TPMDC

Fox And Friends: Class Warriors When Convenient

2012-02-23T15:52:26Z

If you were outraged back in 2009 when the banks that played a large part in the economic meltdown handed out large bonuses to their executives, you may have just found an unlikely ally. Well, kind of.

Fox and Friends hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade expressed their consternation at the bonuses being handed out to employees at bankrupt solar panel company Solyndra LLC.

That's right, the same Fox and Friends who began a segment on bank executive bonuses by asking whether government limiting executive compensation will "eliminate the motivation to actually work hard".

The figure of $370,000 which, according to Doocy is "what the remaining bosses... are getting", was scaled down. "They originally wanted to give themselves half a million dollar bonuses".

It's worth noting that, according to the Washington Times, the total amount comes from bonuses being dished out to nearly two-dozen employees, with the individual amounts ranging from $10,000 to $50,000. The employees receiving bonuses include equipment engineers, technology workers and general business and finance employees.

According to Solyndra's lawyers, the bonuses are an attempt to retain key employees and offer greater job security. More claims in the case are pending, for other employees seeking higher compensation.

Check out the Friends' coverage of the story below:

Presented By:

2012-02-23T15:52:26Z

Nancy Pelosi And Colbert Discuss DISCLOSE Act, Contraception

2012-02-23T15:22:02Z

After vowing she would never be a guest on his show, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stopped by the Colbert Report on Wednesday to discuss the DISCLOSE Act and the brouhaha over the Obama administration's contraception rule.

Pelosi's measure is aimed at increasing transparency in election spending. If a business or wealthy individual is going to pour millions of dollars into an election, Pelosi said, "the public has a right to know by whose authority is this coming to them."

But if businesses are forced to reveal their contributions, Colbert said consumers might retaliate by not buying their products. And also, why does Pelosi hate free enterprise and free speech?

"I support the free market, but I also support free elections," Pelosi countered.

Turning to contraception, Pelosi said the men-only panel debating birth control last week might need a "lesson in the birds and bees."

Watch the interview:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Nancy Pelosi

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

The GOP's Real Tax Cut Goal Has Nothing To Do With The Middle Class (CHART)

2012-02-23T10:50:00Z

You'd think that with the economy growing, and indeed accelerating in its growth, the GOP would be setting itself up to claim all the credit come November -- rather than reluctantly embracing President Obama's call for a payroll tax cut, while talking down its efficacy as a tonic for the job market.

Instead they're obstinately digging in. And with all of the party's presidential hopefuls lukewarm on the payroll tax cut and leapfrogging each other with plans to cut taxes for wealthy Americans alone, Republicans are inadvertently clarifying for voters what they know to be unpopular economic policies.

"Let's be honest, this is an economic relief package, not a bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner last week in a statement ahead of the passage of the payroll tax cut deal.

The package itself won a modest majority of Republican votes in the House and a significant minority of Republican votes in the Senate. But both stand in complete agreement with the GOP presidential field on the need to enact large, permanent tax cuts for the highest earners in the country. This is what Mitt Romney refers to as pro-growth tax policy. So to give you a clearer sense of what the GOP would have rather done than renew the payroll tax cut, here's a graphical breakdown.

A couple quick notes on this. First, this chart was compiled before Romney introduced a new tax framework that lacks key details and hasn't been subjected to the Tax Policy Center's rigorous analysis. We've included his original plan, which includes many features in common with the plan his campaign introduced Wednesday.

You'll also notice that topmost line in this graph plots average tax rates under current law -- i.e. if all the Bush cuts and other tax provisions expire at the end of the year. That baseline makes it appear as if the leading candidates want to give everybody a significant tax cut. The more appropriate baseline is current policy -- the dark blue line. All the GOP candidates want to lock in the Bush tax rates, and then cut from there. Using that standard, you see that none of the candidates, but particularly Romney, want to do very much at all to reduce the tax burden for the middle class. Those lines only really start to diverge at incomes around $200,000 annually. It's textbook supply-siderism, but that's the segment of earners whose taxes the GOP really wants to cut.

