Posted on 04/15/2008 11:30:13 AM PDT by indcons
Sen. John McCain today will call for partially rolling back President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program and for a freeze on discretionary spending in order to get the federal budget in better shape, his advisers said yesterday evening.
Mr. McCain, who voted against the Medicare drug program in 2003, would make wealthier seniors pay more to remain in the drug program, just as they do for some other parts of Medicare coverage. His advisers said Mr. Bush's program ended up covering people who are capable of paying their own way.
"That reform alone saves billions of dollars that can be returned to taxpayers or put to better use," said Carly Fiorina, who is Mr. McCain's liaison to the Republican National Committee.
But the Democrats disagreed.
"John McCain can shift his rhetoric all he wants, but it's his policies that are outdated and out of touch with the values and priorities of America's working families," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I’m really beginning to like this guy!
Maverick ‘08!!
I’m surprised he would be this bold at this stage.
The Rx program is very popular. The Dems will talk about expanding it back over the doughnut hole and then eventually covering the rest of country, no matter the cost.
I am too, I’m begining to warm, but the question is, how much of a play is this for our votes?
I hope not too much.
Though, this is saying we’ll means test it more, which, quite frankly we shouldn’t be paying for people to have health care, think about that for yourselves and plan accordingly.
Holy cow and good luck.
Taking something back like that will be an enormous task - and the correct one.
If this is a play for votes, it's pretty dumb. This will cost him more votes than he'll gain.
Yikes. Seniors will vote for Hillary.
He wants to keep the prescription drug plan for the poor, but he wants those that are better off to pay their own way.
That's a nice way of saying that he wants all taxpayers to pay for the plan, but only a small portion to benefit from it.
It's more wealth redistribution from the liberal John McCain.
Frankly, I don't think we have anyone running for president right now worthy of my vote - seems they're all just pandering politicians - not a leader in the bunch -
/r/jane
You do that sort of thing AFTER you are elected and have power to do something. Saying it now will doom you with the Grey panthers.
Does anything normal go on in his brain?
“”John McCain can shift his rhetoric all he wants, but it’s his policies that are outdated and out of touch with the values and priorities of America’s working families,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera.”
So the Dems WANT the wealthy to benefit the same as middle class families?
Good move, John. Now the next step is to press the Democrats and ask them to explain:
1. How making rich seniors pay more for prescription drugs hurts working-class families.
2. How the Democrats plan to save Medicare without making rich seniors pay more.
(Personally, I think Medicare is unconstitutional anyway, but that’s not a winnable fight right now.)
“Does anything normal go on in his brain?”
Based on the things he has said recently, I have come to the conclusion that McCain isn’t very intelligent or is having mental problems of some sort.
He’s just doing dumb things that don’t make any sense.
Seniors will crucify him at the polls .
I think he really means it, but it ain't never going to happen if the House and Senate remain in the control of the Democrats.
That liberal RINO democrat socialist John McCain voted AGAINST the Medicare Prescription Plan. Would you care to fill us in on how your two True Blue, All-American Conservative principled Senators voted on it?
Well apparently he voted against it because it wasn't enough of an entitlement program for the poor. Because he's proposing to remove benefits from anyone who isn't poor enough to need the government's help. It's a bad program, but at least everyone who joined the program was treated the same. He wants to make it another wealth redistribution system.
How about across the board cuts in benefits rather than just screwing the people that actually pay taxes even more?
Would you care to fill us in on how your two True Blue, All-American Conservative principled Senators voted on it?
I'm from Ohio. We unfortunately had no conservative senators. We've since evicted one RINO and traded him for a far left liberal, which while it wasn't a good trade, I'm glad to see DeWine gone, even though I did vote for him because he was the lesser of the two evils.
I'm hoping that when Voinovich comes up for reelection we can find a decent candidate to beat him in the primary instead of losing another seat to a liberal Democrat.
And you pulled that statement out of WHERE? It has brown streaks on it.
YOUR Republicans gave us the program and you are calling him a liberal for cutting it?
By the way, how did your Senators vote on the Farm subsidies? That darn liberal voted against them.
When Ohio turns conservative we'll let you tell us how it's done.
Maybe you should try reading the article.
YOUR Republicans gave us the program and you are calling him a liberal for cutting it?
He's only cutting it for those that are paying their share of the costs.
