Polls in the US show that support for the Tea Party movement is dropping fast. The Tea Party represents the worst of America: hate, bigotry, and crude misinformation. The final straw for many Americans was the Tea Party-inspired Republican budget plan that called for the phase-out of Medicare – one of the most successful and popular government programs ever.
In Germany the Tea Party still has its admirers. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Tea Party tactics and policies in Germany is the American radio announcer Heather De Lisle. On her blog and in her book Amiland she attacks President Obama and the Democrats and extolls the virtues of the Tea Party.
Last week in Berlin she attended a forum for right-wing activists in the CDU where she urged the 150 hard-core activists to adopt Tea Party methods:
Als Vorbild dient dabei laut dem Sprecher der Initiative, Michael Nickel, die konservative amerikanische „Tea Party“-Bewegung aus dem Umfeld der Republikaner. Hierfür wolle man auch die Ratschläge der amerikanischen Journalistin und „Tea Party“-Expertin Heather DeLisle beherzigen. DeLisle hatte auf dem Konservativen Kongreß betont, die „Tea Party“ habe auch viel mit geschickter Vermarktung zu tun. Konservative Organisationen in Deutschland müßten daher „knackiger und dynamischer“ werden, um ihre Außendarstellung zu verbessern.
(The spokesman for the initiative, Michael Nickel, sees as the model the conservative American "Tea Party" movement, associated with the Republicans. The American journalist and Tea Party expert Heather DeLisle added her advice. DeLisle stressed that the Tea Party employs clever martketing techniques. Conservatie organizations in Germany need to be more dynamic and deliver a crisp message if they want to elevate their image.)
Also present at the forum was the disgraced former CDU politician Martin Hohmann, who was forced from office after making anti-Semitic remarks. His presence also points to some nice parallels with the American Tea Party.
0 comment
The Tea Party isn’t my cup of tea, but it is ridiculous (and false) to say that the “Tea Party-inspired Republican budget plan that called for the phase-out of Medicare”. The budget plan, known as the Ryan plan after the Congressman who proposed it, will for the forseeable future, spend more on Medicare than ever in the history of the programme. The main controversy concerns the rate of increase in spending (Ryan wants a small increase, Obama’s Dems want a large increase).
Ryan also wants some other reforms to Medicare, which actually make it more like Obamacare (i.e. Medicare would pay for insurance, rather than paying for medical procedures directly).
So apparently when Republicans and Tea Partiers embrace parts of ObamaCare (under a different name, of course) they are accused of ending Medicare as we know it!
The Homann-affair..
An easy-to-remember incident that proves how much work lies ahead until no tiny minority has the power to decide for the rest of the country on who is to be a “worthy” / “unworthy” politician.
In this particular incident, the entire ugliness became visible for everyone.
No, it is NOT false to point out that the Republican plan would phase out Medicare and replace it with a private scheme that hurts seniors to fund a massive $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy (re-branded “job creators”).
People are not stupid. All across the country everyone except Tea Party fanatics are expressing outrage at the plan, so Boehner is trying to walk it back.
I am fortunate to be healthy enough to run half-marathons, but – due to a pre-existing condition – I cannot get health insurance, even if I pay a $15K premium. What makes you think I could get insured at age 65 with $15K?
Currently, 50 million Americans are uninsured. Under the Ryan plan, that number would at least double. The Tea Party would celebrate – until they themselves get sick….
David,
The Medicare changes in the Ryan budget can’t possibly fund any tax cuts for anyone, because THERE ARE NO MEDICARE SPENDING CUTS IN THE RYAN BUDGET. Medicare spending still increases, although a lower rate.
BTW, are you a resident of Massachusetts?
Have you even read the Ryan plan? It PHASES OUT MEDICARE over time, replacing it with a voucher scheme that can’t possibly work for seniors.
It includes a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.
The entire scheme falls apart – according to the OMB – without the MEDICARE PHASE-OUT.
Don’t try to argue with me about the US health care system. I am intimately aware of all aspects as I try to provide for myself, my children and my parents – who are on Medicare.
No, I am a resident of Maine, where our Tea Party governor is trying to PHASE OUT MEDICAID, denying health care access to thousands of low income residents.
Why is this debate of interest to German or other European readers?
Both the US and the EU/Eurozone have a massive entitlements deficit. Promised benefits massively exceed revenues; the gaps are so large that no *realistic* revenue plan could ever close the gaps. How our respective societies deal with this problem will be the biggest political issue of the coming decades.
—
David, the OMB is a partisan agency that works for the White House (of whatever administration happens to be in power). What does the non-Partisan CBO have to say?
“The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff. The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028 and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path.”
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf (page 13)
The tax “cuts” are actually tax *increases* consistent with the historic range of taxation in the US (15-20% of GDP). These *increases* are only “cuts” if you assume that the proposed Obama tax increases (20-25% of GDP, requiring massive increase in revenues from non-rich) are 1) real (they mostly haven’t become law yet) and 2) sustainable (historically, they aren’t).