GOP Governors Face Quandary In Key 'Obamacare' Battle

2012-02-23T10:48:00Z

Republican governors are caught between a rock and a hard place as they grapple with how to handle the state-based insurance marketplaces required by the health care reform law. The Obama administration announced Wednesday that 10 states will be getting federal grants to lay the groundwork for these exchanges -- four of the states have Republican governors, who have apparently decided to bite the bullet and proceed with building them.

Here's the predicament: The Affordable Care Act gives states the option to set up their own exchange by 2014 -- essentially a regulated marketplace where consumers can pool together to buy insurance plans that must provide a package of essential benefits. If states don't set up an exchange, the federal government would be required to take over. From a policy standpoint it's a no-brainer: take the money and use the flexibility to your advantage. But that's politically tedious because as GOP governors or heavily Republican legislatures can't be seen as abetting the law that conservatives hate, even if the fallback option would be less desirable on a substantive level.

The Department of Health and Human Services has now awarded $229 million between 10 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. The states may use the money to hire early staffers and consultants to establish an early administrative infrastructure for an exchange. "We're taking important actions that will give states more resources and more flexibility, and ensure transparency thanks to the Affordable Care Act," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Four of those states have GOP governors, who are united in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act: NJ's Chris Christie, NV's Brian Sandoval, PA's Tom Corbett and TN'S Bill Haslam. The move to suggests those Republicans have opted to build the marketplaces at the risk of taking fire from the right. Obama health official Steve Larsen told TPM on a conference call that the administration believes all of the states receiving the grant are committed to setting up their own exchanges.

Other states with Republican governors that have accepted substantial federal grant money for building state exchanges include Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico and Mississippi. Some GOP states say they want to wait until the Supreme Court rules on the law's constitutionality before they proceed. And others want to duck the statute entirely.

A clear example of this GOP dilemma was recently unearthed by South Carolina's local Post and Courier, where the state's Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, a rising star in the party, explicitly told her staff that she wants to use her $1 million federal planning grant to find a way to prevent an exchange from being set up at all. In private emails obtained by the Post and Courier, Haley fretted that, despite an official's suggestion that exchanges have their "roots in conservative principles," the politics of building one would too perilous.

There is, however, a complication in the administration's fallback option: the money. The law fails to specify a set funding mechanism for a federally-established state exchange. So HHS would have to find the money in its budget or request additional funds through the regular appropriations process. And Congressional Republicans may be motivated to block that money in their efforts to derail the Affordable Care Act.

In the long run, of course, the GOP quandary remains whether to utilize the available resources in the best interest of the states they govern or to try and botch federal implementation in an effort to make President Obama's signature accomplishment look like a failure.

Pelosi: GOP 'Censoring' Female Witness On Birth Control

2012-02-22T23:08:24Z

House Republicans have refused to televise a Democratic-led hearing on birth control that features the testimony of a female witness the GOP spurned in a recent hearing, says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). And Pelosi wants you to know it.

The hearing Thursday is set to have as its sole witness Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student whom House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) forbade from testifying at his contraception hearing last week despite requests from Democrats. Issa's hearing instead included an all-male panel of religious authorities, partly in an effort to convey his claim that the issue was solely about religious freedom, and not really about women's rights.

"In an apparent effort to again silence women on the topic of women's health," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammil said in a statement Tuesday, "the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Dan Lungren, has apparently reversed existing policy and denied a request from the Democratic leadership for the House Recording Studio to cover this event and provide video publicly so all Americans can finally hear Ms. Fluke."

On Wednesday Pelosi fired off a email to supporters titled "They're censoring us," decrying the GOP decision as "disgraceful," "unacceptable," and an act of "shameful censorship." It linked to a petition calling on Republicans to reverse the decision.

Lungren spokesperson Salley Wood told TPM, "We certainly weren't aware of this request until the past couple of days -- and I'm certain that the Chairman was not aware of this request."

