Workers' Comp: Senators Look To Slash Benefits For Disabled Civil Servants 10NOV11

TYPICAL of the wanton disregard for the working and middle classes by the gop / tea-bagger kabal and that kapo joe lieberman. These political whores won't consider cutting corporate welfare for fear of loosing campaign contributions from the rich and the business and financial institutions who control them. No, they will turn on those with the least in money, power and influence, those whose interest and welfare they are supposed to be representing. Disgusting.

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are looking to cut benefits for federal workers disabled on the job, a budget-trimming move that critics warn could leave many injured civil servants and their families without enough to live on in retirement.
With support from Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs moved forward Wednesday with a Postal Service reform bill that would apply broad workers' compensation reforms to all federal workers. Many disabled federal employees who have reached retirement age currently receive between 66 and 75 percent of the salary they had at the time of their injury, but the bill pushed by Lieberman and Collins would cut that to 50 percent.
Some employees who aren't at retirement age would also lose benefits they receive for children or other dependents they care for. Ron Watson, a workers' comp expert at the National Association of Letter Carriers, says the reductions are "intentionally targeted at injured workers with families, their widows and widowers, and the elderly."
But in a Senate hearing Wednesday, Collins suggested the cuts were targeted at nonagenarians who are bleeding the workers' comp system, citing federal workers who are "99-years-old" and still collecting a substantial portion of their salaries from old workplace injuries. She also said the White House has shown support for many of the proposed reforms.
"These are not draconian changes," Collins said of the bill. "We've worked very hard to come up with a fair approach. This involves substantial money."
Opponents of the legislation say no one has looked closely at how these cuts would affect disabled workers financially, particularly those on the lower end of the wage scale. They also worry that the bill will serve as a model for the congressional super committee, the body tasked with reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) has been the most vocal skeptic of the workers' comp changes, urging his colleagues to study the issue further before acting.
"We may set benefits too low, seriously harming disabled workers," Akaka said Wednesday. "We must not make arbitrary cuts that could harm the disabled ... who sustained injuries in the service of their country."
For decades the federal workers' compensation program has been considered the benchmark for such programs across the country, providing a generous lifeline for civil servants who can no longer perform their duties because of on-the-job injuries. Lawmakers have talked time and again about the need to reform the program due to costs, but new political pressures to trim the federal budget have made changes all the more likely.
Unions for federal employees have been watching the debate closely. Last week a group of 13 unions sent a letter to Lieberman voicing their "strong objections" to the inclusion of broad workers' compensation reform in a bill meant to address only the Postal Service's financial problems. Postal employees account for about 40 percent of the disbursements under the workers' comp law, known as the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, or FECA.
"The proposed legislation would impose a substantial and unfair income reduction for federal employees who simply came to work one day ready to serve their country but tragically suffered an injury that took away their ability to ever work again," union officials wrote.
A Democratic aide in the House told HuffPost that the cuts would disproportionately hurt workers who were disabled at a young age or while in a low-wage position. Workers' comp benefits are tax-free and will remain so, he noted, but that does little good for a low-income earner who's already paying little in taxes.
"The core premise around workers comp is that you should be no better off and no worse off" after the injury, the aide said. "But with this bill many people will be far worse off, particularly on the lower end of the wage scale."
At Wednesday's hearing, Collins said the committee had adopted "most" of the recommendations put forth by the White House, which could save $500 billion over the course of ten years.
But the savings could come at a great cost for disabled workers, said Joe Mansour, a workers' comp expert with the Council of Prison Locals, which represents prison employees. Mansour told HuffPost that his groups' members are vulnerable to stabbings and other assaults by inmates, and that they'll see less compensation under the Senate bill in the event of a disabling attack.
"It's punitive for being injured," Mansour said. "They're saying don't be involved in any serious accidents, because you're going to go home and make a lot less money."

