Art of the Deal?

Last time we checked in on the "Fiscal Cliff" situation, Republicans were wrangling with each other on whether to accept a deal. Today, if looks like a deal is near... Or is it? Ezra Klein noted all the major sticking points. And yes, one of them is in the Republican Party.

Boehner has moved to a $1 million threshold for the Bush tax cuts, and Obama has moved to $400,000, indicating that a deal is somewhere in between. That’s assuming, however, that Boehner will be able to keep his own caucus in line: More Republicans have called for the party to concede on marginal tax rates, but they’re still a minority in the party. Today, Boehner vowed to hold a House vote this week on a tax extension on a $1 million threshold. That could be a hardball negotiating tactic with the White House. But it could also be a litmus test of sorts for his own party’s willingness to accept any tax hike.

However, not all the angst is coming from the right. Many on the left are now expressing concern, and in some cases complete outrage, over a possible cut to Social Security benefits. Under a "chained CPI", retirees on Social Security would receive a smaller cost of living increase than the current formula to automatically take care of inflation.

Liberals are not happy with this concession to Republicans, calling it a “backdoor benefit cut.” The administration has tried to allay these concerns by promising to shield the impoverished elderly from harm. The White House hasn’t gone into details, but the top-line numbers indicate that Obama is backing a modified plan with less sweeping benefit cuts: Obama’s latest offers promises $130 billion in savings from chained CPI, which is significantly less than the $220 billion in savings that the Congressional Budget Office says would be achieved through a full-out transition to the new inflation index.

That suggests that Obama would protect some retirees, giving up some savings in the process. But Democrats will want to know exactly how low-income seniors are protected -- CBPP’s Jared Bernstein, for one, wants to make sure any deal exempts benefit changes to Supplementary Security Income, which goes to the elderly, blind and disabled. And it won’t necessarily be easy, policywise, to protect the elderly against cuts, as Mike Konczal argues. At the same time, Republicans could push Obama to squeeze even more savings out of Social Security than he’s currently offering: House Speaker John Boehner’s original proposal contained $200 billion in chained CPI savings.

So now, a deal is in the works... But it may never even get off the ground because both sides hate it so much. Even Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), a close White House ally, said today he and the bulk of his Senate Democratic colleagues won't accept any Social Security benefit cuts by any name.

In an interview with me this morning, Senator Dick Durbin, a top ally of the White House, told me he opposes including Chained CPI for Social Security in the final deal. He said it would be difficult for Democrats to support Chained CPI for Social Security if it ended up in the deal, though he said it was premature to say anything definitive about how they would vote.

“We ought to deal with Social Security in a separate conversation that is not part of deficit reduction,” Durbin told me. “To do it at this stage is the wrong way to go.” [...]

Pressed on why the White House is backing this, given that it’s bad policy, Durbin blamed Republicans, saying they were insisting on including it in a final deal. “The president is trying to get to an agreement, and I understand that,” Durbin said. “Boehner has been adamant that he wants Chained CPI.”

“The Speaker and many of his Republican friends are hell bent on Chained CPI,” Durbin continued. “It may be part of an overall solution [later] but to do it at this stage is the wrong way to go.”

Since Harry Reid vowed last month to keep Social Security and Medicare off the table in "Fiscal Cliff" resolution negotiations, many progressives are now asking him and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to hold the line against any entitlement benefit cuts. But then again, they may not have to do this for too much longer. Back to the right flank, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) may now be killing this deal.

"Plan B calls for sending us a bill that, the only thing will be in it is raising taxes on people who make over a million dollars," Reid said. "If that's not walking away, I don't know what walking away is.... I was happy to see the last statement that Boehner made at his press foray where he said negotiations are not closed. I talked to the President at a quarter to one today, he hasn't heard a word from Boehner."

Other Democrats are also trying to yank Boehner back into negotiations, and wedge him from House conservatives.

“News this morning of Speaker Boehner offering his ‘Plan B’ is yet another example of House Republicans walking away from negotiations on a big deal to avert the fiscal cliff and reduce the deficit in a balanced way," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), House Dems' top budget guy, in a statement to reporters. "By pushing this totally lopsided approach, the GOP is once again trying to minimize the impact on the wealthiest in our country and maximize the burden borne by working families.”

Last week, Boehner introduced his "Plan B" as some kind of alternative Republican tax plan. However, it raises nowhere near the kind of revenue that President Obama has been looking for. And ironically enough, while Boehner and other Republicans have been screaming the most about the fiscal "CRISIS!!!", they have yet to offer any serious proposal to avert the "Fiscal Cliff"... And that also means a plan that can actually pass Congress and be signed by the President.