A GOP aide said it has not been the committee's policy to accept all such requests, noting that it has at times denied both Democratic and Republican efforts to televise hearings. The aide said granting it to some members necessitates granting it to all members, and there aren't enough resources for that.

What's Behind Obama's New Push For Corporate Tax Reform

2012-02-22T17:45:39Z

A new Obama administration framework for reforming the business income tax code is touching off a brand new election-year policy debate in Washington. But this time around there's a great deal of consensus between the parties over the ideal nature of reform. And that means there will be two main obstacles to success. The first issue will be political concerns -- should Republicans hand President Obama a substantive victory with control of the White House on the line? The second will be the parochial concerns of powerful interest who stand to lose tremendous subsidies as a result of the reforms.

In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner laid out the five principles underlying the proposed reforms. Any corporate tax reform should eliminate scores of loopholes and subsidies and use the savings to lower rates -- specifically from a current top rate of 35 percent down to 25 percent.

The new system should likewise prioritize U.S. manufacturing, according to the administration, by creating permanent incentives that allow American manufacturers to pay an effective rate of no more than 25 percent.

The White House is also proposing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment, and limit the extent to which companies can defer taxation by delaying repatriation of foreign income.

Officials say the reformed code should make filing simpler for small business owners; and that the overall reforms should be deficit neutral or better.

The framework is designed to be implemented separately from broader reform of the individual tax code.

But with the looming expiry of the Bush tax cuts, and deep automatic spending cuts scheduled to kick in on January 1, 2013, the new push could become tied to a broader fight over the country's safety net, and whether wealthy earners should contribute more than they do to sustain key federal programs.

"This process is going to take some time," Geithner said. "It's going to be politically contentious."

The political implications of the push will be complicated. Obama is effectively proposing to lower the tax burden on most businesses but to pay for it by ending entrenched benefits for particularly powerful interests. That's an approach Republicans have claimed to support (though they'd like to lower rates further, and diminish the amount of revenue the government takes from businesses). But they'll be hard pressed to support an Obama initiative in an election year. And if the fight plays out a certain way, Republicans may have to choose between their reputations as tax cutters and their overarching desire to end Obama's presidency.

Administration officials are hopeful that Obama's growing popularity and a steady economic recovery will force Republicans to work with him on this and other historically bipartisan issues. But if Republicans balk, the whole issue will likely be pushed off until after the November election.

On the flip side, Obama risks undercutting his own populist tactics by championing reforms that will be widely characterized as a corporate tax cut. Between Republican political concerns, and Obama's demand that the reforms not amount to a net tax cut for businesses, getting something passed in the current legislative environment will be a heavy lift.

Birth Control Lawsuits Have Shaky Legal Merit

2012-02-22T11:17:00Z

President Obama's religious accommodation in his rule requiring insurance plans to cover birth control has failed to placate elements of the Catholic community, and, with strong GOP support, they remain determined to sue. But do the lawsuits, the latest of which was filed Tuesday, have much legal merit? Possibly, but if judicial precedent is any indication, probably not.

The tweaked regulation says religious non-profits like universities and hospitals do not need to pay for free birth control coverage in their employee health plans, and can pass the cost on to the insurance company. (Churches and houses of worship are entirely exempt.) But like other entities, Ave Maria University, a Catholic institution, argues in a new legal challenge that affiliating itself with any access to contraception would violate its religious beliefs.

But barring a departure from precedent, the lawsuits aren't set to go very far.

"I don't think they have much of a case under current precedent," said Jessica Arons of the Center For American Progress. "Courts in New York and California have already upheld the exemption that was initially adopted by the Administration. And I think the further accommodation that the Administration has offered shows exceeding sensitivity to claims of religious liberty that are not required under the law."

Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, was more blunt. "This lawsuit is inspired by politics and nothing more," he told TPM. "Even under the previously announced rule there was little chance of success."

One avenue for a challenge is on First Amendment grounds. But the Supreme Court has emphatically said religious entities may not be exempted from generally applicable laws, with some exceptions that don't apply to this issue. The second and more likely avenue to use is the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which says federal laws may only constitute an "incidental" (as opposed to "substantial") burden on religious practices, that those laws must by justified by a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that interest.

