board put off a decision on recall elections for Democratic state Sens. Bob Wirch, Dave Hansen and Jim Holperin.

"This is an example of a supposedly neutral government agency acting in a blatantly partisan manner to further the objectives of a particular political party," Dan Hunt, who led the recall effort against Wirch, toldThe Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Board attorney Shane Falk explained that the decision on Democratic recall elections had been delayed because Democrats raised legal objections that the board had not dealt with before.

Democrats have charged that Republicans forged signatures on recall petitions as well as paying voterswith alcohol to sign petitions.

Falk said that Republicans had brought the same challenges as they had recall elections that had already been approved.

We've attempted to work concurrently on all the petitions but we simply don't have enough staff," Falk told the board.

"We have a biased body that has no check or balance with the voters," David VanderLeest, who plans to run against Democrat Dave Hansen, complained.

The accountability board was created by a Democratic Senate and Republican Assembly in 2007 to oversee elections without partisanship.

"I've never seen any hint of partisan bias," University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor David Canon told the Journal Sentinel. "They absolutely try to oversee Wisconsin election laws fairly."

The board planned to ask a judge Wednesday for an additional week to approve the Democratic recall elections.

If things go as planned, the Republican recall elections would be held July 12. If there is more than one challenger in any race, July 12 would be a primary and Aug. 9 would be the general election.

Democratic recall elections would be held July 19. The court will have the final say over the schedule

Herman Cain’s Bankruptcy Rant Shows Bankrupt Understanding Of The Constitution

By Ian Millhiser and Zaid Jilani

Herman Cain kicked off his campaign last week by lecturing the country on its need to “reread the Constitution” — even though Cain himself couldn’t tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sadly, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. Last October on his radio show, Cain launched into a impassioned rant about how federal bankruptcy law violates the Constitution:

All of the talk about a national foreclosure freeze . . . all they’re trying to do is appeal to people’s emotions. You see, the United States federal government, folks, has no jurisdiction over bankruptcy law. States do!

So, if some states decide that they want to investigate some of these phony or incomplete foreclosures, it’s up to the states. This is not even under the jurisdiction of the federal government! But it sounds good. It really sounds good, though.

Watch it:

Once again, Cain really should try reading our founding document before he lectures others about it. According to Article I of the Constitution, “[t]he Congress shall have power . . . [t]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” So the Constitution actually says the exact opposite of what Cain claims it says, because Congress power to make “uniform” bankruptcy laws prevents the states from creating their own rules for bankruptcy.

Or, to put it another way, claiming that helping foreclosure victims is unconstitutional may “sound good” to Cain’s right-wing supporters, but it has no basis whatsoever in the actual Constitution.

GOP Can’t Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan

By Pat Garofalo

President Obama met with House Republicans today at the White House to discuss ways to move forward on negotiations regarding the nation’s debt ceiling and the budget. During the discussion, talk evidently turned to taxes, and when Obama noted that taxes today are lower than they were under President Reagan, the GOP, according to The Hill, “engaged in a lot of ‘eye-rolling’“:

Republicans attending a White House meeting on Wednesday didn’t take kindly to President Obama telling them tax rates were higher during the Reagan administration. GOP members engaged in a lot of “eye-rolling,” according to a member who was on hand to hear Obama, who invited House Republicans to the White House for discussions on the debt ceiling. [...]

“[The President] made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”

That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Regan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higherthan the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.

For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance. And Reagan knew that taxes were an important part of the budget equation. After all, he “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.

The $7 Trillion Lie: Palin Falsely Claims Debt Has Grown More Under Obama Than ‘All Other Presidents Combined’

By Judd Legum

Sarah Palin, in the only interview she’s granted during her “One Nation” bus tour, claimed that the U.S. federal debt had grown more under Obama than “all those other presidents combined.”

Watch it:

This is flatly false. When Obama took office the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. After inheriting two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression, the debt has grown by $3.7 trillionsince Obama has been in office. Palin is off by about $7 trillion.

So not only has the debt not increased more under Obama than all other Presidents combined, it has increased less under Obama than our last president, George W. Bush. Under President Bush, who inherited a $236 billion budget surplus from President Clinton, the deficit increased by $4.9 trillion.