The Ryan plan, if successful, will get debt under control (see CBO), while preserving most of the social safety net. Meanwhile, the Obama plan, if successful, actually causes the CBO’s computer models to crash! The programmers never imagined that we could sustain that much long-term debt.
I think it is fair to criticize the Ryan plan as 1) lacking specifics re tax law and 2) the tax increases are back-loaded (but so are Obama’s tax proposals).
Both sides want to keep taxes low in the short run, in order to promote economic recovery. Don’t you want that too?
If the Ryan plan is so dandy, why are Republicans running like mad from it even after they voted for it?
The Ryan plan must have been designed by a pimple-faced intern at the Heritage Foundation with some knowledge of Microsoft Excel who jerks off to images of Ayn Rand. It is hilarious that that he got “serious” adults like Ryan and yourself to buy into it. The plan projects that by giving more tax cuts to the wealthy unemployment will drop to 2.8% in 2020 – a rate that has NEVER been achieved in our nation’s history. The savings in the plan are only achieved by PHASING OUT MEDICARE. Take out the MEDICARE PRIVATIZATION SCHEME and the whole house of cards collapses.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m elated that Ryan has forced the Republican House to go on record by voting for the MEDICARE PHASE-OUT and $1 trillion tax cut for wealthy Americans. This virtually assures President Obama’s reelection.
Europeans must be scratching their heads at the entire debate. They long ago made the moral decision that universal health care for all citizens was a right. Only here in the US do we believe that the “markets” (i.e profits for insurers) are more important than the well-being of our population.
The Europeans in general have only delivered lifetime, “universal” health care to the first post-war generation. Already, they are finding themselves hard pressed to keep the promise to the 2nd generation. The promise to the future generations is a flat out lie, absent major reform.
Scientific research is distorted by the need to prevent discoveries of drugs and therapies that are too expensive for the system to deliver.
Also, their “universal” health care sometimes permits, and increasingly, encourages, postpartum infant euthanasia…a rare but truly barbaric practice…apparently the right is not so universal.
As to the others…those who the system deems worthy of permitting to live…universal health care is achieved only by suppressing expectations about appropriate care. Already there is a great deal of stigma attached to “selfish” family members who refuse to let the system “make the patient comfortable”, another barbaric euphemism. Soon it will be a matter of law.
Europeans are already scratching their heads wondering why it can take months to deliver care that the US system delivers in days or weeks.
What body part will Europeans scratch when the money runs out? It will be something below the head, I think.
That is completely absurd. Can you point to instances in the last 10 years of euthanasia in France or Germany? I lived in Germany and the health care I received as first rate and cost very little.
Every indicator – from infant mortality to longevity – proves that the health care systems in Germany, France , Scandinavia, Canada and Great Britain are superior to the US.
I serve on the board of a Canadian technology company. Canadians are generally not a contentious lot, but they would fight like hell if someone proposed to eliminate their single-payer system. One of the key executives of this company recently had a serious illness. The care he received was timely and excellent – and cost nothing to him or the company.
Re infant euthanasia, are France and Germany the only countries in Europe?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/netherlands-grapples-euthanasia-babies/
There is strong, albeit anecdotal evidence, that this isn’t just a Dutch problem, and not just an infant problem, particularly in the UK. The Dutch have gotten further along in their thinking, and are trying to deal with this dilemma openly.
The infant mortality stats are better in Europe because many premature infants are not counted, unless they survive. Also, infant and adult differences are due to demographic differences, including our more generous immigration policies.
“cost nothing”? You mean your Canadian colleague and his company didn’t pay any taxes?
There are positive aspects of the European (and Canadian) approach to health care, but claims of a utopian “universal” “right” need a strong dose of reality.
My guess is you don’t know any Europeans or Canadians personally. Your knowledge of the world is limited to what you hear on Fox News or read in right-wing journals.
My mother’s college roommate was from Paris, and the families have stayed close. Also we have a family friend in Grenoble. We have relatives and friends in England, I myself am 1/4 English by birth.
I grew up in suburban Detroit, about 5 miles from the Canadian border. Growing up, I watched plenty of Canadian TV and Radio, I made many friends, and many visits. Today, one of my good friends is a Pakistani-Canadian Ph.D in Computer Science (genetic algorithms, very hot right now) from Montreal, currently living in Boston.
So yes, I do know some Europeans and Canadians. Most of them would be closer to your position that mine, but others are utterly appalled by some of the things they see happening in their countries.
Also, are you seriously claiming that MSNBC (via the AP) is a right-wing source? Have you become a Chomsky-bot or something?
Face it, David, parts of “civilized” Europe practice state-approved, postpartum infant euthanasia (in rare cases; roughly comparable to our use of the Death Penalty).
Of course, de facto there is some of that in the US system as well, but that is in spite of our best efforts; none of it is government-approved.
There is some discussion in the US of adult euthanasia (with consent) but it is much more common in Europe.