Font Size A A A Print Email Share


Is Jeff Fortenberry A Moderate?

Representative Jeff Fortenberry has successfully marketed himself as a moderate since he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004.  For example, when I ran for Congress last year, I frequently heard from voters that Fortenberry wasn't as extreme as the rest of the Nebraska Republican Congressional delegation.  

The Lincoln Journal Star has also echoed Fortenberry's talking point that he is some kind of a thoughtful moderate.  In a 2013 Lincoln Journal Star opinion piece, the Lincoln paper's editor alleged that  Fortenberry was a "compassionate conservative" and found his alleged independence from the more extreme elements of the GOP to be "inspiring."

Fortenberry's voting record in the House of Representatives clearly indicates that he is no moderate and that he usually votes with the most extreme members of the House.

A good example of Fortenberry's philosophy can be found in his support of the 2011 default threat and his numerous votes for government shutdowns.  I've singled out this portion of his record because this is the Congressional GOP's most reckless and destructive tactic.  Fortenberry and his fellow Republicans have taken the position that they will hurt the American people unless President Obama gives in to their demands to cut Social Security and Medicare.  

Representative Fortenberry was a staunch backer of the phony debt ceiling crisis that was ginned up by his party bosses  and the Tea Party in 2011.  In a press release dated May 31, 2011, Fortenberry stated he would vote against refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless the Congress adopted what he called   "budgetary controls to get America's fiscal house in order." In other words, Fortenberry was prepared to crash the world economy unless the Democrats agreed to cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other middle class programs.

Fortenberry's threat in and of itself did serious harm to the American people in 2011.  Due to the GOP's irresponsibility, the economy went from creating 200,000 jobs per month to creating only 100,000 jobs per month.  The economy only began creating 200,000 jobs per month (or more) in 2013.  Moreover, consumer confidence in 2011 fell to depths not seen since the economic crisis of 2008-09.  

The next time Fortenberry and the Congressional Republicans threatened to hurt the American economy was the government shutdown of 2013.  This shutdown - which cost the economy $24 billion and 120,000 jobs - is a perfect example of how Fortenberry pretends to be a thoughtful moderate while he votes with the Tea Party.  

At a town hall meeting held during the run up to the government shutdown in August 2013, Fortenberry stated that he was opposed to a government shutdown.  The First District Congressman said that a shutdown  would lead to "very significant consequences for the country without accomplishing its goal. "

Mr. Fortenberry broke his word to his constituents and voted on September 20, 2013 to shutdown the government.  This shutdown was aimed at defunding the Affordable Care Act and taking away health insurance from millions of Americans.  Moreover, during this 16 day government shutdown, Fortenberry was never on the list of House Republicans who favored a clean continuing resolution and he never called for an up or down vote on this legislation that would have re-opened the government.

Once this deeply misguided government shutdown came to a conclusion, Fortenberry pretended that he had opposed it all along.  As a matter of fact, he issued a statement claiming after that he "did not favor shutting down the government."  Subsequently, about a year later during the 2014 campaign, Fortenberry told the Omaha World Herald that: “The consequence of shutting down the government was not healthy."  What that means is that Fortenberry was for the shutdown before he was against it! 

Despite the harm inflicted by the 2013 government shutdown, Fortenberry has continued to support government shutdowns in the current session of Congress. On both January 14 and March 3, 2015, Fortenberry voted to shutdown the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over an unrelated immigration issue even though the U.S. was being threatened with terrorist attacks.  

Fortenberry's two votes to shutdown DHS over a partisan dispute with President Obama were especially reckless since a shutdown of that agency could slow down or weaken a U.S. response to a terrorist attack.  The second vote to shutdown DHS came at a time when the Mall of America in Minneapolis was threatened with an attack by a radical Islamist group.  Despite that threat to the Midwest, Fortenberry defended his votes by saying that: "The House of Representatives has done the right thing here. We've stood on principle."

Fortenberry followed up his two dangerous votes to shutdown DHS with a vote on September 30, 2015 against a bill funding the government through December 11, 2015.  This time Fortenberry voted to shutdown the government over a dispute regarding federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

What we have here in Nebraska CD-01 is a representative who says one thing and does another.  When Mr. Fortenberry is in Nebraska, he generally positions himself to be some kind of a thoughtful moderate who is willing to buck the party line if necessary.  On the other hand, when Fortenberry is in Washington, he can be counted on by the radicals in the GOP to vote with them.

Fortenberry's numerous votes for government shutdowns proves that he is one of the more extreme members of the GOP House caucus.  A thoughtful moderate wouldn't vote to harm the people in his district with a government shutdown or vote to shutter DHS when the country is threatened with an attack.

What we need to do as Nebraska Democrats is submit letters to the editor that reveal Mr. Fortenberry's true record.  We should also email reporters who cover Nebraska's First District Representative and provide them with the evidence that Mr. Fortenberry is an extremist despite his soothing rhetoric.  It's time that we let the people of Nebraska CD-01 know the truth about Representative Fortenberry.  He is no moderate!

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Ricketts: Often Wrong But Never In Doubt

When Pete Ricketts ran for Governor last year, he promised to "Grow Nebraska."  That was the central theme of his election campaign.  Ricketts proposed the usual tired conservative platform of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and fewer regulations for big business as the magic elixir that would make our state more prosperous.  (What he didn't mention was that a similar platform has been implemented with disastrous results in states like Kansas and Wisconsin.)  Since Ricketts has been inaugurated as Governor, his economic development program has hit a series of road blocks and setbacks.  

One of Ricketts' most embarrassing setbacks has to be the sudden and unexpected termination of Brenda-Hicks Sorenson as the Director of the Department of Economic Development.  Hicks-Sorenson was selected by the search firm Ricketts hired with special interest money provided by the Omaha Chamber of Commerce.  As it turns out, Hicks-Sorenson turned out to be grossly incompetent and was ousted at the instigation of the State, Omaha and Lincoln Chambers of Commerce.  The Omaha Chamber should demand a refund of the money they paid to the private search firm! 

What was little discussed by the Nebraska press was that Hicks-Sorenson was under fire in Wisconsin, where as deputy director of that state's economic development department, she authorized a loan without the proper vetting process to a prominent Scott Walker supporter.  That loan has since gone in default - costing the Wisconsin taxpayers $500,000.00.  There has been speculation that there may be legal repercussions for this failed loan.  