So perhaps there was more to Obama's offer than met the eye. Perhaps he's trying to show everyone just how "un-serious" Congressional Republicans have been in resolving this fiscal fiasco. After all, we've lived through this before. It seems like the only way Obama cam secure a deal with Congress is by shaming just enough Republicans into accepting one.

So we still don't really know yet how this will be resolved. And at this point, we don't even know for sure if it will be resolved by the end of the year. All we know for sure is that President Obama wants a deal ASAP, he does not same to risk a "double dip recession" that may result from "Fiscal Cliff-diving" next year, and that he's ready to cut a deal with Republican leaders in order to solve this once & for all. Now, it's just a question of whether Republicans will let one happen... And perhaps if that deal can simultaneously pass Congressional Democrats' muster as well.

NV-04: Sorry, Baby Tark, But We're Just Not Delusional Like You.

He's back! And this time, he's giving us a real whopper.

Just in case you thought Danny Tarkanian couldn't possibly think of even more stupid shit to flow out of his mouth like verbal diarrhea, you're being proven wrong today. In fact, he's completely contradicting himself (yet again) and he doesn't even seem to notice. So what is Baby Tark saying now? Believe it or not, he signed a "pledge to protect Social Security & Medicare".

OK, so why is this so controversial? And why should you be outraged? Let me explain.

Well, actually I should let Baby Tark explain for himself.



Danny Tarkanian himself said he wanted to privatize Social Security. And in case that's not enough, he reiterated his interest in gutting Social Security just this month!

Tarkanian remarked that the eligibility age for drawing Social Security needs to be raised. He explained that when the Social Security program was first created the life expectancy of recipients was 19 years less than now. He wants a grace period for people nearing retirement but that it could be adjusted for younger workers.

And in case that isn't bad enough, Danny Tarkanian has also endorsed the "Balanced Budget Amendment". Remember that? If enacted, this unbalanced nonsense that "tea party" darlings Dean Heller & Joe Heck love so much would force upon us massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and so much more.

And to top it all off, Baby Tark actually has the gall to lie about Steven Horsford and President Obama. Despite the constant debunking of the G-O-TEA lies about the Affordable Care Act and what it actually does, Baby Tark is going there. I guess he hasn't learned from Joe Heck and his attempts to lie his way out of the political dilemma Paul Ryan (along with Mitt Romney now!) has put his entire party into.

Clearly, Danny Tarkanian is desperate. His "tea party" extremism isn't wearing well with NV-04 voters, so he's now trying to make us forget everything he ever promised to the teabaggers. Sorry, Baby Tark, but we're clearly not as delusional or forgetful as you.

Paul Ryan: Mitt Romney's Las Vegas Headliner

He's here! Paul Ryan will be headlining a Mitt Romney campaign rally at Palo Verde High School in Summerlin today... Followed by an uber-exclusive fundraiser with none other than Willard's #1 money man ( Sheldon Adelson) at The Venetian. Wow, what a man of the people. Paul Ryan will be rallying Nevada "TEA-publicans" at the high school serving some of the highest income neighborhoods in the entire state, then he will be raising money from the guy on The Strip who actually makes the bulk of his billions from wheeling & dealing with the Macau mafia. What a guy, that Paul Ryan!

And already, Nevada Republicans are set to give Paul Ryan a very warm welcome. Just look at what they're doing to prepare for his arrival.

The Ryan pick is also shaking up the races that will decide which party controls the Senate. Dean Heller of Nevada — appointed to the Senate last year — is already under fire for the unique distinction of being the only lawmaker who voted for the Ryan budget in both chambers. Montana Republican Senate candidate Denny Rehberg is running fast from the Ryan budget. And in Florida, a state where the senior citizen vote is crucial, vulnerable Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson could barely contain his glee at the opportunity to attack the Ryan budget.

The reality is that Ryan is now all Republicans' running mate whether they like it or not, forcing GOP candidates who would just as soon run from the debate over senior citizen entitlements to embrace the third rail of American politics like never before.

One GOP insider lamented that party leaders “have spent the last year” trying to take Medicare off the political front burner, but the Ryan pick “puts it all back out there now.” [...]

Following the selection, Heller praised Ryan’s “courage to make the tough decisions needed to restore our nation’s fiscal health.” But Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley saw a ripe opportunity to drive home what Democrats see as Heller’s biggest weakness: voting to reconfigure Medicare.

“No one is happier today than Sen. Dean Heller, one of Rep. Paul Ryan’s strongest supporters who said he was ‘proud’ to vote twice for the Ryan budget plan that essentially ends Medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies.”