Joe Lieberman, Tom Coburn Plan To Slash Medicare Gets Cold Reception 28JUN11

"Learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow."
- Isaiah 1:17

SEN tom coburn's support of this plan is understandable, he is a typical gop politician owned by the wealthy and corporate America and feels no responsibility or concern for the welfare of average Americans. Sen joe lieberman's support is disturbing because he completely turns his back on the teachings of his faith, casting aside the admonishments of Judaism concerning the poor, the elderly, the widow. Sen lieberman would have been a good Capo in hitler's nazi germany, just as he has no qualms about tossing the poor, retired, the needy aside so too he would have willingly turned in his fellow Jews to the SS and gestapo, sent them off on the transport trains to the concentration camps to be gassed, all in a vain attempt to keep himself alive. Sen lieberman, your day is coming, just like if you were a nazi Capo, and you, along with your greedy cohorts in congress will reap the rewards for your betrayal. From HuffPost....
WASHINGTON -- A new plan unveiled by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn to slash costs in Medicare is getting a cold reception on Capitol Hill.
The new effort aimed at bridging the partisan divide over debt reduction aims to cut more than $640 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years, largely by raising deductibles and other costs for beneficiaries.
It would require wealthier Americans to pay the full cost of their Medicare premiums, raise the eligibility age to from 65 to 67, create a minimum out-of-pocket deductible of $550 and raise premiums, among other changes.
In return for paying more and giving up benefits, seniors would get a cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $7,500 to ensure bankruptcy was less of a threat.
Democrats dismissed the ideas out of hand.
"It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare -- all while Republicans back tax breaks for Big Oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "Just like the Republican plan to end Medicare, this proposal is unacceptable, especially for struggling middle-class Americans."
Republicans did not exactly flock to the idea either. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell merely said the work by the Connecticut independent Lieberman and Oklahoma Republican Coburn underscores "the necessity of doing something serious about entitlement reform."
"We can put our heads in the sand and ignore that, and keep on kicking the can down the road, or we can come together as Sen. Coburn and Sen. Lieberman have with their particular proposal and try to do something about it," McConnell added.
Although the plan met such a chilly reception, reports out of the White House Tuesday suggested President Obama is hunting for a fresh option to trim Medicare costs -- a key part of the debt talks -- and thinking a lot larger than Democrats have been willing talk about so far.
If Republicans agree to revenue hikes President Obama wants, the Lieberman-Coburn plan could offer a bipartisan refuge.
But there are political realities that would make it a hard proposition for either side to embrace.
For one, Democrats likely would have to give up their relentless hammering of the Republican plans to cut Medicare -- which the Democrat-aligned Protect Your Care signled Tuesday it was not about to do.
"A plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors is a plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors no matter what co-sponsors you put on it," said Protect Your Care spokesman Eddie Vale. "This so called 'plan' is just as dangerous for seniors as the Republican budget that ends Medicare."
For Republicans, accepting the plan would also be difficult because a huge portion of the savings depend on maintaining the health reform law that they have vowed to repeal.
"It's miraculous in a way, because this legislation gets a Republican to embrace ACA [the Affordable Care Act]," one health care lobbyist told The Huffington Post.
If the heath reform were repealed, the Lieberman-Coburn measure requires keeping the eligibility age at 65 -- costing $124 billion.
The ideas are also not likely to go over well with older Americans, who would have to pay 35 percent of the cost of the premiums, instead of 25 percent. Plus, the plan aims to discourage people from going to doctors by raising deductibles.
While the plan would also raise money by making wealthier Americans pay 100 percent of their premium costs -- and by denying some payments to hospitals -- the vast majority of savings come from the pockets of beneficiaries.
The bill contains few of the popular cost-saving ideas that many advocates for reform have embraced, such as improving efficiency, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and using generics.
AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, estimated that 95 percent of the savings come from seniors. And while the group liked capping the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, and an effort to stabilize payments to doctors, they opposed it overall.
"We believe the right way to strengthen Medicare is to improve the quality and lower the cost of care throughout the health care system," said AARP's Nancy LeaMond. "Simply shifting the bill to seniors does nothing to improve health care quality or combat the real problem of rising costs."