Nebraska's Governor suffered yet another setback last week when Conagra announced it was moving it's headquarters from Omaha to Chicago and laying off over 1,000 employees.  This was a serious blow to Omaha and Nebraska since Conagra had stationed it's headquarters in Omaha since 1922.    Moreover, the State's taxpayers have spent $160 million on economic and tax incentives on Conagra since that company demanded tax breaks back in 1987 as the price to stay in Omaha.  Yet we heard nothing from Ricketts about the brewing crisis in Omaha and he spent most of his time this last summer on foreign junkets and trying to bring back a death penalty law that hasn't been used in this century.  Nebraskans would be much better off with a governor who fought for jobs rather than a largely symbolic law that has proven to be a failure.  

Even though Conagra has announced it will soon be leaving Omaha, the overall Nebraska economy is still doing well.  Nebraska has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and there is approximately $700 million in the State's rainy day fund.  Our state has experienced this success in spite of Heineman and Ricketts - not due to their actions.

In his last two years as Governor, Heineman proposed large, budget busting tax cuts that would have drained the State's hard earned surplus.  Moreover, Heineman proposed a radical tax scheme that would have abolished state income taxes and financed a tax cut that largely benefited the wealthy by raising taxes on farmers, students, senior citizens and the sick.  Fortunately, both of these radical tax schemes never were even voted out of committee.  

Ricketts followed the path that Heineman blazed and proposed a large property tax cut that - like Heineman's tax cut bills - didn't even get out of the Revenue Committee.  This regressive tax cut would've caused cuts in school funding and increases in other taxes.  

Nebraska has prospered since the end of the 2008-09 recession - in part due - to a moderate majority in the Unicameral that has prevented the last two Governors from blowing up the State's budget with ill considered tax schemes that favor the wealthy.   Nebraska Democratic Senators have led the way in this effort.  For example, Heath Mello has shown outstanding leadership as Chair of the Appropriations Committee in crafting responsible budgets that drew nearly unanimous support from the Unicameral.

There were never any guarantees that Nebraska would avoid the fates suffered by Kansas and Wisconsin.  In both of those states, right wing governors passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and hoped (against historical experience) that they would pay for themselves.  What occurred was that Kansas and Wisconsin had to cut funding for universities, schools and roads to balance their budgets.  Moreover, both of those states have experienced sub-par economic growth due to these wrong headed policies.

Nebraska has avoided the kind of terrible outcome experienced by Kansas and Wisconsin thanks to our great State Senators and the hard work of Nebraska Democrats.  Once again in 2016, we will have to go back to work to elect more Democrats to the Unicameral and preserve the moderate majority that has protected the state from the radical right.  

We can take nothing for granted.  Ricketts and some of his aides are already hard at work recruiting Tea Party Republicans to run for the legislature.  Furthermore, we can expect these Tea Party candidates to be lavishly financed by Ricketts and his billionaire friends and allies.  

It is up to us to prevent Nebraska from going the way of Kansas and Wisconsin.  We Nebraska Democrats will have to be every bit as relentless as the right wing Republicans and the billionaires who finance them.  We must never give up and never get discouraged.  I'm confident that we will have a good election cycle in 2016 if everybody does their job.  Thank you for all that you do!

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Congressional Republicans Are The Biggest Threat To The Economic Recovery

When President Obama took office, the economy was in free fall and losing 800,000 jobs per month.  Since he took office, the U.S. has experienced a record 66 consecutive months of private sector job growth and the economy has created on average over 200,000 jobs per month since 2013.  The unemployment rate is now lower than it was at anytime during the Reagan Administration. All of this has been accomplished in the face of all out GOP obstruction and in some cases, outright sabotage.  The phony 2011 debt ceiling "crisis" ginned up by the GOP and the 2013 government shutdown slowed down economic growth and hurt the American people.  

The economic recovery is currently facing headwinds from developments overseas.  The September jobs report was disappointing (but would've been considered good when compared to the last Republican Presidents) due to slowing economic growth in China and Europe.  The European economy has been mired in a slow growth pattern for years due to an addiction to Republican style austerity.  

International economic trends aren't the biggest threat to the recovery - the biggest obstacle to the best jobs growth since the late 1990s can be found here at home with the Republicans in Congress.  Just recently, the Congressional Republicans agreed to temporarily avoid a government shutdown by passing a funding bill that finances the government through December 11.  Once again, we could be facing the prospect of a damaging government shutdown during the crucial Holiday season when many retailers do most of their business.  A leading Lincoln retailer once told me that the December Holiday season can make or break a small business.  

The recent vote to fund the government through December 11 didn't come easy because once again it faced significant opposition from the radical right of the GOP.  Both Ben Sasse and Jeff Fortenberry voted for another government shutdown.  Their votes can be seen as extreme since both Deb Fischer and Adrian Smith voted to fund the government.  Fischer and Smith are both considered to be staunch conservatives in the GOP caucus.

Representative Brad Ashford was the only member of the Nebraska delegation who showed any leadership on the issue.  Ashford demanded that the Congress end it's undeserved vacation and return to Washington to address a long list of unfinished business.  Congressman Ashford also offered to go without his paycheck in the event of another government shutdown.  

A government shutdown isn't the only or the most serious threat to the American people.  The Department of the Treasury has announced that the debt ceiling must be raised no later than November 5 or else the country will face the prospect of a default on it's obligations that could create a financial crisis as serious as the one we went through in 2008-09 after the collapse of Lehmann Brothers.  The Republicans on Congress are facing these challenges at the same time they are going through  bitterly contested leadership elections created by the surprise resignation of House Speaker John Boehner.  

Unfortunately, there is some confusion about what raising the debt ceiling means and the Republicans are exacerbating the problem by misrepresenting what it's really about. As Democrats we need to get our message out about the debt ceiling and the disastrous consequences for the economy if the GOP refuses to increase it.

Just what is raising the debt ceiling? This is a much misunderstood and fairly routine (until recently) procedure.  Former President Bill Clinton explained it the following way: "The reason that raising the debt limit is so unpopular is that people think you're voting to keep [increasing] deficit spending, instead of voting to honor obligations that were already incurred." In other words, raising the debt ceiling isn't like we're raising the nation's credit limit. Instead, it's like the credit card bill that the nation has just received in the mail. We need to pay it in order to maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S.  Failure to pay our nation's bills by raising the debt ceiling would cause the rest of the world to lose confidence in our nation's ability to meet its obligations, increase everybody's interest rates, tank the stock market and send the already fragile world economy into another recession.