Both Joe Heck and Dean Heller are inextricably linked to Paul Ryan and his plan to destroy Medicare by replacing real health care coverage with vouchers. Yet since Mitt Romney has launched Paul Ryan and his quest to end Medicare & Social Security as we know it onto the center stage of the Presidential Campaign, Heller & Heck have to be more careful in tip-toe-ing around their own record of standing with Ryan. After all, about 20% of Nevada's electorate is retired. And even more Nevadans fear the kinds of cutting and gutting of Social Security & Medicare that Paul Ryan has long championed.

Already, Ryan has put Mitt Romney into even more of a precarious situation here in Nevada. But now, the entire ticket is threatened. And if/when Romney & Ryan drag down Heller & Heck with them, they can all thank the Romney-Ryan plan to slash the social safety net for the middle class (to pay for more "billionaire bailouts") for it.

Heck's "Help" for Social Security? Say It Ain't So, Joe!

I certainly wasn't expecting to see this on Salon.com this morning.



Joe Heck asks:

"Did you know I can help with your SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS?"

I answer:

And how would you do that, Dr. Heck? By taking away Nevada seniors' Social Security benefits?



(These are Heck's own words!)

The kid who’s 18 years old — should that kid have to work to age 70? I don’t know but that could be a possibility to try to make this program work. Because look – Social Security started in 1935. … Fast forward to now. Full retirement age is 67 and the life span is 80. So when they first conceived Social Security they didn’t think they were going to be paying benefits for 13, 15 years. That’s one of the reasons why this pyramid scheme isn’t working.

(The following week, he doubled down on the "pyramid scheme" nonsense when he was a guest on Alan Stock's radio show.)

And don't forget Joe Heck's "Destroying America's Trust in Our Economy Act"! Remember what we discussed last November.

[...] Nowhere in Heck's "Restoring America's Faith and Trust Act" does it address the Bush tax rates, war spending, or economic health. Instead, Heck wants to slash federal investment in our people to 2006 levels and fire more public sector workers! Even though we have more miltary veterans in need of VA care, college students in need of Pell Grants, working poor families in need of Medicaid and food stamps, retirees in need of Medicare and Social Security, and unemployed workers in need of unemployment insurance, Heck refuses to acqknowledge this reality and instead has introduced this bill that would plunge our economy into double-dip recession if enacted!

If we were to slash all these programs and more, we would all pay the price of further suffering. Without unemployment insurance, those without work can't survive. Same goes for seniors on Medicare, working poor families on food stamps and Medicaid, students with Pell Grants, and veterans using VA assistance. If they can't even buy food and basic supplies, let alone purchase anything else, our economy would take a massive hit. Oh, and in the longer term the budget deficit would only worsen as tax revenue plunges because of even more people losing their jobs.

How on earth is that supposed to "help with your Social Security benefits"? When did hurting become "helping"? Maybe that's the case in "Tea Party Fantasy Land", but here in the real world Nevadans want to make sure Social Security remains strong and available for all seniors in need. Once again, Joe Heck needs a reality check.

NV-03: Congressman Refuses to Meet Constituents... So They Do "Town Hall" Without Him

After waiting the entire summer for Joe Heck to meet with constituents and answer the questions we have about what he's doing in Congress, a group of Nevadans decided enough was enough. They mapped out his Dick Cheney like undisclosed hiding location "Congressional Office", and then they paid his office a visit. If anyone still had questions about Heck's willingness to face the voters in his own district, this should answer all of them.



This is where one can find Joe Heck's office.



Oh wait, where is it?! There's no sign at the office complex. And it's smack dab in the midst of so many empty lots and near the most foreclosure ridden neighborhoods of Las Vegas.



And because Joe Heck continues to hide from the public at "Pay-Per-View Congress" private events he claims to be "town halls", these Nevadans had no other choice. They drove all the way here, most from where most of the population of NV-03 actually reside, to send Heck a message.









Linda Overbey is an unemployed union painter. Joe Heck wouldn't listen to her when she attended what was supposed to be a discussion on jobs, so she was at his office last night to say what needed to be said.



Steve Rypka lives in the district, and was even one of the "approved residents" for last Saturday's "Pay-Per-View Congress" event... Except that he was ready to call phony baloney on Heck's fake "jobs plan" that subsidizes the fossil fuel industry while shortchanging Nevadans looking forward to green collar jobs and a brighter clean energy future. And of course, Joe Heck and his staff can't handle a constituent calling them out on their BS!



