Back in June, we had some fun with the…unusual defense of freshman Rep. Cory Gardner’s vote in favor of the GOP 2012 budget proposal (known as the “Ryan Plan”) offered by Gardner’s spokesperson Rachel Boxer. Despite the undisputed agreement that the 2012 GOP budget would result in large reductions in coverage for Medicare beneficiaries starting in ten years, Gardner spokesperson Boxer asserted that since the number of dollars being spent on Medicare would continue to grow every year, Medicare was “not being cut at all.”
A bit of a problem since her boss and everybody else in the Republican Party was out there selling the fact that their budget would “reduce” (their words) the cost of Medicare. And although she didn’t get called on it by the reporter, we have to think there are lot of people in CD-4 smart enough to understand things like population growth, or have ever gotten a smaller piece of pie than they wanted. That is, any of the considerable number of Gardner’s constituents who know better; and can see through this wildly deceptive semantic contortion in about two seconds.
We’re sorry to report, via NOCO5, that Ms. Boxer is at it again.
A routine news report about one of the more or less daily protests outside the offices of Colorado Republican congressmen this week on the debt-ceiling impasse–this one yesterday in Ft. Collins outside Gardner’s office there. The most interesting part starts exactly one minute into the report, and seems to become the whole focus of the story afterward:
Boxer: There is nothing in the Boehner Plan being voted on today that directly addresses the issue of Medicare…
As most of our readers following this debate know, the Boehner plan would have created a bipartisan “super committee” of legislators charged with finding an additional almost $2 trillion in cuts to “entitlement programs”–that’s Social Security and Medicare, right? What’s more, Boehner’s bill, the one Gardner voted for yesterday, would make adoption of these cuts mandatory in order to allow the debt ceiling to be increased long enough to get through next year. While Sen. Harry Reid’s Senate alternative also creates a committee to find more cuts, Reid’s bill doesn’t make extension of the debt ceiling through 2012 contingent on adopting them.
Bottom line: the bill that Cory Gardner voted for yesterday evening was designed to force, and would indeed have resulted in, huge cuts to Medicare. It would simply have forced those cuts six months from now, while simultaneously forcing another all-consuming political crisis–the very same engineered climate of panic over the debt ceiling as we are living through today.
The NOCO5 reporter who mindlessly bought this cowpie is no longer smiling? Sorry about that!
Like the semantically tortured idea that the 2012 budget Gardner voted for doesn’t cut Medicare “at all,” you might spend a couple of reasonable minutes entertaining this–before realizing that it’s off-message, wholly intended to mislead, and above all, preposterous.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Thanksgiving Weekend Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: Thanksgiving Weekend Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: Thanksgiving Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: unnamed
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
It’d be five except for the one degree of separation with the second bill and second guaranteed debt ceiling faux crisis. It’s deceptive enough to be well into absurd territory. I agree on off message as well, I thought we wanted to cut Medicare for the children?
Please stop earning chihuahuas, Rachel! Larimer County animal shelters are full enough.
uh, ok.
No deficit, lower taxes, no cut in services. And it makes perfect sense if you figure all the cuts are to that “waste and inefficiency” line item in the budget.
This is very much about reforming entitlement spending. Republicans need to be able to articulate this without fear and without any stammering. We are going to reduce the cost of Medicare to taxpayers. It’s the only thing that will ensure it’s available to future generations, as Boxer herself (and Obama) said right after she foolishly denied this bill is about Medicare.
On the other hand, if dozens of dirty hippies were to suddenly crowd my office, I might tell them anything they want to hear in hopes they will leave.
🙂
statements over the past several days how could she possibly know the message? How do you articulate the confusion?
So why not just eliminate it?
I await your response.
We’ll just get Democrats to negotiate and sign the bill for us, so we can run campaign ads against them. Did you guys just figure out politics yesterday?