What the Republicans are threatening to do is to refuse to pay the bills that the U.S.A. already owes. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling would be like telling your credit card and student loan companies that your family has reached its debt limit. According to the Republicans in Congress, that means we can quit paying our bills.

Defaulting on the financial obligations of the U.S. is so radical that even the GOP aligned U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently come out against it in the past.  In 2013, U.S. Chamber President Thomas Donohue said: “It is insane not to raise the debt ceiling. I know there are a lot of people, new people in the House and some of the guys in Heritage and other places talking about how we should burn down the House to build a new one. Well that is just fine if you knew what you were talking about, but you don’t.” 

 Before the Obama Presidency, raising the debt ceiling used to be a fairly routine process.  When Ronald Reagan was President, the debt ceiling was raised no less than 17 times.  During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised 7 times.  At no time did any party refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the other party capitulated to its agenda.  Many current Republican members of Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts or offsets during the George W. Bush Administration.

It is very important that the debt ceiling be increased and the government be funded before Boehner leaves office on October 30.  The Republican House members running for the Speakership have promised more confrontations with President Obama and Kevin McCarthy has all but promised to shutdown the government if he doesn't get his way on the Affordable Care Act and immigration.  

As Nebraska Democrats, we must keep the pressure on the Nebraska members of Congress to do their jobs by voting to pay our country's bills and fund the government.   This is task is so essential that even the likes of Fischer and Smith recognize it.  In contrast, Sasse and Fortenberry continue to demonstrate their extremism and recklessness.  

The ultimate solution to the problem of Republican extremism is to elect more Democrats in 2016.  I'm confident that the Nebraska Democrats will have an excellent election cycle in 2016 because we've recruited an outstanding slate of legislative candidates.   Moreover, Brad Ashford is well positioned to get re-elected in Nebraska CD-02.  Prominent Republicans speaking on background have told me that it will be difficult for them to defeat Representative Ashford in a high turnout Presidential election cycle.  

I would urge everyone of you to contribute to the candidate (or candidates) of your choice in the 2016 election cycle.  I can tell you from running for office myself, every little bit helps.  I was grateful for all contributions I received - either large or small or inbetween.  In addition, I would recommend that you canvas for our excellent ticket.  Anymore, it's not enough to simply turnout to vote.  We need to do more than that if we are to defeat the lavishly funded GOP machine.  Now let's get it done! 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Why I'm Proud To Be A Democrat

I'm proud to be a Democrat due to our party's many accomplishments over the years.  For example, nearly twice as many jobs were created during Democratic Presidencies as opposed to Republican Presidencies between 1962 and 2012.  At the present time, President Obama has created more jobs than the last two Republican Presidents combined and the unemployment rate is now lower than it was at anytime during the Reagan Administration.  (As we know, Reagan is regarded as the gold standard for Presidents by Republicans.)  Every Democratic President beginning with Jimmy Carter has reduced the deficit and President Clinton was the last President to balance the budget.

The Democratic Party is not only the best party for economy, we have also been very successful in both insuring and lifting out of poverty millions of Americans.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were all passed due to the leadership of Democratic Presidents and over the hyper-partisan opposition of the conservative wing of the GOP.  These critical reforms would have never occurred during a Republican Presidency.  The reality is that reducing poverty and insuring more people simply isn't a priority for the GOP.

The first major effort to reduce the poverty rate was Social Security which passed during the FDR Presidency in 1935.  Before the passage of this program, poverty among the elderly was a serious problem.  Many people were forced to retire early because their bodies were ruined through years of brutally hard labor during the first Gilded Age.  Many senior citizens became a financial burden for their children and made their childrens' ability to retire to become more difficult.  Other senior citizens were confined to the poor house or the poor farm - many of which had horrific conditions.  Those poor seniors were essentially sent there to die.  

In response to FDR's introduction of Social Security, conservative Republicans predicted that it would ruin the economy and the country.  Conservative doomsayers prognosticated that workers would never see any benefits when they retired.  Instead, the money would be spent on other priorities by the federal government.  Other right wingers fearlessly predicted that FDR's New Deal would cause hyper-inflation and that if anybody every received any benefits, they would be rendered worthless by that inflation.  As early as 1936, GOP Presidential nominee Alf Landon predicted that Social Security would go broke.  (The right wing has persisted in making that erroneous prediction up to the present time.)

As it turned out, all of those predictions of doom and gloom turned out to be wrong.  Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty program in U.S. history.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security presently keeps 22 million Americans out of poverty.  

Social Security is not only preventing millions of Americans from falling into poverty - it is also in no danger of going broke.  At the present time, this program is in a position to pay out all promised benefits until 2034.  If absolutely no changes are made in Social Security by then, the program can still pay out something like 78% of it's promised benefits.  Nevertheless, a series of small tax and/or benefit tweaks could preserve the solvency of Social Security for the indefinite future.  

FDR wanted to include a health insurance program as part of his Social Security bill in 1935 but he lacked the votes in Congress to pass it.  It took another Democratic President to finally realize FDR's vision when the Medicare program was enacted in 1965 during the Johnson Administration.

Before Medicare, approximately 56% of senior citizens lacked health insurance.  This is because many senior citizens have illnesses and other pre-existing conditions that put the price of insurance out of reach for many of them.  Simply stated, the private health insurance industry can't make money insuring senior citizens.  That's why we need Medicare.

When Medicare was being debated in the early to mid-1960s, the conservative wing of the GOP predicted disaster would ensue if senior citizens were insured.  Ronald Reagan led the GOP opposition to Medicare.  At that time, Reagan boldly predicted that Medicare would "curtail Americans' freedom" and that "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him."  The former movie actor even went so far as to say that: "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Once again, as in the case of Social Security, all of the predictions of doom from the right wing of the GOP proved to be wildly inaccurate.  Today, thanks to Medicare, nearly all senior citizens have insurance and 75% fewer are mired in poverty.  Moreover, the combination of Social Security and Medicare have reduced poverty among the elderly from 50% to 9%.  

The passage of Medicare was a tremendous accomplishment and success but there was still a major coverage gap in America.  When President Obama took office, the U.S. was an exceptional nation in that we were the only First World industrialized country that lacked universal health care coverage.  During the Bush Administration between 2001-09, 8 million Americans lost insurance coverage and the rate of the uninsured in this country soared to 18%.

In response to this breakdown in the U.S. health care system during the Bush years, President Obama proposed the ACA - which was aimed at insuring an additional 25 million Americans.  Once again, the GOP trotted out it's tired and all too predictable prognostications of doom and disaster.  John Boehner predicted the ACA would cause "Armageddon" and "ruin our country."  Just two years ago, Ben Sasse made the absurd prediction  that the implementation of the ACA would cause America to "cease to exist."  