Dick Collins was also on hand to talk last night. He's been waiting for Heck to tell the truth about Social Security and Medicare, but instead all he's been seeing (along with the rest of us) has been attacking Nevada seniors and disabled by calling Social Security a "pyramid scheme" and voting for Paul Ryan's plan to kill Medicare. Collins was ready to set the record straight on Heck's doublespeak.



And there were even more stories from the constituents who braved the mighty wind and furious heat to stand outside Joe Heck's office after trying to get a hold of him. As the rally was winding down, people were calling his Las Vegas office... And couldn't even leave a voicemail! Not even that was available for the increasing number of angry constituents who have been increasingly frustrated by Heck hiding from the public.

Well, at least we know who Heck won't automatically hide from... But not even his own teabagger base is happy with him any more! But no matter how much he wants to deny it, "Tea Party, Inc." installed Joe Heck into office. And Joe Heck ultimately does what "Tea Party, Inc." tells him to do, even with the rank and file teabagger "grassroots" don't necessarily like it.

That's really the story of NV-03... And it's the same story one can find throughout the country as Republicans who rode "The TEA Party Wave" into office are now ducking underwater in hopes of us forgetting what they've done to wreck our economy and endanger America's middle class. And the only way we can get a happy ending to this story is if we finally put an end to this "TEA Party" madness and reject the craven Republicans who are pandering to them while ignoring the real suffering of all the rest of us.

She's BACK! And She's Not Alone...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Will Sharrrrrrrrrrrrrrron ever really leave us? I guess not...





Especially since her crazy "ideas" continue to thrive in the Nevada Republican Party. Wait, who called Social Security a "pyramid scheme"? Oh, that's right! It was Joe Heck!

Congressman Heck appears to have settled, at least briefly, on the narrative that privatizing Social Security will save it for future generations. No it won’t — it will dismantle and eliminate it. The last time this privatization scheme was put forward the rationale was clear: “Privatization isn’t a plan to save Social Security. It is a plan to dismantle Social Security. Private accounts do nothing to address Social Security solvency. In fact, because private accounts are financed by taking money out of Social Security, privatization actually increases Social Security’s funding gap and moves forward the date of its insolvency from 2041 to 2030.“

There is a secondary myth associated with Social Security, that it constitutes a retirement plan in lieu of all others. Wrong again. Social Security is a social safety net program. If any individual wants to contribute to a private retirement account he or she is perfectly free to do so. There are numerous flavors of individual retirement accounts available from your broker of choice, and at least two major forms of IRA’s. The purpose of the Social Security program is to provide a minimum level of financial support to those who would otherwise slip into poverty in their later years.

Yet again, Joe Heck is offering nothing more than microwaved second helpings of Sharrontology crazy. Angle may not have won herself, but sadly her legacy lives on in the Nevada GOP.

Joe Heck AGAIN Attacks Medicare & Social Security

Joe Heck did it... AGAIN! Go ahead and listen for yourself.

But in case you can't, the transcript is below.

Robert: Congressman Heck, I just wanted to thank you, you know, because I’m a working man just like the rest of you and you’re absolutely right: Social Security is a pyramid scheme. And, you know, I’m just (unintelligible) because the money I’m paying right now I am paying for other peoples’ futures and fewer and fewer people are paying for my benefits as well. And that’s not what Social Security is intended for. Why aren’t more people talking about this, and what can Washington do to starting doing something to fix it?

Heck: Yeah, it’s a great question Robert and you’re exactly right. You know back in 1955 there were nine people paying in for every person collecting. By 1973 that dropped down to three to one. It’s projected that over the next 20 years it will be down to two to one. You know and it’s already said that Social Security is probably going to be insolvent in about 20 years. So we can wait until 20 years from now to take action, or we can take action now. And like you I’ve been paying into Social Security for almost 32 years and want to make sure that there’s a benefit there when I retire. I co-sponsored a bill that would say that Social Security contributions from your paycheck go into a fund that can only be used to pay for Social Security. You know, Congress… previous Congresses have raided the trust fund for other pet projects and to try to balance the budget and use it for other projects. We’ve got to make sure that the money going in goes specifically to those that are expecting a benefit at some point in time. And then we’re going to have to look at a lot of other options to put on the table to make sure that the program remains viable and stable. It’s a matter of leadership. You know, previous Congress has done nothing about the debt. They show no leadership on the debt and now we’re in a debt crisis. They are showing no leadership on Medicare and we are approaching a Medicare crisis. And if nobody wants to show leadership on Social Security we’ll have the same crisis in about 20 years. [emphasis mine]

Not only is Joe Heck doubling down on calling Social Security a "pyramid scheme", but he also throws out plenty of false "facts" he intends to use to scare us into privatizing Medicare and Social Security. When Heck was bragging about "taking action", was he talking about House Republicans' proposed (Un)SAFE Act to starve away Social Security by replacing it with private accounts? Does he really want to risk seniors' economic security with a corrupt privatization scheme?

