Kerry calls for Depression era public works program, calls some Rep cuts "unjust,, immoral

[karynnj]

and dangerous"

SAN FRANCISCO—The United States is falling behind in the global arena because, unlike Europe or China, it does not have the resources to move ahead and “if we don’t act, we won’t just temporarily fall behind, we’ll stay behind,” warned Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
<snip>
Its ( my comment for clarity - Its references the GOP in previous paragraph) proposed budget cuts, for instance, “will hurt our most vulnerable citizens,” he asserted.

Some of those cuts, which Kerry called “unjust, immoral and dangerous,” include $5.7 billion from Pell Grants for university students; $1 billion from the Head Start program, a cut that would prevent an estimated 157,000 children from receiving preschool care; $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health; $899 million from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and $1.3 billion from community health centers.

Kerry said that even though the country is going through a financial crisis, it cannot afford not to engage in ambitious programs. “The Golden Gate Bridge was built during the Great Depression – at a time when one in four people were unemployed,” pointed out Kerry.

http://newamericamedia.org/2011/04/john-kerry-calls-for-depression-era-public-works-program.php

Immoral is a pretty strong word - and, in this case, I agree with it.

[YvonneCa]

1. It's the right word. I agree with you...

...completely. AND with Senator Kerry. I am very grateful every time he speaks out on these issues.

[MBS]

2. I agree 100% with Sen. Kerry

I am SO pleased that Sen, Kerry has said exactly what needs to be said. Bravo, Sen, Kerry! :dem:
More Dems, including, yes, the White House, need to be loud and clear about this vital issue.
The Republican/Tea Party plans for both the 2011 and 2012 budgets, if enacted, would destroy this country. Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell on "The Last Word", also added that the proposal Repub budget cuts, im 2011 and 2012, would have global effects as well.
Come on, Dems, stand tall and proud and fight for us.

[Inuca]

3. Were he not the gentleman he is

he could have added INSANE. I think it perfectly applies for instance to what Ryan would like to do to Medicare.

And speaking of insane, here is a retweet from Ezra Klein "WaPo reports House GOP "gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was ...preparing for a possible shutdown" Who the hell is electing these people?!?!?! :puke:

[Mass]

4. I am for a shutdown if it avoids some of the cuts the GOP wants to make.

There will be some inconvenience, of course, but the multiple cuts announced in the budget from the GOP will be devastating. Time to stand for something.

[TayTay]

5. immoral is exactly the right word to use

Democrats need to take back our moral heritage as a Party that speaks for those who need help and need advocates. I am quite proud of Sen. Kerry for adding this word to his critique of Ryan's extremely uncompassionate, unwise and unworkable budget proposal.

Bravo Senator!

[karynnj]

6. I thought of your comment - long ago - on Iraq

That saying it was "immoral" means that you can not go back. It has seemed to me that on many issues in the last year or so, Kerry has been far more willing to speak of morality than he was before - and it is unusual for a Democrat to do so.

I think that the Democrats need to find a way to get everyone under 54 - and all those who are older, but care about someone under 54 - to understand how dishonest the Medicare proposal is. The facts are that each of the plans that could be selected have around 20% administrative overhead vs about 2 or 3% for Medicare. So, if you wanted to keep people whole, you would need to give them MORE than the cost of Medicare - nearly 20% more. Yet, this is in there and it is CUTTING COSTS. That means they are are giving these people LESS than the cost of Medicare to apply to a policy that will cost 20% more. That or - they do not need to even figure out the costs - they are beyond the 10 year horizon of any cost analysis. What is really sneaky about this is that the 54 and younger do not get Medicare or the new alternative for 10 years.

So, where are the savings from this IDEOLOGICAL proposal. They are not changing the income stream and everyone collecting it for the next 10 years is not impacted. Where are the savings? i don't see them - except starting 10 years out where they no longer have Medicare as we know it and can reduce the "voucher" gradually over time.

[TayTay]

7. This is true, you can't do a takeback on calling something immoral

That is a line in the sand event. Democrats tend to shy away from this because we have largely ceded the language of morality to the Republicans. A case in point is the debate on abortion. Admitting doubt about abortion or even, in some cases, admitting that this is a painful thing to talk about for a liberal Democrat is seen as "backsliding" on our side. Yet, abortion is about morality in a much deeper way than just the question of when human life begins. It involves morality on a lot more levels. When was the last time that "we" on "our side" had a truly meaningful debate on the morality of abortion and why is that scary? Does this not concede the power of morality on this issue to the Conservatives?

Dr. King used the language of moral rights and wrongs all the time in his speeches and writings. He didn't concede morality to the right wing or turn away when the discussion became one of 'right vs. wrong.' This is not a religious beleif discussion, btw, it is a discussion of morality which exists beyond the confines of a religious dogma. If anything in political discussion really depresses me, it is the failure of the Left to invoke morality in it's discussions. Again, I am proud of Sen. Kerry for using that particular word. He is in very good historical company for doing so.

The Republicans have done, again, what Republicans do. They are attacking the recepients of the Medicare program and accusing them of being the problem because they actually use the programs to pay medical bills. The Republicans never attack corporate waste in the system because that waste tends to favor Republican donors. Why don't the Repubs come out in favor of generic drugs or in favor of programs that get massive drug price discounts based on volume sales? Because the pharmaceutical companies would lose money on this. Blame the Medicare patients and ignore the actual cost savings centers is the Repub solution for a very real problem.

I read Krugman's objections to the Repubs plan and it is just as you wrote it above. Paul Ryan wants to create a class-based system of benefits based on the arbitrary wedge of age. It will not work, won't result in any savings and ignores some of the biggest problems in providing care for the elderly.

In part, this is because Repubs have put themselves in a box, philosophically, btw. Sarah Palin ominously warned about Death Panels when the health care debate was going on in '09. Well, her Death Panels encompassed anyone who wanted to have an end-of-life discussion with their doctors about what happens in terminal illness cases. Repubs, who also went nuts over poor Terry Schiavo and wanted her life maintained no matter the cost back in '05, can't come out in favor of a reasonable debate in this country on the cost of caring for the sick. A reasonable discussion on what tests to administer, when to stop invasive treatment and maybe consider palliative care and so forth is not something they can do because they have come out against it. (How many times hae Repubs reminded us that Canadians have to come to the US for care because it is denied in Canada do to socialism. This is largely, btw, untrue, but it is a Repub truthiness thing that it is true.)

We can't solve this problem until we can have a moral discussion about life, when we can save it, when we should save it and how much cost is too much. This discussion is very uncomfortable because fallible human beings have to "play God" with human life and because we hate to think there are times when we can't do anything to aid the sick. Yet, unless we have a moral discussion about what sickness is and acknowledge the fact that our resources, even when it comes to sickness, are limited, we cannot solve the financial problems. This is a "no" discussion and the Repubs have set them up only for "yes" discussions on this, in other words.

[wisteria]

8. I can not believe the Republicans proposing these cuts are so blatantly anti-middle class & poor.

The distinctions between the parties should be clear to all now. I love it when they claim the people have spoken, and they are answering with these cuts.Exactly, who are these people who don't care if Medicare is not there when they retire and they have to make due with a stipend from our government? And, who are these people who don't think we should be educating our children so the US remains competitive with other nations?