Once again, the silly predictions of doom and gloom from the GOP proved to be dead wrong because the ACA has proven to be a success.  This landmark health care law has resulted in 17 million formerly uninsured Americans in becoming covered for the first time.  The rate of uninsured Americans has fallen to an all time low of 9%.   Thanks to the ACA, the number of uninsured Americans have fallen at it's fastest pace since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

As Democrats, we have the right to be very proud that our party has led the way in reducing poverty and insuring more of our fellow countrymen.  However, we can't take these achievements for granted.  The right wing of the GOP and the billionaires who finance them want to gut or otherwise abolish these programs because they prove that government can actually work and improve the lives of millions of Americans.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Congressional Republicans have led the way in the thus far futile efforts to take away insurance from millions of Americans.  Fischer, Sasse, Fortenberry and Smith have all voted to end Medicare as we know it and turn it into a voucher program.  This radical privatization scheme would cost the average senior citizen thousands of dollars in additional out of pocket medical expenses every year.

These same four Nebraska Republicans have also voted repeatedly to repeal the ACA and go back to the old, failed health care system that President Obama inherited from the Bush Administration.  If the Republicans were to get their way, millions of Americans would have their insurance policies canceled and those hated pre-existing condition clauses would return. 

Not only is Medicare and the ACA in the cross hairs, Ben Sasse and virtually all of the Republican candidates for President want to privatize Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street.  Just imagine the harm that all Americans would have suffered in the stock market crash of 2008-09 if Bush had gotten his way in 2005 and privatized Social Security?  It could have turned a very deep recession into a depression.

What this means is that the stakes in the 2016 election cycle couldn't be much higher.  The modern GOP is committed to gutting or otherwise repealing the Progressive reforms of the 20th and 21st centuries.  We as Democrats need to run on our accomplishments and make sure the voters know about them.  We will need to sharpen the differences with the GOP and inform the voters that they aren't your father's Republican Party.   We need to let the voters know that we don't want to back to the dark days of 2008 when the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month and millions of Americans were losing insurance coverage.  As I've said before, if we don't message our accomplishments, nobody else will.  Now let's get it done! 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Will The GOP Members Of The Nebraska Delegation Hurt The American People Again With Another Government Shutdown And Default Threat?

For the second time in just two years, the Republicans in Congress are prepared to shutdown the government and hurt the American people again.  The 2013 shutdown was over the Affordable Care Act and this year's shutdown will be over an effort to defund Plannet Parenthood.  This is approximately the 12th time the Congressional Republicans have threatened to shutdown the government or default on the national debt since they regained control of the House in the 2010 election cycle.  

This habit of Congressional Republicans to govern by threatening to sabotage the economy and creating phony crisises began in 2011 when they threatened to default on the national debt.  Both Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith were behind this reckless strategy.  This debate over whether or not the U.S. would even pay it's bills resulted in the 2011 Sequester Act which according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office cost the economy 1.4 million jobs and caused a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating for the first time in our history.

Just the threat to default itself badly damaged the economy in 2011 and ended a promising economic recovery.  Due to the GOP's irresponsibility, the economy went from creating 200,000 jobs per month to creating only 100,000 jobs per month.  The economy only began creating 200,000 jobs per month (or more) in 2013.  Moreover, consumer confidence in 2011 fell to depths not seen since the economic crisis of 2008-09.  

Despite the serious harm inflicted on the economy by the phony debt ceiling crisis of 2011, the Congressional Republicans shutdown the government for 16 days in 2013.  Fischer, Fortenberry and Smith all voted for the government shutdown.  Candidate Ben Sasse also supported the shutdown and told the Omaha World Herald that he opposed the legislation that re-opened the government.

The 2013 shutdown was aimed at repealing the ACA , preventing millions of Americans from getting insurance and bringing back pre-existing condition clauses.  Like the 2011 default threat, the 2013 shutdown hurt the American people.  This ridiculous shutdown cost the economy $24 billion and 120,000 jobs.  

Despite the failures of those past attempts to hold the American people hostage in 2011 and 2013, the GOP wants to do it all over again this month.  There are only 6 legislative days left for the Congress to do the right thing and fund the government.  Moreover, the debt ceiling must be raised again at the end of October.  (Raising the debt ceiling doesn't authorize new spending.  Instead the Congress is paying for spending it has already authorized.  Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be like buying a car and refusing to pay for the loan.)

The only member of the Nebraska delegation who has shown any leadership on this issue is Representative Brad Ashford.  Nebraska's House member from CD-02 has called for the Congress to end it's undeserved vacation and return to Washington to fund the government.  Moreover, Ashford has pledged to give up his paycheck in the event of another shutdown. 

At the time of the writing of this article, we've heard nothing from Fischer, Sasse, Fortenberry and Smith regarding the government shutdown.  We've heard nothing from them because they supported the last shutdown and can be counted on by the most extreme members of the GOP caucus to support another one.  

The really tragic thing about the latest sabotage threat from the GOP is that 2015 was supposed to be the "first time in four years that the federal government is actually boosting economic growth, rather than detracting from it,"  according to an analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers. If the government isn't funded and/or the U.S. stiffs it's creditors, the U.S. could be headed back into recession, the report found.  “A government shutdown would be one of the most ludicrous and self-inflicted wounds that I can imagine,” Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez said in an interview, adding that lawmakers are “forming another circular firing squad.”

All Nebraskans should call on Fischer, Sasse, Fortenberry and Smith to join Representative Ashford in his pledge to go back to Washington to stop a destructive shutdown.  I would urge all of you to flood their offices with phone calls, letters and emails.  The continued prosperity of our country may depend upon those efforts.  Thank you for everything that you do.  

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Ricketts' Reign Of Error Includes Bad Appointments To Key Positions

The Nebraska press and political insiders were dismayed by Ricketts' failed first legislative session in which his agenda was largely ignored by the Unicameral due to his inexperience and weak staff.  As it turned out, several important measures such as the repeal of the death penalty and the granting of drivers licenses to the Dreamers were passed over his vetoes.  Insiders from both parties at the Capitol were harshly critical of Ricketts and some Republicans even (justifiably) contended that the session was an "embarrassing start" for the rookie Governor.  

Ricketts struggles have not only occurred over at the Capitol.  As it has turned out, Ricketts has made several executive appointments that have proved to be a further embarrassment to his Administration.  