Wait, doesn't this sound familiar? It should.

So now, Sharrontology Obtuse Angle claims she isn't really for abolishing Social Security... Even though she is. And the media are chattering away about why we're not seeing more "open dialogue on reforming Social Security". Sound familiar? It should. George Bush tried this exact same tactic in 2005, and the corporate media were cheerleading it on until the waves of protests all over the country killed the proposal...

Or did it? It seems Sharrontology wants to revive it. And like Bush in 2005, she's using the same ol' "It's going broke!!!!" scare tactics to goad us into letting her throw starving seniors onto the streets to "fend for themselves" like they should in a "free market".

So here's the problem. Obtuse Angle isn't giving us the full story.Social Security is NOT "going broke".



I know, I know. It's not as dramatic as the "Oh noezzz, Social Security is BROKE!!!!" storyline you hear in the corporate media and you see parroted by radical right GOoPers like Sharrontology. But let's face it, there's no real "CRISIS!!!!" here. 

Contrary to what Sharron Angle and Joe Heck would have us believe, Social Security is A-O-K as it is. But by privatizing the system and getting rid of its cash flow, then and only then is the system in danger of collapsing. The Social Security Trust Fund is currently running a surplus. But if the system were to be turned over to Wall Street, upwards of $4.5 trillion would be needed to privatize Social Security for current workers while simultaneously handling the current caseload of retirees. Where will we get that kind of money? I thought House Republicans didn't support this kind of "borrow and spend" fiscal policy.

Of course, that's what Joe Heck doesn't want us to see. He just wants us to believe he's fighting the "big bad guv'mint pyramid scheme!"

But wait, there's more! Joe Heck also reiterated this morning that he supports Paul Ryan's "Kill Medicare" Plan. And yet again, he's using buzzwords like "CRISIS!" and "leadership" to distract us from what Paul Ryan's "Kill Medicare" Plan will do in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District if enacted.

The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:

• Increase prescription drug costs for 9,500 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D do-nut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $94 million for drugs over the next decade.

• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 120,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.

The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:

• Deny 780,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 155,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.

• Require the 155,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $36.2 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual – to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.

• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 89,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 624,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger. “

So that's what Joe Heck really wants to force upon us in Nevada... And nationwide! Look at the above facts and figures. Does that look like "solving a crisis" or creating one?

NV-03: Joe Heck Bashes Nevada Seniors (Yet Again)

(Also at Daily Kos)



Why am I not surprised? After all, Joe Heck makes no apologies of sucking up to Wall Street special interests while working class Nevada families suffer. And of course, this means Heck is gung-ho behind Paul Ryan's "Kill Medicare" plan.

So in essence, perhaps we really shouldn't be surprised by this statement that seems to be more than just some random "gaffe". Rachel Maddow actually did a great job of putting together all the pieces of this sordid Republican puzzle.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And Think Progress delivers an even more devastating blow of a reality check to "Trust Me, I'm a Doctor!" Joe Heck.

Heck’s words touched off an instant uproar among his constituents, who immediately began shouting him down and challenging his disparaging characterization. He also falsely claimed at the outset of his remarks: “No one is talking about raising the retirement age.” Heck appears to be the latest Republican to take his talking points directly from the Tea Party group FreedomWorks, run by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R). At a conference for conservative activists, Armey called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme“ that steals people’s money “under false pretenses.”

Nevada journalist Jon Ralston reported that Heck has been trying to walk back his comments. Heck first said, “I regret that I misspoke” and added, “Those who have followed my position know that I am fully committed to protecting the promise of Social Security.”

Contrary to Heck’s opinion, Social Security has actually worked amazingly well since its inception, lifting millions of disabled and senior citizens out of poverty. It remains indispensable: the median income for senior households is $24,000, and Social Security provides the majority of income for two-thirds of our elderly.

Despite numerous polls and an electoral upset that illustrate just how unpopular their position is, Republicans can’t seem to take the hint that Americans overwhelmingly like and depend on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. After paying into them their entire careers, Americans expect these programs to remain intact to support them when they need it. There is simply no appetite for Republican efforts to abolish them, or tolerance for lawmakers who disparage them. Yet congressional Republicans remain defiant to public opinion and are sticking with their plans to end Medicare.