He's removing the parts of the program that aren't an entitlement program and leaving those that are.
YOUR Republicans gave us the program and you are calling him a liberal for cutting it?
So I make accurate comments based on what McCain is proposing, so you attack me and blame me for the actions of my State's RINO senators.
I voted against those RINOs in every primary to try and get them out of office, but in the general elections, the Democrats ran candidates from the far left who would have been considerably worse, as we have seen with Sherrod Brown.
I've done what I can to replace the RINOs, but I can't control them.
McCain can control his own policy.
McCain claims to be a fiscal conservative. However, he seems to never balk at adding more regulations on to industry and he doesn't support broad based tax rebates. He instead appears to prefer to use the tax system to redistribute wealth.
McCain's solution to everything is more government regulation. He complains about spending, and often votes against new spending, but his support for things like carbon credit cap and trade are just as bad. He's a big government liberal, that complains about some spending.
His big government approach is more often in the form of heavy regulation, rather than entitlements.
He's a fiscal moderate. Sometimes he leans left, and sometimes right. On this issue, he's now leaning more toward the left than he had when he just opposed it.
On the regulatory side, he leans to the left most of the time, and a considerable amount of the time he leans far left.
When Ohio turns conservative we'll let you tell us how it's done.
So since I can't control the majority of voters in the state of Ohio, I'm not supposed to point out the obvious flaws in McCain's policies?
Are you a troll, or an idiot?
Yo, McCain:
Do you think it's really a good idea to make political campaign decisions based on bean-counting advice from this chick?
For that matter, what makes you think it's a good idea to let her within 10 miles of your campaign?
But you don't stop there, you make up a motive for him. "Well apparently he voted against it because it wasn't enough of an entitlement program for the poor". The whole program is an entitlement. He's cutting what he can because we don't need to be subsidizing the rich on top of the poor.
McCain will use the regulatory powers of the government on issues where he feels it is appropriate. If you check his record though, he is probably in the 10% of Senators least likely to use those powers.
BDS has been replaced with MDS. Only in the fever-swamps of the right can cutting government entitlements be construed as "liberal".
Agreed.
It was passed over McCain's objection and without his vote.
Agreed. It was also passed over the objections of most of the Democrats in congress, and without their votes as well.
It is now embedded in our social structure. It is a act of fiscal courage to start paring the program.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye as to how he's planning on paring it down.
It would be political suicide in an election year to take away drugs for the poor.
McCain, know perfectly well that Bush would veto an effort to gut provisions for older Americans, and he would likely have a hard time getting anywhere close to a majority supporting his efforts to do this in an election year.
These statements by McCain, are what he's saying he would do if he would propose to do it here were President, not something he's planning to try and push through congress before the election.
If this isn't one of his policy goals, why is he bringing it up?
And for this he gets what? You label him a redistributionist and a liberal.
His proposal labels him a redistributionist liberal. So did his recent proposal to cut taxes by increasing the deduction for dependents rather than a broad based tax cut.
I'm not making things up, I'm commenting on his policies, and it's not an isolated policy either.
Sometimes McCain swings towards fiscal conservatism, sometimes he swings towards fiscal liberalism. The one consistent thing is that he seems to like to take a stand against his own party to gain accolades from the press.
He ends lands somewhere in the fiscal moderate range, but more because he jumps from one side to the other than because he's consistently in the middle.
He's cutting what he can because we don't need to be subsidizing the rich on top of the poor.
Since those people are and have been paying far more than their fair share of taxes, it's hard to justify saying that the government is subsidizing them.
The whole program is outside of the authority of the federal government. However, at least as it is written now it is a service provided for all older Americans and treats everyone the same at least within that age group.
His proposal would change that so that is become a wealth redistribution program, and yet another entitlement for the poor.
McCain will use the regulatory powers of the government on issues where he feels it is appropriate. If you check his record though, he is probably in the 10% of Senators least likely to use those powers.
You mean like with McCain-Feingold?
How about with the McCain-Lieberman Global Warming Bill?
He supports the US joining the international criminal court.
You must be looking at a different record than I am.
He may not be in the top ten most likely to propose or push for more government regulation, but he's worse than most RINOs and some Democrats.
I'll vote for him because he's better that Obama or Clinton, but not because I've blinded myself to the facts and think he's a conservative.