When Ricketts ran for Governor last year, he touted his experience at AmeriTrade and contended that Nebraska would benefit from his business experience.  In furtherance of that end, Ricketts hired a private search firm to conduct a search for key appointments and financed that search with money from special interest groups like the Omaha Chamber of Commerce.

Unfortunately for the Nebraska taxpayers,  Ricketts' highly touted (and overrated) talent search has saddled them with several unsuitable people serving in important positions.  Moreover, Ricketts seems to have a tendency to select appointees from Wisconsin and Louisiana - which are GOP dominated states that have been plagued with corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.

A key appointment from Scott Walker's Wisconsin was the selection of Brenda Hicks-Sorensen as Nebraska's economic development director.  In Wisconsin, Hicks-Sorenson served as the  vice president at the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.  While serving in that capacity, she played a major role in that department’s failure to scrutinize the the financial background of a company that received a $500,000 loan that is now in default.  The company that failed to pay off this loan from the Wisconsin taxpayers also happened to be a significant donor to Scott Walker's campaigns.  

At least two key Ricketts appointments have come from another state that is suffering from Republican misrule.  Courtney Phillips - who served in the number two post in the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals - was picked by Ricketts to head up the troubled Department of Health and Human Services. (HHS)  That agency was allowed to  disintegrate during the Heineman Administration and has been plagued by gross incompetence and mismanagement.

It is doubtful that things will improve at the Nebraska Department of HHS under Phillips' (so-called) leadership.  Senior officials in Governor Bobby Jindal's administration used private email accounts to craft a strategy for making cuts in the amount of $859 million in that state's Medicaid program.  (I'm still waiting for Fox and the GOP to condemn Jindal for this practice.)  Despite these deep cuts in Louisiana's Medicaid program, that state is currently suffering from a $1.6 billion deficit created by Jindal's tax cuts.

Another failed appointment from Louisiana has further tarnished Ricketts' already tattered reputation for executive competence.  The Governor's newly appointed state director of developmental disabilities - Yolanda Webb - suddenly resigned last week after only working in her new job for all of 5 days. Webb's resignation was bizarre and totally unexpected.  She told Ricketts in her resignation letter that "I have decided (and sometimes life decides) that it's best to go in a new direction." 

Ricketts hasn't had any better luck when making appointments of people who are from Nebraska.  Brad Rice - who was selected to head up the Nebraska State Patrol - was sued for denying a promotion to a woman and saying that women shouldn’t be in law enforcement.  The State of Nebraska was sued for discrimination in this case and lost in 2007.

The State of Nebraska probably lost this case because there was strong evidence that Rice committed perjury at the trial.  During the trial, Rice repeatedly testified under oath that he never said that women shouldn't be in law enforcement.  However, a State Patrol sergeant testified in that trial that Rice had indeed made that statement.  (It wasn't all that long ago that the GOP was of the belief that committing perjury in a civil trial was a firing offense.)  

The most disturbing and common thread in Ricketts' hires is that most of his top picks come from Wisconsin and Louisiana.  What this should tell us is that Ricketts admires the records of Walker and Jindal and would like to bring their policies here to Nebraska.  

Both Wisconsin and Louisiana are suffering from record budget deficits that were caused by reckless tax cuts for the wealthy.  (At the present time, Wisconsin has a $2 billion budget deficit.)  Moreover, both of these states suffer from corruption and cronyism.  

In the 2016 election cycle, Ricketts will recruit and lavishly finance a set of legislative candidates to do to Nebraska what has happened in Louisiana and Wisconsin.  As Nebraska Democrats, we can stop him by contributing to and working hard for our own slate of candidates.

In the last few months, Chuck Hassebrook, Steve Lathrop and Hadley Richters have recruited a bumper crop of 5 star recruits for the legislative races.  We have excellent candidates for the Unicameral in almost every part of Nebraska.  There is every reason to be optimistic about our chances in 2016.

Nevertheless, we can take nothing for granted.  Ricketts and his billionaire friends will do everything they can to turn Nebraska into a banana republic.  We can't let that happen.  Now let's get behind our great candidates and have a good election cycle.  We can do this! 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

GOP Platform For 2016 Is George W. Bush On Steroids

I believe that history will regard George W. Bush as one of the worst - if not the worst - Presidents in American history.  When Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a projected 10 year budget surplus of $5.5 trillion from President Clinton.  By the time he left office, the annual deficit was $1.3 trillion and 9.8% of GDP.  As Republican Presidential hopeful and Ohio Governor John Kasich said about Bush and the then GOP controlled Congress: “They blew a $5 trillion surplus.  The projected annual surpluses were quickly spent, unfortunately by Republicans.”

Bush's economic legacy was equally disastrous.  Once again, President Clinton left Bush with an excellent situation.  During the Clinton Administration, the economy created 22 million jobs, the rate of poverty declined and middle class incomes grew for the first time since the late 1970s.  When Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the economy was in a state of collapse and was shedding 800,000 jobs per month.  It was the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression during the 1930s.

The Bush-Cheney Administration's mismanagement of national security affairs was every bit as reckless and incompetent as their handling of the federal budget and the economy.  This failed Administration got the U.S. involved in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that resulted in the loss of over 4,400 American lives and according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, those wars will ultimately cost the U.S. taxpayers $3 trillion.

One of the most troubling aspect of George W. Bush's legacy is that the Republican Party appeared to learn nothing from his myriad failures.  In the 2016 election cycle, we have an entire field of GOP candidates who would bring back Bush's failed policies and in some cases even double down on them.  Apparently, the GOP is counting on mass amnesia from the voters if they are to win the 2016 election.

Just about every Republican candidate is promising to bring back tax cuts for the wealthy - which was the keystone of Bush's economic strategy.  For example, Marco Rubio - who was labeled the "savior" of the Republican Party by Time magazine - has proposed to abolish all taxes on estates, capital gains and dividends.  He has also promised - like Bush did - to throw in a few tax cuts for the middle class to provide political cover for this massive giveaway to the wealthy.  Rubio's proposal would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and essentially exempt Wall Street and the super wealthy from all federal taxation.

The GOP Presidential hopefuls don't just support Bush's failed economic policies - they also want to bring back his Social Security privatization scheme.  Back in 2005, the newly re-elected President made turning Social Security over to Wall Street his number one priority after he was inaugurated.  Fortunately, this ill considered proposal was soundly rejected that year by the Congress.  Just imagine the investment losses that our senior citizens would have suffered in 2008-09 if this extreme Social Security proposal had become law in 2005?  And yet today's GOP Presidential hopefuls have revived this proposal despite the recent volatility in the stock market.

