Robin Hood, the guy who robbed the rich and gave to the poor, wore a short frock and tights. From the get-go, the guy serving the disadvantaged while sporting gay attire would fail the entrance exam required to become a card-carrying Republican.
The GOP is, after all, the anti-gay marriage, anti-repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell crew. More than that, Republicans are anti-working class. Their recent policies and activities show them clobbering the middle class while kissing the wealthy’s, well, you know.
Consider health insurance reform and tax cuts for the rich.
The GOP spent the entire fall election cycle yammering about the federal deficit. The world as we know it was coming to an end because of the deficit, they contended loudly and repeatedly.
Then, immediately after Election Day, Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts for the rich. They added more than $36 billion to that supposedly-cataclysmic federal deficit in 2011 so that they could pad the pockets of the nation’s millionaires.
To secure that bonus for millionaires, Republicans held hostage extension of unemployment compensation, which during this grave recession, sustains the nation’s workers who are out of jobs and, all too often, also out of foreclosed-on homes. The deal comes down to this: The average millionaire will be $100,000 richer as a result in 2011. The average worker will get $15,236 in unemployment benefits if jobless the entire year of 2011.
Republicans insisted on giving the rich $84,764 a year more than the poor.
Repealing health insurance reform, as the GOP has said it hopes to do before month’s end, would have the same result – increasing that supposedly-cataclysmic federal deficit while slamming the poor and middle class.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Affordable Care Act will decrease the federal deficit by $140 billion over 10 years. That’s what the GOP wants to repeal – a deficit reduction measure. Republicans want to add $140 billion to the debt. . . .
Most injured by repeal would be the nation’s poor and middle class. That’s because rescinding the law would once again allow insurers to deny health care to children with pre-existing conditions. It would mean the elderly would once again pay more for preventative care and prescriptions. It would permit insurers to once again withdraw coverage from people when they get sick. It would mean insurers could kick out young adults who are now covered under their parents’ plans until age 26. It would permit insurers to re-impose “lifetime maximums,” so that they could cancel the coverage of people with costly illnesses. It would permit insurers to once again pocket for profit and “administrative expenses” an unlimited percentage of premiums paid by workers and employers. It would mean small businesses would lose tax breaks that will help them pay for health insurance for workers.
The GOP intends to deny tens of millions of uninsured Americans the hope that soon they’ll be able to afford coverage.
Republicans want to, as they put it, “undo” the health insurance benefits that the Affordable Care Act provides to Americans. And they’re offering nothing in return, nothing to help the uninsured, nothing to help the untold millions cheated by insurance corporations, nothing to require premiums to be spent on health care.
That’s the way Republican-hood rolls, protecting the wealthy, pummeling the poor. The rich, in the case of health insurance, are CEOs earning millions while increasing rates in double digits during a recession. The Los Angeles Times reported in August, for example, that the top executives of the nation’s five largest for-profit health insurers pulled down $200 million in compensation in 2009. The poor, in this case, are policy holders who the insurers charged rate increases as high as 39 percent.
House Republicans would exempt their cancelling of health insurance reform from their own rule that new legislation be paid for. So they wouldn’t have to find an additional $14 billion when they attempt to fulfill their campaign pledge to slash $100 billion from domestic programs – that would be from the programs most needed by the nation’s workers – those that help pay for education and transportation, for example. Because these domestic programs are such a small part of the budget, securing $100 billion from them would cost each department approximately 20 percent of its funds this year. That means painful reductions to areas like law enforcement and medical research. This is accompanied by Republican demands for cuts to many workers’ only retirement plan – Social Security.
In the meantime, the main concern of most Americans, as it was in the grueling days of Robin Hood, is jobs. Not the deficit. The GOP offers no plan to increase jobs for formerly working people, to end the suffering of tens of millions of Americans. Republican-hood is, instead, focused on pampering those who don’t need it.



18 Comments

With all due respect, Mr. Gerard, everybody here at the Lake already knows: Republicans = bad.
If you really want to impress me (and, I’ll venture, many others here) explain why Democrats are even the least bit better.
If you accept my challenge, please be sure that, as you have so expertly above, you make your case based on DEEDS – not words.
That’s playing rather loose with the facts isn’t it?
“Repealing health insurance reform, as the GOP has said it hopes to do before month’s end, would have the same result – increasing that supposedly-cataclysmic federal deficit while slamming the poor and middle class.”
I haven’t seen difference in my premiums since the new health care law passed. So, by not forcing the middle class to buy health care from private industry is slamming the middle class?
Also I am pretty sure that the deficit is expected to go up because of the health care law for the next few years. I could be wrong but, if I remember correctly the only way they pay for this is with penalties from the IRS for people who can’t afford the premiums.