BDS has been replaced with MDS. Only in the fever-swamps of the right can cutting government entitlements be construed as "liberal".
He's not cutting the program. He's raising the fees that better off seniors pay into the program. He's keeping the program viable for them by still subsidizing their costs, so few of them will leave the program, they will just have to pay more for it.
He's effectively raising their taxes. The government program doesn't go away. It doesn't become cheaper. He's just changing who pays for it.
He's doing wealth redistribution.
It appears that now McCain is proposing more broad tax cuts.
I'd rather see a broad reduction in the individual tax rate than see the deduction for dependents decreased.
I also think that cutting the fuel taxes for the summer is a foolish political stunt.
Gas taxes go to pay for roads, and they are generally proportional to how much people use those roads.
A lot of our road infrastructure has been neglected and needs a lot of work.
I like seeing him propose tax cuts.
Getting rid of the alternate minimum tax is great, and the corporate tax cut is a great way to help our economy and will likely increase revenues over time rather than reduce them.
However, the deduction increase and the gas tax repeal are mostly political gimmicks, and the dependent deduction results in more wealth redistribution.
McCain is either incredibly brave or incredibly stupid.
I argue strongly for the former.
Right. And then the indigents could be addressed at the local level; works better.
In 1987 Ronald Reagan vetoed a Highway bill because it had 150 earmarked projects in it. The 2005 Highway bill had around 6,500. That's six THOUSAND five hundred. McCain and two or three other Senators voted against it. If we need to build highways, let's build highways, let's not paint crosswalks for squirrels.
The cost of the tax holiday will be about the same as the cost of Boston's Big Dig. It will give relief to everyone, especially truckers who are at the point of desperation. It will also show that IT CAN BE DONE and we are not totally at the mercy of bureaucrats.
McCain holds Barry Goldwater's old seat. If you extrapolate what Barry would likely have done fiscally and compare it to what McCain has done, you will not see a lot of difference.
McCain departs from the conservative mold on what I call boutique issues, campaign finance, Global Warming, immigration, etc. He is willing to use the power of the government to solve a perceived problem. We may not agree with every problem or every solution but many Americans do. People see these as problems and want the government to act. McCain is willing to do that.
I agree 100%. We need to build and maintain our infrastructure, but we need to keep Congress from misappropriating funds for worthless pet projects.
What we really need to do is ban all earmarks from being attached to omnibus spending bills. If it's important enough for the federal government to spend money on it, it's important enough for them to address and vote on separately. It also makes it a bit more difficult for bills that contain a little bit of pork for everyone to get through.
The cost of the tax holiday will be about the same as the cost of Boston's Big Dig. It will give relief to everyone, especially truckers who are at the point of desperation. It will also show that IT CAN BE DONE and we are not totally at the mercy of bureaucrats.
The government shouldn't play games with the tax code every time the price of oil goes up. Consumers aren't likely to see most of the tax break anyway. If consumers are willing to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, the price of gas is going to go back up to $3.50 a gallon rather quickly, and either the oil companies or the retailers or both are going to end up pocketing more profits. We will get slightly lower gas prices for the summer because some of the cut in the gas price will get passed on. However, in the fall, we will see a price jump equal to the full value of the gas tax that is added back on.
In the mean time, through the summer, our government is just going to borrow more money to pay for the highway bill that has already been passed. They aren't going to go back and cut the spending that they have already authorized.
Congress should set the gas tax as low as possible to bring in the necessary funds to build and maintain NEEDED road infrastructure. However, they shouldn't play with the rate in an attempt to regulate the market, or pander to people. When the government messes with the market like this, they almost always cause more harm than good in the long run.
I drive 230 miles each way to see my Fiancee every weekend, or she drives to see me. A reduction in the price of gasoline would be very nice for me. However, from past experience, I know better than to think this will work out for the best in the long run.
As for truckers, they shouldn't be asking for the government to step in and regulate the market, they should simply be raising their prices to cover their costs. Higher prices will result in decreased demand, which will lower consumption of fuel and drive prices back down. Yes that means that some truck drivers will have less work for a while, however having the government step in and use tax dollars to subsidize their employment levels is not the right solution.
McCain holds Barry Goldwater's old seat. If you extrapolate what Barry would likely have done fiscally and compare it to what McCain has done, you will not see a lot of difference.