The Republicans don't only want to privatize Social Security, they would also like to do the same to Medicare.  Bush tried (and failed) to privatize Medicare when the deficit financed Medicare Part D program was passed in 2003.  Today's GOP Presidential candidates (and members of Congress) have come out for ending Medicare as we know it and turning it into a voucher program.   Turning  Medicare over to the private health insurance industry would cost senior citizens thousands of dollars in additional out of pocket medical expenses and bring back the hated pre-existing condition clauses that were banned by the Affordable Care Act.  

The Republicans have not only failed to heed the Bush Administration's failures in economic and national security policy, they have also learned nothing from the history of the deregulation of the financial services industry.  History teaches us that if you deregulate the banks, it is just a matter of time until they wreck the economy in an orgy of speculation, greed and incompetence.  That's what brought about the collapse of the savings and loan industry during the Reagan Administration and the collapse of the banking system in 2008.

In response to the financial crisis of 2008-09, the Obama Administration and the then Democratic controlled Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010.  Since the passage of this Wall Street reform law, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned nearly $11 billion to more than 26 million consumers who’ve been cheated and has authorized a crackdown on payday lenders who prey on our military servicemen and women.    As President Obama recently said: "Wall Street Reform now allows us to crack down on some of the worst types of recklessness that brought our economy to its knees, from big banks making huge, risky bets using borrowed money, to paying executives in a way that rewarded irresponsible behavior."

Despite this progress, just about every Republican Presidential candidate and member of Congress wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act and return us to the time when the big banks or bad actors were allowed to write their own rules.   If the Dodd-Frank Act isn't working well, why is Wall Street furiously lobbying to repeal it and providing huge amounts of campaign cash to Republican candidates for President and Congress?

The Republicans' ignorance of recent history extends to the Bush Administration's failed war in Iraq.  Leading GOP Presidential contenders such as Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and John Kasich support the return of U.S. ground troops to Iraq. Bush even supports sending U.S. troops to Syria to overthrow Assad and to establish and prop up a new government in that country.  Moreover, many leading Republicans in the Congress such as John Boehner and John McCain support another Iraq War for the U.S.  What that means is that if a Republican President is elected along with a GOP controlled Congress, we can count on another ground war in Iraq - and maybe even in Syria!  

The Republicans can only win next year's elections if voters forget about the last time the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress.  As Democrats, we must constantly remind the voters about the failures of the last Republican President and how today's GOP would bring back - and expand on - those very same failed policies.  The propaganda of the GOP depends upon the voters having bad memories.  We as Democrats must constantly refresh those memories.  We can't count on the mainstream media to do it for us.  If we don't do it - nobody else will.  

The Republicans' ignorance of the failures of the Bush Administration does create a great opportunity for us as Democrats.  I'm confident that once the voters are reminded of Bush's failures, they won't hand over the country once again to the same people who destroyed the economy in 2008-09. Instead, they will return the Democrats to power who have turned around our economy and provided health insurance to 16 million Americans.  Now let's get to work and get that message out!

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

The GOP Gins Up Phony Scandals To Distract From Its Bad Record And Extreme Agenda

Over the last 25 years, the GOP has tried to generate phony scandals about prominent Democrats to win elections and discredit Democratic Presidents.  The Republicans do this because they know that if the public becomes more aware of its record in office and extreme agenda, they are unlikely to win Presidential elections.  As it has turned out, the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections since the GOP has adopted this strategy.

Between 1968 and 1988, the general GOP election theme was that the Democratic Presidential nominee was too liberal and outside of the mainstream.  Since the advent of the right wing media in the early 1990s, the GOP has been pushed pretty far to the right and it's stands on economic, social and health care issues are simply toxic outside of the hardcore red states.  As a result, the GOP has to do everything it can to distract the voters from this difficult reality (for them) and attempt to convince the voters that the Democratic Presidential nominee and President - once elected - is some kind of a crook.

We saw the inception of this new GOP strategy in 1992 and during the Clinton Presidency.  The GOP and the mainstream media relentlessly pushed a narrative for over eight years that Bill and Hillary Clinton were unethical and potentially guilty of criminal behavior.  Even so-called bastions of the "liberal media" like the New York Times and the Washington Post fell hook, line and sinker for these bogus allegations.

During the Clinton Presidency, no less than three special prosecutors spent $80 million of the taxpayer's money investigating allegations regarding the travel office firings, Whitewater, the tragic suicide of Vince Foster, the Rose law firm files, the FBI files and Monica Lewinsky.  During these investigations we were treated to breathless allegations and speculation that the Clintons were going to be indicted.  However, we all learned when Ken Starr issued his salacious report in 1998 that virtually all of these allegations were groundless and Hillary Clinton was never charged with anything.  

The GOP has perpetuated this strategy of making false allegations of corruption during the Obama Presidency.  They don't want the voters to remember how they destroyed the economy during the Bush Presidency.  The movement conservatives would like the voters to forget that the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month in December 2008 and that 8 million Americans lost their insurance coverage during the Bush Presidency.  They also don't want you to know that the economy has been creating over 200,000 jobs per month since 2013 and that 16 formerly uninsured Americans are now covered. 

Instead, the GOP would prefer that the voters focus on the phony scandals that they have ginned up around the so-called IRS "targeting" controversy and the tragic deaths of four American diplomats at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012.  These allegations are reminiscent of what occurred during the Clinton Administration since they are equally groundless.  

A recent report by the GOP led Senate Finance committee recently concluded after a two year investigation that there was no wrongdoing in connection with the so-called IRS "targeting" controversy.   The report by this committee did not suggest or otherwise prove that any laws were broken by the I.R.S.  Moreover, as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said: "(T)he inquiry had found pure bureaucratic mismanagement without any evidence of political interference. Groups on both sides of the political spectrum were treated equally in their efforts to secure tax-exempt status.” 