If the democrats are really concerned about pre-existing conditions why didn’t they just pass a law on that part?
When I was a kid I had a paper route that went by the Anglican Church of Binghamton New York. Republicans worshipped there. I learned early that The Almighty really loved Republicans. He gave them all fancy cars, fur coats,and tans fresh out of a Bermuda resort. I found out a little later that the average Republican gave about 3% of his income in charity and religious donations. My church, A lower middle class democratic Methodist insitution,had a congregation that gave about 8%. Many years later I treated a pal of mine to a dinner at Morton`s Of Chicago in Washington DC. When we left the waitress asked my pal if we were democrats. He said we were and she said that figures you tipped 15% while republicans don`t tip at all unless a lobbyist is picking up the tab.Have they changed now that they control the House?
Zenostoa
Not sure why you had to leave with some gay-outfit jokes, but okay. Please now tell us how hard Dems and the President are working to promote a People’s Agenda, including EFCA passage. Oh, that’s right, that time’s over now, isn’t it? Tell us the President isn’t going to anticipate Republican austerity measures in his SOTU, or quit working for more bad trade deals that screw American workers just a little bit more.
Or what a fantastic deal his mandated pro-insurance, pro big Pharma ACA is. Me; I’ll take the fine, on priciple AND because I can’t afford health insurance.
Hey, Leo, old buddy:
You’ll be a whole lot more effective, and a whole lot more popular, here at the Lake if you stop defending Obamacare and stop trying to push the blame for all things bad on to the Republicans. I think most of us here probably feel that we can deal with the damn GOP pretty easily. It’s when we get sold out by the Dems, Obama, and union leadership that the battle gets tough.
I forget which union you head. Is is the UAW? Isn’t that the same union that supports the NAFTA-redux South Korean Fuck American Trade Deal? (If I’m wrong, I apologize.)
And where was all the union opposition to Obama jettisoning the public option? Wasn’t that supposedly a trade-off for EFCA? Gee, what happened to EFCA?
And just to bring up a point that Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges addressed last week, how much is your salary?
Just a correction: Looked it up, and Leo is head of the steelworkers, not the UAW. The rest of my post stands.
Ease up a bit, buddy…! Leo has been about the only notable Union head actually fighting for his comrades…! He’s been very vocal in his criticism of ObamaRahma, early and often…!
Well, Mr Gerard last I heard it was Obama, a democrat who wanted to give out the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. Last I heard it was Obama, a democrat who sold out the public option to the hospitals and Obama, a democrat who is mandating Americans to buy unaffordable health insurance from corrupt insurance companies and naming the bill as republicans would, something it is not. How much more does Obama have to do to destroy this country and unions before people wake up. Or are you just a sell out, like Obama on the end of getting wealthy while the rest of Americans suffer at the hands of Bush policies under a so-called democrat. No republican could have been so successful at selling out this country to the for profit unaffordable insurance companies. And people railing against republicans instead of the real culprits are only losing credibility.
I agree, Leo is the real deal and he heads the Steelworkers, not the mineworkers. If there is a third party challenge to Obama in 2012, one of the people they’ll try to get to run is Leo Girard.
Leo, you can see from these replies that even though everyone agrees with you about Republican-hood, they kind of take that for granted and really want to talk about the betrayals of the Democratic Party since January of 2009.
The new Deal seems to be dead in this Democratic Party. What we need now is a Green New Deal. George Soros knows that Obama is not worth supporting anymore. He knows that this Administration is not delivering. I know that you know that too even though we’ve never met.
So the question is: what are you and the Steelworkers going to do about it?
That’s pretty much how I feel.
Both parties are basically going to do the same thing if put in power. Differences between the D’s&R’s pretty much boil down to marketing. Neither party even tries to deliver as advertized.
The NAFTA style agreement with Korea being the most recent example. That was a 180 degree turn from Obama’s campaign position on trade.
Oh my, those horrible Republicans. It’s just too bad that Obama and the Dems are so busy screwing the average American that the Repubs have little to do other than bluster.
Not long ago, as his Catfood Commission homed in on SS, Obama talked up the necessity of reducing the deficit.
More recently, he conveniently forgot about the need for deficit reduction and broke yet another campaign promise by pushing through his tax cut deal that favors the rich. A deal guaranteed to increase the deficit.
In the near future, when he once again becomes “strongly concerned” about the deficit and proceeds to break yet another campaign promise by proposing cuts to SS, will you attempt to spin that against the Repubs also?
Ignoring Dem betrayals while focusing on Repub threats is utter hypocrisy.