Former Bush administration lawyers David Rivkin and Ed Whelan argued in the Wall Street Journal that the mandate violates RFRA.

"The refusal, for religious reasons, to provide birth-control coverage is clearly an exercise of religious freedom under the Constitution," they wrote. "The 'exercise of religion' extends to performing, or refusing to perform, actions on religious grounds--and it is definitely not confined to religious institutions or acts of worship."

Rivkin and Whelan said the mandate fails a key RFRA test in that there are ways for the government to expand cost-free access to contraception that are less burdensome to religious beliefs, such as through health centers, public clinics and groups like Planned Parenthood.

Winkler posited that the RFRA challenge may have succeeded under the original birth control rule, but is a fool's errand under the new one.

"The crux of Ave Maria's complaint is that they will have to pay more for health insurance because of this law," he said. "Under that same logic, a church that believed racial mixing is bad could complain that the building contractors they hire are legally required not to discriminate. It's nonsense."

The Map That Proves Red Staters Use The Safety Net Too

2012-02-22T11:17:00Z

Just over a week ago, the New York Times ran an eye-opening story about a key paradox in U.S. politics: It turns out the biggest critics of federal spending -- Republican base voters -- are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the social safety net.

Expand on that irony, and you'll find that some of the most conservative states in the country are the greatest beneficiaries of transfer payments -- where residents pay on average less in taxes than they receive in federal benefits. Not all "taker" states are red, and not all "giver" states are blue.

But the color spread on the map below suggests that many Republican base voters either choose to vote against their economic self-interest, or would be stunned if the members of Congress who represent them ever got their way.

Another point of national cognitive dissonance: for all the hype and anger about soaring deficits, all the green and dark green on the map illustrate how severe the implications of balancing the budget too rapidly would be.

Supreme Court Considers Delaying Health Care Ruling To 2014

2012-02-21T16:45:50Z

The Supreme Court is poised to rule this summer on the constitutionality of the health care reform law's requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. But it has the legal option to delay a decision until at least 2014, and although the possibility has received little attention, new evidence suggests that justices are considering it more strongly.

The temporary escape hatch involves the Anti-Injunction Act, an age-old law that says courts may not halt a tax that isn't yet being collected. (Under the Affordable Care Act, it won't be collected until 2014.) Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last fall tossed out a lawsuit against the mandate on this basis, most courts have decreed that the statute doesn't apply here.

But further evidence that justices may disagree came Tuesday, when the Supreme Court increased the time for next month's oral arguments from 5.5 hours to 6 hours, allotting an extra half hour to discuss the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. That means there will be a full hour and a half to discuss whether the court has the authority to rule on the health law this year.

Because the Obama administration and the plaintiffs agree that the AIA does not apply -- arguing that the provision functions more as a penalty than a revenue-raising tax -- the high court has appointed two veteran attorneys to argue that it does. The considerations come over the objections of Democrats and Republicans who each say they want a speedy ruling.

This might just be the high court doing its due diligence -- the expectation remains that a final decision will be handed down by the end of June. But observers have noted that, judicial reasoning aside, Chief Justice John Roberts in particular may not want the Supreme Court to become an election-year piñata so soon after the 2010 Citizens United ruling. No matter the decision, the court is expected to take plenty of heat from the losing side.

Delaying the ruling to 2014 or beyond could also have damaging implications for the nation's health care system. For instance, some states have been wary of implementing the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges until a decision is handed down, and might continue hedging if it's postponed. And in the event that the mandate is struck down, other aspects of the law may be in danger, and rolling them back years after the fact could be a costly, messy transition.

Presented By:

2012-02-21T16:45:50Z

Franklin Graham Can't 'Categorically' Say President Obama Not A Muslim

2012-02-21T16:34:33Z

Today in we are still having this conversation: Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of influential preacher Billy Graham, said Tuesday he believes President Obama is a Christian, but he could actually be a Muslim, too.