Considering that you seem to want the government to step in and try and solve problems, I don't think your opinion of what Goldwater would do is worth much. It's worth about as much as your opinion that McCain rarely tries to regulate things.
McCain departs from the conservative mold on what I call boutique issues, campaign finance, Global Warming, immigration, etc. He is willing to use the power of the government to solve a perceived problem.
When McCain sees a problem, he thinks it's the role of the government to address it. Which makes him a liberal!
We may not agree with every problem or every solution but many Americans do.
Yes, there are a lot of liberals in the US.
People see these as problems and want the government to act. McCain is willing to do that.
Because he's a liberal!
You keep denying that McCain is one, but apparently you either don't know what a liberal is, or want to redefine it so that it doesn't include yourself and him.
I think some Senator was trying to do this. What was his name? The Republicans stopped him.
We deal in a world as it is. When a tax is onerous and destructive the tax needs to be repealed or the effects mitigated. Truckers cannot raise their prices overnight, the industry isn't built that way. What they do now will affect them 2 or 3 years in the future. That is too late. Government should be responsive.
Considering that you seem to want the government to step in and try and solve problems,
I am Arizona Republican, libertarian wing. If you want to see sparks fly just put me and McCain in the same room. I have fought him since 1982.
My family has been Republican since Free Land, Free Labor, Free Men. I will do what I can to advance my ideas within the party but I will not destroy it as a viable political force.
We are a self-governing people. If the goober down the street with a high school education and almost 2 semesters at the JUCO is convinced that Global Warming is real, then it is his right to demand that the government do something about it. It is up to us to provide a cogent and convincing argument against it. It is not enough to say well I done readed on the internets that some guy, dunno his name, said it weren't. The information age gives us the power move public opinion but it can make fools of us, too.
You can trace McCain's advocacy of controversial issues from inception to legislation. Is is dangerous territory to ascribe motivations but as a close observer of many years, I think I may have a better view than most.
When he got mired in the swamps of South Carolina in 2000, he determined not to allow those dark and insideous forces to decide his fate again. He already had a taste of success in the Tobacco legislation and he decided that he would demonstrate that he could tackle the Great Issues of the Day and he did so. He went after them from a Republican point of view but he did not duck them and hide in an undisclosed location. The stars aligned for him and he came out with his coveted nomination.
I recall Goldwater's admonition that "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass." I also recall thinking right after this years South Carolina primary "You did it, you SOB, you kicked Falwell in the ass AND you are positioned to win the Presidency". I have to admit, it was masterful.
Changing fuel prices is part of their business. If they haven't negotiated contracts for their services that allow for fluctuation in the price of fuel, then that is their own fault.
The government should not try and use tax dollars (someone else's money) to subsidize businesses which have become less profitable or unprofitable because of market forces.
What they do now will affect them 2 or 3 years in the future. That is too late. Government should be responsive.
Yes. It will distort the market and cause people to make business decisions based on thinking that the government will bail them out if they aren't able to be profitable rather than making business decisions based on real market forces.
It causes overly risky business decisions, because they think the government will bail them out at the taxpayer's expense if things go badly.
There may be rare cases when it is necessary to step in and prevent an essential industry from collapsing. Not to make them profitable, and preserve jobs at the current levels, but to prevent collapse. The trucking industry is nowhere near collapse, and even if it were private industry can address the problem though renegotiating shipping contracts, which is in their own best interest to prevent such a collapse. The government shouldn't even consider stepping in when the problem can be solved by private industry working it out.
I am Arizona Republican, libertarian wing.
You're a libertarian who is suggesting that the government needs to be more responsive and step in when market conditions change?
What does being a libertarian mean to you, because the two of us are obviously working with different definitions of the term.
We are a self-governing people. If the goober down the street with a high school education and almost 2 semesters at the JUCO is convinced that Global Warming is real, then it is his right to demand that the government do something about it.
Sure it's his right to demand it. That doesn't make it a good idea. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain to him why it is a bad idea and oppose our politicians following that idea.
It is up to us to provide a cogent and convincing argument against it. It is not enough to say well I done readed on the internets that some guy, dunno his name, said it weren't.
Please point out to me where I made such an argument. If I've done so, then I'm obviously not going to do a very good job of arguing my point, and I'm just wasting my time.