Wait, where have we seen this before? For some reason, this sounds so familiar. Oh yes, that's right! On the campaign trail last year, Joe Heck supported the same agenda of privatizing Social Security and Medicare that Sharron Angle championed... Except when it wasn't convenient to admit that. It looks like we (the voters in NV-03) are left holding the short end of that stick.



Many thousands of Nevadans rely upon Social Security as their main (sometimes, only) source of income, and upon Medicare for their much needed health care. Without these two vital programs, Nevada would be devastated by an outbreak of senior poverty that we probably haven't experienced since The Great Depression. But what does Joe Heck want to do? Oh, he just wants to screw around with our Social Security and Medicare!

Don't believe him when he says he doesn't. Believe his record. And believe his backers.

Sharrontology's Extreme Makeover: Betting on Amnesia

So is this what we can now expect from Sharrontology?

In the span of a year, Nevada voters have encountered three different Sharron Angles.

First came Primary Campaign Angle, who, trying to distinguish herself from a crowded Republican U.S. Senate field, talked to anyone, anywhere and was unafraid to declare her deeply conservative philosophy.

Then she won the primary and voters met Down-in-the-Bunker Angle, who fled reporters and hunkered down to raise money.

Now emerges Prime Time Angle. Bolstered by a professional communications staff, she is once again sparring with groups of reporters and granting lengthy sit-down interviews to “mainstream” news outlets such as The New York Times. But the latest edition, while more polished, appears to be missing some of her previous fire, if her speech Wednesday before the Washoe County Republican Women’s Club is any indication.

She's certainly trying hard to make us forget everything she said earlier this year.

Instead of calling for the elimination of departments she sees as running up the federal debt and burdening businesses with regulation and taxes, Angle now merely wants to trim the budgets of the Education and Energy departments and Environmental Protection Agency.

Although Angle previously said she wants to eliminate Social Security for new generations of workers, she now says younger workers should be given the option of the traditional program or personal, government-run retirement accounts.

Sharron Angle claims she's just changed her "language"... But take another listen to what's she's said and ask if this is just "changing language".





And what kind of language is this? Does she still stand by her comments that she's "not in the business of creating jobs" and we're "spoiling our citizenry" by helping the unemployed while they're finding jobs?



And does she still think The Las Vegas Strip is like The Titanic and that CityCenter should have been allowed to fail and tens of thousands more casino workers should have been allowed to join the already large ranks of the unemployed?



I occasionally hear from the teabaggers that we should choose Sharron Angle because we need "change" and "new ideas". But if Angle's "ideas" are so great, why doesn't she run on her original "ideas" from her original campaign in the primary? Is it perhaps because her DC Republican handlers realize most Nevadans reject her extremism? Is it perhaps because they know her "great ideas" have already been tried and failed?

So I'm Not the Only One Concerned About Sharrontology's Love for "Pinochet Pensions"

I explained what happened to Chile's seniors when military dictator Augusto Pinochet privatized the pension system supported by Chile's democratically elected government (that Pinochet overthrew), and Desert Beacon went into further detail on why Chile's system didn't work and left about half of Chile's seniors with absolutely nothing. And Sharron Angle thinks this is a "great idea"?

Sharrontology Exposure... Continued...

So John L. Smith takes a trip down memory lane and reminds us of this famous line said in 1993:

"STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. MAKE THE DIFFICULT CHOICES THAT WILL KEEP OUR COUNTRY STRONG. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO!"

Guess who said this. If you guessed Sharron Angle, you're correct!

[I'd quote, except that I'd rather NOT get sued by Righthaven.]



No matter how hard she tries, Sharron Angle can't hide her true self. That's why, despite the topsy turvy polls, Republicans aren't as giddy behind the scenes as they put out in public.

Oh look, Sue Lowden reemerges!

[I'd quote, except that I'd rather NOT get sued by Righthaven.]

Oh, I guess she still doesn't want to be seen in public with Sharrontology.

Oh look, Danny Tarkanian is back!

Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past, like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question.

Republicans in this state are concerned that what had once seemed a relatively easy victory is suddenly in doubt, with signs that Ms. Angle’s campaign is scrambling to regroup.

“Reid had no chance to win before,” said Danny Tarkanian, one of the Republicans who lost to Ms. Angle. “He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored.”

Oh, I guess he's also catching a glimpse of reality.







Sharrontology wants to end Social Security and allow seniors to go for broke if Wall Street doesn't treat them well. She doesn't believe it's her job to care about our jobs. She'd rather see people die from lack of health care than do anything suggesting "government is god". (HUH??!!)

She's just too extreme for Nevada.

So Sharrontology Supports Military DICTATOR's Plan to Eliminate Social Security?

I'm almost speechless...