"(Obama's) said he's a Christian, so I just have to assume, you know, that he is," Graham said on MSNBC's Morning Joe, adding that he doesn't know whether Obama has accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. Then Graham repeated his claim that Obama's father was a Muslim and therefore the "Muslim world sees (Obama) as a son of Islam."

Graham said he doesn't believe Obama is personally a Muslim, because, you know, the president has said that he is not. But he wouldn't go so far as to say "categorically" that Obama doesn't practice Islam.

"I can't say categorically because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama," Graham said, referring to the Arab Spring protests across the Middle East and North Africa. He called deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak a dictator, but said he kept the peace with Israel. As dictators fall, Graham said, Islamists are taking control of the Middle East. "Now, those Christian minorities throughout the entire Arab world are under attack."

Watch the video:

Jon Stewart Blasts Darrell Issa's 'Punanny State'

2012-02-21T14:26:18Z

Remember the all-male panel convened last week on the Obama administration's birth control rule? Or, as Jon Stewart called the uproar on Monday, the "punanny state."

The panel featured one outlandish statement after another, Stewart said, including testimony equating a religious institution being required to cover birth control to a kosher deli being forced to serve pork. Stewart, eating a pastrami sandwich, had something to say about that.

"Your parable about the kosher deli, while delicious, makes no fucking sense," he said. "Nobody's forcing the kosher deli owner to serve ham. In the metaphor, it's more like the owner of the kosher deli is refusing to pay taxes because his money could go to food stamps, which someone might theoretically use to buy ham."

Watch the video:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Punanny State

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Stephen Colbert Addresses His Absence

2012-02-21T13:34:41Z

Stephen Colbert is back! "Hi, how ya been?" Colbert asked the Colbert Report audience Monday after his brief hiatus. Colbert addressed his recent absence from the "national conversation" and depriving his viewers a look at his face.

SLIDESHOW: Stephen Colbert Testifies On Capitol Hill

"I'm sure you felt the same way I do when I'm in a room without mirrors," Colbert said, before addressing some of the wilder rumors surrounding his absence. Cancelled by the FCC? Rehab? Plastic surgery? Nope. Reports suggested last week that Colbert canceled production of the show to be with his ailing mother. He hinted at that during Monday's intro.

"One more thing," he said. "Evidently having 11 children makes you tough as nails. Confidential to a lovely lady."

Watch the video:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Intro - 2/20/12

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

Politico Gaffe Becomes Organizing Tool In Wisconsin Recall Effort

2012-02-20T16:57:42Z

When President Obama spoke to workers in Wisconsin last week, Politico accidentally made itself the story. The paper's reporter mistook the Wisconsin state flag for the seal of a local union, and cited it as an illustration of President Obama's pro-union bias.

Politico cleaned the egg off its face by wiping the story from the Internet. But the gaffe made the rounds among actual union officials in the state and now that the laughter's subsided, they've turned it into a membership drive.

"When national news blog Politico came to Milwaukee to cover Pres. Obama's visit, they incorrectly identified the Wisconsin flag as the "flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848." Many people got a chuckle at the embarrassing mistake, but we think it really represents something larger," reads a new AFSCME petition. "So let's say it loud and say it proud! Join as a charter member of "Wisconsin Local 1848" today. We'll share up-to-the-minute information on statewide issues that affect us all."

And there's a t-shirt to go along with it.

Ironically, Politico's error occurred at a time when national unions are frustrated at President Obama for supporting two pieces of legislation -- a long-term FAA reauthorization, and the payroll tax cut bill -- both of which cut against labor interests.

Gallup: Iran, China Top America's 'Greatest Enemy' List

2012-02-20T15:44:50Z

America needs adversaries. And according to a new Gallup poll, Americans are happy to place Iran and China at the top of its "greatest enemy" list.

Iran leads with 32 percent of respondents listing the Middle Eastern country as the United States' top enemy. That number is up from 25 percent in 2011, and Iran has topped the list for the past five surveys since 2005.