Democrats Increasingly Wary Of Being Held Hostage In Debt Ceiling Debate 21APR11

THE Democrats and Pres Obama can not give in to the repiglicans and the tea-baggers and expect the base to support them with our time and money. I have had enough of giving in to the greed of these political whores who owe their elected office to the financial support of the rich and corporate America, and expect the Democrats to reject any legislation on the debt limit that includes any part of the agenda of the right-wing extremest to cut spending of social safety net programs and contribute to the destruction of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. 
WASHINGTON -- There is increasing concern among Democratic officials both on and off the Hill that Republicans will draw out negotiations over raising the nation’s debt ceiling in an effort to institute one of several blunter deficit-reduction measures.
In recent days, chatter among operatives and Hill aides has centered on one specific addition the GOP is pushing in exchange for signing off on a debt limit increase. A cap on overall government spending -- bringing it to 20.6 percent of GDP over the course of ten years -- has been sharply criticized as too crude and potentially damaging for a fragile economy. But the proposal, known as the CAP Act, has bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. And as Republican leadership surveys the landscape to see what type of concessions it can extract during the debt-ceiling debate, members have honed in on caps, viewing them as an easy sell to both on-the-fence lawmakers and the public.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office declined to comment on ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling, which currently stands at $14.3 trillion and will need to be raised sometime in late May or June. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said, in a statement on Thursday, that "Republicans will not agree to raise the debt limit without binding budget reforms and immediate spending cuts." With respect to what amendment leadership would welcome, a top leadership aide would only say that, “no decisions have been made.”
For Democrats, the fact that talks are still ongoing -- and concrete details have yet to be hammered out -- is troubling in its own right. The closer that the government comes to breaching its debt limit, the more likely the party is to make a deal on spending caps.
“The fear is that the House will sit on the debt limit till mid-June, and then do nothing, and then pass a bill with global caps, send it to the Senate and dare them to vote against it,” said one party operative who has been involved in debt limit discussions. “And the concern is moderate Democrats will then feel like they have to vote for it.”
A last minute scenario along these lines would put a tremendous amount of pressure on some of the more fiscally conservative members of the Democratic Party. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is a co-sponsor of the spending caps bill in the Senate. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) is the chief Democratic shepherd of the idea in the House.
McCaskill's office did not say, one way or the other, whether she believed the CAP Act could or should be attached to a deficit ceiling vote, just that Republicans shouldn’t delay the process as a negotiating tactic. “[The Senator] thinks it is profoundly irresponsible to play chicken with the debt limit vote, especially to pursue divisive social issues," said McCaskill spokesperson Laura Myron.

An aide to Cooper, meanwhile, pointed out that that despite his support for the CAP Act, the congressman has warned against brinksmanship in the debt-ceiling debate. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), another proponent of spending caps, would not support raising the debt limit unless the CAP Act or something similar were attached, his office confirmed.
To that point, Senate Democratic leadership has grown personally engaged in the debate telling members to hold the line against strict caps. One aide relayed that even some unlikely suspects, such as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrard (D-N.D.), have adamantly argued that the party should insist on tax policy being part of the discussion.
“There is strong feelings, at least with the overall grand bargain on debt reduction, that revenues need to be in the picture,” said a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
A failure to address revenue needs is, critics argue, just one of the substantive problems with the CAP Act. The legislation also requires that federal spending be brought to a level (as percentage of GDP) below where it was during the Reagan administration. At a time when people are living longer than ever, this would likely lead to draconian cuts in Social Security or Medicare. The CAP Act's timeframe is also considered problematic. Spending currently represents roughly 24 percent of GDP. To bring that down to 20.6 percent in the next ten years could end up thrusting the country back into a recession.
“No one should be fooled by so-called global spending caps,” Michelle Nawar, Director for Legislation at the Service Employees International Union told The Huffington Post last week. “They are nothing more than a backdoor to the Republican budget and cutting services for seniors and children.”
Rather than scrap the idea altogether, however, lawmakers on the Hill have discussed tinkering with it, both to make it more palatable to objecting Democrats and, subsequently, ease its inclusion in a debt-ceiling compromise. Among the changes being discussed are raising the end target for spending as percentage of GDP (to something higher than 20.6) and elongating the timeframe, or “glide path” for reaching that goal (to, perhaps, 15 or 20 years).
“Undoubtedly there will be changes made, but the main point has been that Congress doesn’t do anything unless they have their feet to the fire. They have to have hard deadlines and this sets some hard deadlines,” said one Hill aide whose boss is supportive of spending caps.
Such talks remain in nascent stages. But the longer they go on, the more likely it is that Democrats will be put in an untenable position: more willing to embrace spending caps than see the debt ceiling reached, and, once again, enduring the resentment of their base.
“This wouldn’t be a compromise, but a complete capitulation by Democrats and our values,” said Nawar.