Sharron Angle is further clarifying her calls for the privatization of Social Security, saying that Chile has done it successfully. That is, Angle is now speaking favorably of a system that was enacted by a military dictator.

"So when I said private, that's what I meant -- that I thought we would have to go just to the private sector just for a template on how this is supposed to be done," Angle told the CBS affiliate in Las Vegas. "However, I've seen been studying, and Chile has done this."

The station noted that Chile's private pensions system, which was originally enacted by the military dictator Augusto Pinochet, has been criticized for being subject to market volatility, though its proponents argue that it gives all citizens a stake in the market.

Well, almost. This is simply ridiculous! For all Sharron Angle's talk of Democrats "taking away our freedoms", she's now copying ideas from a brutal military tyrant who overthrew Chile's democratically elected government in 1973! Is this what Sharron Angle means when she talks about "Second Amendment Remedies"?



This is the reality of what happened to Chile thanks to Pinochet.



And this is the reality of how Pinochet's privatized pension program did NOT work... Unless you consider impoverishing seniors and adding additional unnecessary costs to the federal governent "working".

A quarter of a century since privatization took effect, Chilean's retirement security is on shaky ground. Recent reports by the World Bank and the Federal Reserve have highlighted some of the many problems with Chile's system. A combination of high management fees, low participation rates, unexpectedly heavy dependence on an inadequate safety net, and prohibitively high costs to government have led the system along a path of failure and left many Chilean workers with no reliable retirement plan. Is this really the model the United States hopes to replicate?

There are prohibitively high expenses and fees. Voracious commissions and other administrative costs have swallowed up large shares of personal accounts. It is estimated that roughly 28 to 33 percent one-quarter to one-third of contributions made by employees retiring in 2000 went toward fees.

• The brokerage firm CB Capitales calculated (see English language discussion by Stephen Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta here) that when commission charges are taken into consideration in Chile, the total average return on worker contributions between 1982 and 1999 was 5.1 percent-not 11 percent as calculated by the superintendency of pension funds. That report found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account.

There are low participation rates. Half of Chileans, primarily the poorest, do not contribute to a pension fund at all. The New York Times notes, "Many [Chileans]—because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally—remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system."

• Even the military does not participate in the privatized system. While the military imposed the private accounts on all other workers entering the labor force after 1981, it continues to receive pensions under the old, favored governmental system.

There is unexpectedly heavy dependence on an inadequate safety net. Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta recently found that investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted-so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.

• The New York Times revealed in an article earlier this year that under the old pay-as-you-go system, the maximum monthly benefit is $1250. Under the privatized system, a worker would have to contribute more than a quarter of a million dollars over the course of his or her career to receive as much in retirement benefits each month. Just 500 of the seven million participants in private accounts, has been able to do so.

There are unexpectedly high transition and supplementary costs. The transition costs of shifting to a privatized system in Chile averaged 6.1 percent of GDP in the 1980s, 4.8 percent in the 1990s, and are expected to average 4.3 percent from 1999 to 2037. Those costs are far higher than originally projected, in part because the government is obligated to provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough money in their accounts to earn a minimum pension.

Oh, and another thing... Chile has been moving AWAY from this failed privatized system because IT DOESN'T WORK! That's why Chile began discussing reform in 2006 in the form of implementing guaranteed benefits for people left out by the private system.

The new $2 billion-a-year program will expand public pensions to groups left out by private pensions - the poor and self-employed, homewives, street vendors and farmers who saved little for rResponding to growing complaints that the privatized pension system here is failing to deliver adequate benefits, the Chilean government has recommended that it be supplanted by a system in which the state would play a much larger role. The current system is a favorite of free-enterprise enthusiasts, including President Bush.

The changes, part of a reform package scheduled to go to Congress early next year, include a guaranteed minimum pension for the country's poorest citizens, even those who have never contributed to the private system. [...]

In recent years, that pioneering privatized system has been emulated by a score of other countries and praised by leaders of many others. Mr. Bush, for example, proposed using the Chilean model as the basis for a reshaping of Social Security, calling the system here ''a great example'' and saying the United States could ''take some lessons from Chile.''

But dissatisfaction with the inability of the system to provide the benefits promised when Gen. Augusto Pinochet imposed it in 1981 has been rising, and became an issue in this year's presidential campaign.

As things now stand, about half the Chileans in the labor force will not qualify for a pension or will receive only a minimum payment, for a variety of reasons that include their not having paid into the system for the minimum 20 years.

So now, it looks like this.

[Sharron] Angle referred to Chile on Thursday in North Las Vegas while explaining previous statements that the United States should phase out its current system.