Gallup cites Iran's continued public announcements of its growing nuclear capabilities, threatening Israel and the possibility that it could disrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East as contributing factors to America's negative view.

Late last week, a bipartisan coalition of senators essentially promised military action against Iran if it became capable of producing nuclear weapons. There was just one little problem: they didn't bother to define what they meant by "capable."

American officials have been cautioning Israel against attacking Iran. National security advsier Tom Donilon on Sunday met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And other western officials have said a strike against Iran would be "destabilizing" and not "the wise thing" to do at this time, the New York Times reports.

America's negative view of China has more to do with the economy, according to the Gallup poll. Twenty-three percent of respondents view China as the United States' top enemy. It fits into the Republican narrative that America is losing its place as the world's leading nation under President Obama. Mitt Romney has campaigned against China, promising to label the country a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency unless it changes its ways.

While Americans feel anxious about China's booming economic growth, they view the country much more favorably than Iran. Americans give China a 41 percent favorable rating, according to Gallup.

How Republicans Could Still Succeed At Privatizing Medicare

2012-02-20T09:55:00Z

Republicans may be backing off their famously toxic plan by Paul Ryan to privatize Medicare, but they've doubled down on the broader concept and are taking strategic steps to get there over time. Democrats currently have the upper hand in their battle to protect traditional Medicare for the future, but unless they thwart the GOP's drumbeat and build support for their alternate vision, it may not be for long.

There's little disagreement that Medicare is currently on an unsustainable trajectory, with costs spiraling out of control thanks in part to aging baby boomers. Democrats and Republicans both want to rein in Medicare spending, and the two sides increasingly agree that per-beneficiary outlays should be held down to per-capita GDP plus 1 percent, a substantial reduction from projections. But they strongly disagree on how to get there.

Republicans want to turn Medicare into a subsidized private insurance structure and cut costs on the beneficiary side. This concept -- dubbed "premium support" by backers and "vouchers" by critics -- would end the coverage guarantee and give seniors a fixed amount to shop for insurance on a private exchange. If the subsidy is too small, tough luck; they're on their own.

The Ryan budget aimed to replace traditional Medicare with this concept. But after voting overwhelmingly for it last year, Republicans have grown conscious of the political reality that it's too radical to pass, and are offering up gentler versions of its core components. Two months ago Ryan himself teamed up with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to unveil a new blueprint that keeps traditional Medicare alive as an option in the exchanges and has less harsh benefit cuts. Last week Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) rolled out a more fully developed version of a similar plan, containing provisions clearly aimed at enticing Democrats.

The idea was first proposed by former Sen. Pete Domenici (R) and former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin before Ryan ran with it. Wyden is the only Democrat to support the concept -- the White House and Dems otherwise remain strongly opposed to any version of it.

Contrary to Republican claims, Democrats do have a plan to keep Medicare solvent: the plan is to keep its single-payer structure and cut costs on the provider side. The health care reform law lays the framework for such a mechanism starting in 2014 called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a panel of 15 presidential-appointed and senate-confirmed members that has the authority to restrict provider payments without congressional approval. (The theory is lawmakers won't do it on their own.)

But keeping IPAB alive will be a hard slog. One reason is Republicans are determined to smother it in its cradle: they've threatened not to confirm any members to the board, and it's unlikely Dems will have a filibuster-proof Senate majority anytime soon. The second reason is that health industry opposition to IPAB is so vociferous and united that some Dems are running away from it and signing on to GOP legislation to repeal the panel.

And fears about what IPAB will mean for their bottom line has led insurance and drug industry heavyweights to champion the premium support concept. Behind the scenes they're part of a growing drumbeat to kill IPAB and move in the direction of vouchers, and Dems aren't doing much to quell it as of now.

That could come back to haunt them. If IPAB dies, the only proposal on the table to keep Medicare solvent in the long run could well be something akin to the Ryan concept. And while Republicans are taking the political hits for sticking by the approach and portraying it as inevitable, Dems have barely worked to build support for implementing IPAB. If that doesn't change, the momentum for phasing out traditional Medicare will grow.