I believe I've picked specific issues, and given reasons why I believe McCain's policies on them are wrong. The responses you originally gave were to basically tell me to shut up because my idiot senators were no better, which was avoiding the argument on the merits.
You have however, stopped doing that and are arguing your point based on it's merits. I disagree with you, but at least I can respect that you are arguing your point.
When he got mired in the swamps of South Carolina in 2000, he determined not to allow those dark and insideous forces to decide his fate again. He already had a taste of success in the Tobacco legislation and he decided that he would demonstrate that he could tackle the Great Issues of the Day and he did so. He went after them from a Republican point of view but he did not duck them and hide in an undisclosed location.
I'm not even sure what a Republican point of view is anymore, because the Republican Party has strayed so far from it's conservative roots that it's really not accurate to equate a Republican point of view with a conservative one, especially a small government conservative.
I've possibly followed McCain's career less closely. However, it seems to me that the longer he has remained in the senate, the more he has supported stronger regulatory approaches, while becoming more socially liberal.
He seems to have become more and more of an elitist.
There are just too many contradictions in his policies that I can't explain in any other way than to think he believes that the citizens of the United States are too stupid to deal with issues on our own, and need a strong government to watch over most aspect of our lives and lead us down the correct path.
He proclaims the need to protect individual rights, but seems to think that we need a strong government and heavy regulation to do so. He supports the international criminal court. He seems more concerned with the "rights" of our enemies than the rights of our own people.
His campaign finance reform took political power from the hands of the people, and transferred it to the political parties. It made it much harder for individuals and groups other than the parties to have their voices heard.
When ever there is economic turmoil his solution seems to be to have the government step in and solve it. Since when are politicians better than businessmen at solving economic problems? I guess since those politicians decided that they know what it best better than everyone else.
McCain has screamed about excessive spending for a very long time, yet he's quick to jump on the bandwagon of costly regulatory bills, and he's quick to have the government step in and mess with the market.
He has consistently opposed general farm subsidies, even including ethanol subsidies. He was a very vocal opponent of ethanol subsidies. That was something I liked about him. However, in August he did a complete about face on ethanol.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm
His argument was that he changed his mine when the prise of oil went up so much. Well, it the price of oil had gone up enough to make ethanol make sense as a fuel, it didn't need subsidies.
McCain could have just been pandering for votes.
However, I don't think so.
It seems to me that whenever McCain believes something needs done, he believe in using the government to address it.
He believed that individuals with money had too much influence in politics so he pushed for regulating political speech of individuals.
He believes that global warming is a serious issue, so he switched to supporting ethanol, and supports cap and trade.
He seems to believe that the "greater good" trumps individual rights, as long as it is a greater good that he believes is necessary.
Most people believe that to some extent or another. However, McCain is both a strong supporter of what he believes in while showing a lot of disdain for those he disagrees with (hence the elitism).
He doesn't hesitate to suggest government intervention on issues he believes in, while he harshly criticizes when he thinks the government is overreaching in other areas.
He leans way to far toward the populist/authoritarian side for me. I have the same objections about Rudy as well.
In many ways he was a more conservative choice when compared to Bush in 2000. However, he has gone over even farther toward big government since then. There are less and less issues in which he thinks the government has no role. He still seems to argue about what that role should be, but it seems rarer and rarer that he thinks the government has no role.
I'll still vote for him over Clinton or Obama. Both are considerably worse than him. However, I can't really think of many topics on which I trust McCain. I think he is generally strong on defense, but I fear for our military's effectiveness in a war on terror with a Commander in Chief that supports letting the International Criminal Court bring politically motivated charges against our troops, and having their rulings be binding.
I fear that his anti-torture beliefs and fears that our troops might overstep are to the point or irrationality, and would prevent reasonable rules of engagement. Without reasonable rules of engagement, we simply cannot win the war on terror. We will prevent ourselves from being effective and will lose heart when we cannot hope to achieve reasonable goals.
I really fear what kind of Supreme Court justices he might appoint. He has shown many times that while he has strong feelings about certain rights, it is those feelings that rule his actions, not the Constitution. I fear he would appoint activist justices, and while many Republicans might agree with the opinions of those justices, appointing justices for life who hold their own opinions above the Constitution is dangerous for our rights at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.