However, the pension system established in 1981 by right-wing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is no longer a fully private system.

Chile's system was revamped in 2008 to expand public pensions for groups left out of its system, including low-income seniors.

The tea party favorite challenging Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the current U.S. system is broken.

Reid and Democrats say Angle's ideas about Social Security are extreme.

So the fact of the matter here is that Military Dictator Augusto Pinochet scrapped the public pension program favored by the previous democratically elected government (that he violently overthrew against the will of the people!), and instead pushed for this privatized system that ended up denying benefits to nearly half of the Chilean people, costing the Chilean government far more than Pinochet's economic advisers had originally promised, and ultimately had to be reformed in 2008 (in the form of restoring public pensions, creating something similar to the Social Security benefits we enjoy here!) so fewer Chileans would have to "retire" to abject poverty. George Bush tried to shove this miserable failure down our throats in 2005, but it didn't work. However, Sharron Angle and her fellow "Tea Party, Inc." extremists are now trying to distort the facts on Social Security to try to scare us into copying Chile's mistakes! What the hell are they thinking!



I guess this is why more and more Nevada seniors want to stick with the sane, proven, sensible leadership of Harry Reid.



Last I checked, I never heard him endorsing insane and unworkable Social Security privatization schemes copied directly from some brutal, tyrannical Latin American military dictatorship!

On Medicare's 45th Anniversary, One Must Ask if Sharrontology Will Let It Like Any Longer

“I’m not sure just where in the Constitution the federal government is even supposed to be involved in our Medicare. You know, these are things that could be done on the state level much better.”

Don't believe this? Skip to 2:20 in this video and watch for yourself...



Yep, that's right. Sharrontology wants to abolish Medicare. Well, at least that's what she said last year, back when Sharrontology was Sharrontology and RNC/NRSC campaign minders weren't monitoring her... But what happens when the minders are gone? Most likely, it's back to the same ol' Obtuse Angle that Nevadans remember her as.

No wonder why more and more Nevada seniors have had enough of Obtuse Angle's wackadoodle "ideas" on Medicare and Social Security.



Sharron Angle is just too extreme for all of us in Nevada, including our seniors who deserve a safe retirement.

Sharrontology vs. Sharrontology

Who are we to believe? The old Sharron Angle or the new Sharron Angle?



The new Sharrontology?



Or the old Sharrontology?



Can we believe anything Ms. Obtuse Angle says these days?

The Facts on Sharrontology & Social Security

(Btw, as always, Desert Beacon gets even wonkier with more facts on Social Security and Sharrontology's factless drivel.)



So now, Sharrontology Obtuse Angle claims she isn't really for abolishing Social Security... Even though she is. And the media are chattering away about why we're not seeing more "open dialogue on reforming Social Security". Sound familiar? It should. George Bush tried this exact same tactic in 2005, and the corporate media were cheerleading it on until the waves of protests all over the country killed the proposal...

Or did it? It seems Sharrontology wants to revive it. And like Bush in 2005, she's using the same ol' "It's going broke!!!!" scare tactics to goad us into letting her throw starving seniors onto the streets to "fend for themselves" like they should in a "free market".

So here's the problem. Obtuse Angle isn't giving us the full story. Social Security is NOT "going broke".



I know, I know. It's not as dramatic as the "Oh noezzz, Social Security is BROKE!!!!" storyline you hear in the corporate media and you see parroted by radical right GOoPers like Sharrontology. But let's face it, there's no real "CRISIS!!!!" here.

And looking at the long-term funding issues, there are simple solutions that can be used, such as changing the cap on the Social Security tax (currently no income over $97,000 per year is taxed), simply stopping the constant raids into the Social Security Trust Fund (to pay for things like the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq War), and rethinking our budget priorities (hint: our military budget is over three times the amount of our Social Security budget). Again, I know this isn't dramatic enough for the media to salivate over like the discredited "Social Security MUST be reformed (read privatized)!!!!" storyline. But hey, isn't it better to look at real solutions to the real problems rather than get all dramatic over nothing?

And in Sharrontology's case, her favored "solution" would cause far more problems if implemented. You know how she and her teabagger army whine and scream and complain about "bailouts", even if they're nonexistent? Well, how do you think state governments would cope if Social Security were privatized, millions of seniors didn't rack up the savings Sharrontology promised they would, and the State of Nevada was left holding the bag for the feds' failure in ruining Social Security? Guess what we'd need: A BAILOUT!! Nevada would need at least $3.4 billion to fix the privatization hot mess, and the overall federal bailout to states would cost at least $601 billion!

Talk about Sharrontology's folly! And this is just the start...



You really want her directing your future retirement?