Another unanimous finding by a GOP controlled Committee concluded that the GOP's allegations about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012 were largely phony.  Shortly after election day 2014, the House Intelligence Committee quietly released a little noticed report that contradicted just about all of the GOP conspiracy theories about Benghazi.  This investigation concluded that there was no "stand down" order and no intimidation of witnesses by superiors.  Perhaps the most significant finding was that then National Security Adviser Susan Rice's "talking points" about the cause of  the attack were not part of an Obama  Administration cover up.  Instead, the Committee reported that that: "(T)he process that produced Rice's s talking points was flawed, resulting in errors rather than deliberate lies. "

One of the many reasons for the GOP and right wing media's obsession with Benghazi is that is also part of an effort to discredit former Secretary of State and current Presidential front runner Hillary Clinton.  One of the things that isn't mentioned by the GOP or the mainstream media is that the House Republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security after they regained control of the House in the 2010 elections.  Well before the attack in Benghazi, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Republican cuts to the State Department budget, warning they "will be detrimental to America's national security."  

The effort to diminish Clinton's front runner status by the GOP has now extended into a bogus controversy about Clinton's decision to use a private email server while she was Secretary of State.  Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State was legal and permissible under the State Department regulations during President Obama's first term. (Moreover, Colin Powell used a private email account when he served as Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term.)

Clinton chose to use a private email server because the State Department email account outside the building involved what one State Department official termed:  “incredibly unreliable software.” As one former senior official told the New York Times:  “If you had to write a priority message that was more than a paragraph long, it could leave you streaming sweat and screaming at the screen. And that’s when people would turn to their private accounts out of desperation.”

Currently, this controversy regarding Clinton's use of a private email server is proving to be every bit as groundless as all of the other phony "scandals" ginned up by the GOP over the last 25 years.  At  this point in time, any security breaches are pure speculation.  In any event, even if this controversy comes down to a a security issue, and the concern that Clinton put classified information in jeopardy by going outside the State Department’s classified email system, the Associated Press recently reported that there was no real difference between the department’s system and her home server: “Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say.”

Despite all of the scary headlines coming out of both the mainstream and right wing media,  law enforcement officials speaking on background to the New York Times have said that the former Secretary of State  is not a target of any investigations, and there is no proof that her private email  account was hacked.  There has also been no evidence that she broke any laws, and many experts are of the opinion that  the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.  In addition, several knowledgeable attorneys have contended that this “scandal” is over blown.  These lawyers told David Ignatius of the Washington Post that this is not something a prosecutor would take to court.

Despite all of these groundless allegations regarding Clinton's use of a private email server, she still  holds a lead outside of the margin of error over her Republican opponents.  Depending upon what poll you look at and what candidate you look at, Clinton's lead over any potential Republican nominee is anywhere from four to eight percentage points.  In other words, if the election were today, Clinton would win by a marginal similar to President Obama's in the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012.

The Republicans will continue to pursue this phony scandal narrative until Election Day 2016 and even after that - if a Democrat is elected President.  The GOP doesn't want an election comparing the visions and platforms of the respective parties.  Just about every Republican candidate has come out in favor of largely exempting the wealthy from all federal taxation, Social Security privatization, turning Medicare into a voucher program and sending U.S. troops back to the Middle East.  The last thing the GOP wants is for the election to be about real issues.  

As Democrats, we can't be fooled or alarmed by these GOP allegations.  We've been seeing this game plan since 1992 and it has always turned out to be false and not grounded in reality.  We need to keep the focus on the issues and the GOP's record in office.  If we can do that, we will win the 2016 elections.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

The Nebraska Democratic Presidential Caucus Will Make A Difference In 2016

We keep hearing from the mainstream media about the Republican party's alleged "deep bench" of contenders who are vying for the Presidency in the 2016. In reality, the GOP Presidential field resembles the motley crew found in the bar room scene in the original Star Wars movie that was shot in 1977.  One can find a deep bench of Presidential contenders over on the Democratic side.  All of our candidates are serious people with very genuine accomplishments.  Anyone of them could be a successful nominee and President.

The front runner and prohibitive favorite to win both the nomination and the Presidency is Hillary Clinton.  She brings to the table a wealth of experience and a whole host of accomplishments as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.  Clinton has one of the most impressive resumes of any Presidential contender in American history.  

As First Lady for Bill Clinton, she played an instrumental role in the passage of SCHIP legislation which provided health insurance to 6 million children.  When Clinton served as Secretary of State during President Obama's first term, she led the way in establishing the tough international sanctions against Iran that led to the recently signed nuclear agreement which will for the first time ever place limits on that country's nuclear program.   Moreover, Clinton rebuilt America's relations with our allies around the world after they were torn asunder during the Bush Presidency.  

Due to Clinton's accomplishments and front runner status in head to head matchups with all of the GOP candidates, the Republicans (and the mainstream press) have cooked up a bogus scandal relying upon on all kinds of speculation and innuendo regarding the private email server that Clinton used as Secretary of State.   What we do know for sure is that there is no evidence that Clinton violated any law or State Department regulation in her use of a private email server. Moreover, there is no proof that she knowingly sent any previously classified information to anyone at any time. There is also no evidence whatsoever that any national security breach occurred in her private email server.

What hasn't been discussed by the GOP and the mainstream press is that Colin Powell used a private email account to conduct official business when he was Secretary of State in the Bush Administration.  In addition, there has been almost no mention of the fact that Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee all used private email accounts to conduct government business when they were in public service.  Where is the outrage from the press and the GOP about this?  Why the double standard?   

At the present time, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has posed the most serious challenge to Clinton's front runner status.  Sanders' populist message confronting the political and economic power of the top 1% has resonated with Democratic voters and attracted huge crowds to his rallies.  I would recommend to anybody who has a social media account to follow Senator Sanders.  On a daily basis, Sanders comes out with a powerful message regarding the trend of growing inequality in the U.S.  That message has allowed him to close the gap with Clinton in New Hampshire and to actually lead her in one poll in the Granite state.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has also come out with a strong message.  For example, he recently came out with an innovative proposal to expand Social Security benefits.  Governor O'Malley is no stranger to Nebraska Democrats.  He addressed the Nebraska Democratic Party's Morrison-Exon dinner in 2014 and he will be returning to Omaha in October to headline our Omaha's Finest fundraiser.  He will be the first Democratic Presidential candidate to campaign in Nebraska.  We will provide the details once they are available.

O'Malley isn't the only Democratic Presidential candidate who has come to Nebraska. In 2012, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb was the featured speaker at the Morrison-Exon dinner.   Senator Webb is a distinguished American who served in combat in Vietnam and is a prolific author of both fiction and non-fiction books.  Webb's 2008 book "A Time To Fight" was one of the first works that recognized the troubling trends of rising inequality and mass incarceration in America.  Despite his strong record as a combat veteran, Secretary of the Navy and U.S. Senator, Webb is a long shot contender.