I’d caucus for him here in the Isles…! ;-)
Well said, lets, but I would go a step further and say we need a New Left Party – because the Dems just ain’t it, and haven’t been for over 30 years.
Mr. Girard, I understand that you have to play the game under the existing ground rules, but I would echo and expand upon letsgetitdone’s enticement: What are you willing to do (or perhaps already doing, away from the DC cesspool) in efforts to change the game, and give the people in this country who actually DO give a shit about workers rights and human rights and peace and health care for all a voice?
Gee, Leo’s not too popular around here. Wonder if he bothers to check on the responses or if this is just a drive-by, fire-and-forget exercise.
LOL! The latter, I’d guess.
Hi TMC, I support efforts to form a new people’s party party and also efforts to take back the Democratic Party from its non-Democratic wing. I suspect Leo thinks that the second is the way to go. But I think the Unions tried that already by strongly supporting Obama who turned out to be a stealth Rubinite. So, will they do that again? If so, how can they get another chance before 2016, without opposing Obama right now?
To have any chance of taking back the Democratic Party in the short-term, progressives have to break with Obama now. By breaking with Obama, I mean actually asking him to step down as President right now, because of his poor performance from the standpoint of the classical Democratic Party mission.
The funders who sat out the 2010 election and who now say that they have better uses of their money than giving the Democratic Party ought to take out a full page Ad in major newspapers and ask him to resign and give Joe Biden a chance.
If they have the guts to do that, it would be supremely embarrassing for Obama and a real wake-up call for him and for the Party. If he refused to resign or just ignored the Ad, then the funders could run another Ad announcing a primary effort to unseat Obama, and the formation of an organization to organize locally to oppose him in the primaries. The Ad should also make it clear that if their primary effort fails and Obama wins, they are reserving the right to form a new Party. If this were done in the next couple of months, the Democratic Party would be put on notice that a ruinous split in the Party was likely for the 2012 election.
If, by late Spring of this year Obama has gone ahead with his austerity plans, that primary effort could capitalize on the anger of many millions of Americans whose entitlements were on the chopping block. With funder support we could make the tea party’s efforts in the Summer of 2009, look like a real tea party, because we’d have many more people excited over the prospects of real cuts in Medicare and Social Security than the tea party had over imaginary “death panels.”
At that point, with the base in open rebellion, the Party knows that if it is to have the slightest chance in 2012 it has to replace Obama. I don’t know how many, but some in the Party would ask him to resign at this point.
He might not do that. It depends on how powerful the anti-Obama movement proves to be. If it’s comparable or greater than the tea party in the Summer of 2009, he might just announce that he won’t run again and will govern for the rest of his term as a non-partisan. Of course, we know what that means. It means he would govern as a corporate austerity-monger bucking for a lucrative job in Pete Peterson’s empire.
So we keep up the calls for his resignation, call mass demonstrations, use civil disobedience, keep him and the Democratic Party under pressure until they promise immediate repeal of the austerity program and immediate repeal of any cuts to progressive programs that occurred under Obama. Of course, they won’t be able to accomplish this under a Republican House, but they would be able to run on that and full employment program in 2012, as long as Obama is no longer on the ticket.
Once Obama is out of the way and no longer in control of the Party machinery we can run progressive candidates on a full employment, anti-austerity, and Green new Deal Economic Program platform, and then we can win in 2012.
Meanwhile, the same funders working with the progressives to oppose Obama can also fund a third Party framework running a Green New Deal Platform. Enough money would have to be put up to organize in every State and get on the ballot. Once that’s done, the Party can campaign on the Green new Deal Platform and wait to see whether the Democratic Party runs a Green New Deal candidate. If Obama continues to run and wins the primaries, then the new Party can nominate a Green New Deal candidate including a candidate who may have been defeated by Obama in the Democratic primaries.
In the ensuing campaign, a lot will depend on who the Republicans run. If they run a Palinite wingnut, Obama will move to the right and try to get re-elected with a trans-party corporatist coalition pulling in corporatist austerity-minded, Hooverite Republicans. He will then leave the left to the Green New Deal. With the Palinites picking up about 30% of the vote. the Green new Deal Party would have to poll a majority of the remaining 70%. If the austerity-mongers have done the damage I think they will by then, we should be able to elect somebody like Elizabeth Warren with about 40%, since Obama will have put himself into a Perotist box by then. If we can also elect a large number of Green New Deal Congressional candidates, we may be able to recruit some already serving Dems to the New Party or create a coalition to get the majority.
I know, I know. This is all a dream. But, after all, much of reality starts with dreaming, and if we never voice the dream, we’ll have no chance of making it a reality.
Actually, I’d guess that too. I read Leo’s posts here. But I’ve never seen him reply to anything.