Former Rhode Island Governor and U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee is also a heavy underdog who is given little chance to win the nomination.   Chafee was the only Republican who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.  (Since then, Chafee has switched his party registration.  We Democrats are accepting converts.  In contrast, the GOP is purging heretics.)  As Governor of Rhode Island, Chafee pushed through measures legalizing marriage equality and allowing aspiring Americans to pay in-state tuition rates at Rhode Island's public colleges.

There may soon be a prominent addition to the already deep field of Democratic Presidential contenders.  At the present time, Vice President Joe Biden is seriously considering throwing his hat in the ring.  If he were to jump in the race, Biden would immediately be a top tier contender.  As Vice-President, Biden has been a major contributor to the successes of the Obama Administration.   He was instrumental in passing several pieces of crucial legislation through the Congress due to his long standing ties with members of Congress in both parties.  Biden is a genuinely warm person as well as a very good public speaker.  

All of these developments in the Democratic nominating process means that there will be most likely be a contested race by the time the Nebraska Democratic Party holds it caucuses on March 5, 2016.  Like we did in 2008, Nebraska will be going relatively early in the nominating process.  We urge every Nebraska Democrat to participate in our caucus and make history again - just like we did in 2008.

Already efforts are being made by our party officers and activists to prepare for the caucuses.  A website has already been set up at:  The Nebraska Democratic Party is also working to establish a speakers bureau to appear before groups and other events as needed to provide information regarding the delegate selection process.   We will also be contacting constituency organizations and holding outreach seminars and workshops.   Please continue to consult this website for more information and developments regarding our Presidential caucuses. 

We look forward to working with all registered Democrats to make our caucuses a big success.  If you aren't registered to vote, you can still fully participate in our caucuses by registering to vote as a Democrat at the caucus in your county or precinct.   We here at the Nebraska Democratic Party look forward to working with you in selecting the next President of the U.S.! 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

The Affordable Care Is Working - Ben Sasse Can Come Out Of His Survivalist Bunker

When he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in October 2013, Ben Sasse made the ridiculous prediction that: "If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) survives, America will cease to exist."  Sasse's prognostication followed upon the heels of a whole string of apocalyptic predictions from his fellow Republicans - mostly notable John Boehner's prediction that the ACA will cause "Armageddon" and "ruin our country."  

I have good news for Sasse and Boehner.  New evidence has further confirmed that the ACA is working and improving the lives of millions of Americans.  It's now safe for Senator Sasse to emerge from his survivalist bunker because it looks like the U.S. will not only survive - it will continue to thrive and be the greatest country in the world.

An important piece of that evidence came from a report from Journal of the American Medical Association which indicates that the ACA has improved access to health care.  This study shows that the ACA's open enrollment periods - when millions of Americans signed up for health insurance for the first time - were "associated with significantly improved trends in self-reported coverage, access to primary care and medications, affordability, and health."  This study flies in the face of all of the GOP allegations that the ACA has reduced access to care due to high out of pocket health care costs and the difficulty in finding doctors who can provide timely consultations.  

Yet another new report - this one from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - proves that the ACA has delivered on it's primary goal of reducing the number of uninsured Americans.  This CDC report indicates that the number of uninsured Americans has been reduced to 9.2% - the lowest level in American history.  Until now, no reputable study had ever found that the uninsured rate in the U.S. dropped below 10% into the single digits.  What this means is that the level of the uninsured has been cut in half since 2008 - that rate has been reduced from 18% in 2008 to 9.2% in 2015.  That is a monumental accomplishment.  

Since the implementation of the ACA in late 2013, approximately 16 million additional Americans have become insured.  Moreover, if current trends should continue,  the uninsured rate will continue to decline as enrollment in the ACA exchanges and Medicaid keeps going up.

In addition to evidence showing that the ACA is helping millions of Americans, there are also new studies which have rebutted the tired and inaccurate GOP contentions that Obama Care is a job killer and that insurance premiums are rising at an excessive rate.  

For years, the detractors of health care reform have been telling us that the ACA is a "job killer" and that the employer mandate would cause employers to lay people off or give employees fewer hours to work.  However, no less than three recent reports indicate that businesses have not changed how they hire and schedule their employees in response to the ACA.  According to Chris Ryan, a vice president at the payroll-management firm ADP: "Shifts in scheduling were trivial in every sector of the economy, even in industries that rely heavily on part-time work, such as leisure and hospitality."

ADP's findings were confirmed in another study by two professors at George Mason University and Michael Strain of the right wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI.) The paper from the AEI concluded that: "There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of part-time workers in the sectors most likely to be affected by Obamacare, such as janitorial and restaurant work."

Another dog that didn't bark was the Obama Care premium "rate shock" allegation that is breathlessly reported by Fox News on a regular basis. (Remember how cheap insurance was during the Bush Administration? I don't.)  According to a report from the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums grew more slowly in 31 states and the District of Columbia after the passage of the ACA in 2010.  

Insurance premiums have risen more slowly in the states that have cooperated in the implementation of Obama Care as opposed to the ones - like Nebraska - that have resisted it.  For example, insurance premiums will only increase 4% in California in 2016 because they have passed the Medicaid expansion and have a Department of Insurance that protects consumers rather than insurance companies.  

The totality of the evidence proves that the ACA has been a big success.  Many more Americans have become insured and health care costs have grown at their slowest rate since the 1960s.  Moreover, the ACA has resulted in the greatest expansion of insurance coverage since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  All of the predictions of doom and gloom from the likes of Ben Sasse and John Boehner have proven to be wildly inaccurate. 

We can't take these accomplishments for granted.  All of the Republican running for President and Congress are committed to the total repeal of the ACA.  Moreover, the GOP after more than six years still hasn't come up with a consensus replacement plan.  Perhaps the "best" plan they have come up with is Donald Trump's promise to replace the ACA with "something terrific."  

If we are to preserve the ACA and allow it to continue insure more Americans, we must work hard to elect a Democratic President and Congress in 2016.  Only by winning next year's election can we guarantee continued progress.  The last thing we can afford to let occur would be to allow the Republicans to return to power.  The last time the GOP was in charge in Washington, they did nothing when 8 million Americans lost their insurance coverage and ruined the economy.  

We Democrats have a good record to run on in 2016  Like I said, we have succeeded in insuring 16 million Americans and reducing the uninsured rate to the lowest level in U.S. history.  Moreover, the economy is now creating more jobs than at anytime since the late 1990s.  We need to remind the American people about our accomplishments and the GOP failures again and again.  If we don't do it, nobody else will. 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share