Liberal Voice of the Pomona Valley

  Special General Election Issue

Election day is Tuesday, November 6th

  Candidates Endorsed by The Democratic Party 

US President Barack Obama
US Senate Diane Feinstein

Congress CD27 Judy Chu
State Senate SD25 Carol Liu
State Assembly AD41 Chris Holden
Los Angeles District Attorney

Jackie Lacey*

* supports death penalty; opposes legalization of recreational drug use

Fact Check:  Did Obama cut $716 Billion from Medicare?

October 3, 2012  ---  During the fist Presidential debate,  Obama initially seemed to pre-empt Romney’s frequent criticism that the president cut $716 billion from Medicare, by bringing it up himself and saying the cost savings were from reduced payments to insurance companies and other health care providers. But Mr. Romney returned to it, suggesting that the $716 billion in Medicare reductions would indeed come from current beneficiaries.

While fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked this claim, it remains a standard attack line for Mr. Romney.

The charge that Mr. Obama took $716 billion from Medicare recipients to pay for his “Obamacare” has several problems — not least the fact that Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, included the identical savings in his annual budget plans that nearly all House Republicans voted for in the past two years.

Mr. Obama did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms.

According to nonpartisan analysts, it is Mr. Romney who would both cut benefits and add costs for beneficiaries if he restored the $716 billion in reductions. Restoring higher payments to insurers and other companies would in turn increase Medicare premiums because beneficiaries share in Medicare’s total cost. Marilyn Moon, a vice president at the American Institutes for Research, has calculated that a Medicare recipient’s out-of-pocket expenses would increase $577 a year on average by 2022.

Also, the Obama reductions added eight years to the life of Medicare’s financially troubled trust fund, to 2024, according to Medicare trustees. If the cuts were restored, the insolvency date would revert to 2016.

The charge that Mr. Obama raided Medicare originated with House Republicans two years ago in the 2010 midterm elections, and is credited with helping them to win a House majority. In 2010, however, they spoke of $500 billion in Medicare cuts over 10 years, through fiscal year 2020; $716 billion is the updated sum for 2013 through 2022, and reflects increases in the cost of care and the number of Medicare recipients.

Source: New York Times, October  4, 2012

Watch behind-the-scenes convention highlights from Charlotte

Obama’s Friends React to the First Presidential Debate

“When Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School, he was never known as a particularly good debater. In class, if he thought that a fellow student had said something foolish, he showed no forensic bloodlust. He did not go out of his way to defeat someone in argument; instead he tried, always with a certain decorous courtesy, to try to persuade, to reframe his interlocutor’s view, to signal his understanding while disagreeing. Obama became president of the law review—the first African-American to do so—but he won as a voice of conciliation. He avoided the Ames Moot Court Competition, where near contemporaries like Cass Sunstein, Deval Patrick, and Kathleen Sullivan made their names.

“Laurence H. Tribe, a leading constitutional-law scholar and Obama’s mentor at Harvard, told me after  his first debate with Mitt Romney, “Although I would have been happier with a more aggressive debate performance by the President, I’ve had to remind myself that Barack Obama’s instincts and talents have never included going for an opponent’s jugular. That’s just not who he is or ever has been.”

“Some of Obama’s old friends from Harvard and from his early days as an organizer and as a neophyte politician in Chicago were disappointed that Obama so clearly lost the debate—at least on the level of sheer performance if not substance—but the tone of that performance did not come entirely as a shock.  Christopher Edley, Jr., who also taught Obama at Harvard, served as an informal adviser, and is now dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, laughed when I asked him if he was disappointed by the President’s strangely absent demeanor and pedagogical answers. “I’m a professor and he was a professor: What’s the problem?!” he said. “I usually don’t treat being professorial as a problem. It’s usually great in my book, but he played in that particular comfort zone of his and it was a mismatch for the occasion.”

Source: The New Yorker

  Bain Capital Defrauded Sellers
By Eric Lichtblau and Peter Lattman

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2012 --- In court documents that lawyers for Bain Capital sought to keep secret, Bain and other leading private equity firms are depicted as unofficial partners in a bid-rigging conspiracy aimed at holding down the prices of businesses they were seeking to buy. In Bain’s biggest acquisition, the $32.1 billion purchase of the hospital giant HCA in 2006, competitors agreed privately to “stand down” and not bid on the company as part of an understanding with Bain to divvy up companies targeted for leveraged buyouts, according to internal e-mails. The documents have become part of a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston brought against Bain and other firms by shareholders who say the firms’ bid-rigging artificially deflated the sales price of more than two dozen companies and cost them billions of dollars.

Source: New York Times, September 12, 2012

 Ryan Voted Against Health Care for 9-11 Heroes

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, the law that created the World Trade Center Health Program to provide compensation for illnesses for the first responders and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, has been expanded to include coverage for a variety of cancers.
The law was passed in 2010, named for police detective James Zadroga, who died at age 34 after working at Ground Zero. You might remember that Republicans opposed the bill in committee and then blocked passage of the bill under suspension before it was finally passed in the House under a regular rule and sent to the Senate.

Paul Ryan was among Republicans voting against providing coverage to the 9/11 heroes. He voted against it in July 2010 and again in September 2010. He didn't vote against final passage in December 2010 because he's already skipped town for the holiday break. But when Congress reconvened in January, he gave a floor statement saying that he would have voted against it, again.  Ryan explained in a floor statement that he would have opposed the final passage vote, too, calling the bill “deeply flawed.” He also complained that it “would create a new health care entitlement, the World Trade Center Health Program, while also extending eligibility for compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.” Apparently, in Ryan's mind, they're just moochers, looking for an entitlement.

Source: Daily Kos, September 11, 2012

 Enjoying the Romney/Ryan  Experience
The light side of Mitt Romney

 A fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman... and so forth. However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an Exotic Dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside. "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and is helping to get Romney elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."

Hey, Kids!
Full Details of Romney Tax Plan

Fifty Shades of Romney
2nd debate: Romney enjoys “Binders of Women”
We knew he was a lover, but never guessed BDSM.

A canine abuser named Mitt
Ordered his people to sit,
Then explained that his name
Was destined for Fame
In the new phrase, my dog “took a Mitt.”

Romney’s family motto: “Mitt happens”

Joss Whedon 'endorses' Mitt Romney to bring on zombie apocalypse

A Gee Oh Pee speaker named Ryan
Had a serious habit of Lyin’
When he said, “I did not”
It meant, who knew what?
So voters are not buyin’ Ryan

 “One More Term”

Paul Krugman Heading to White House Job?
by Charles D. Hayes

Reports surfaced Oct. 4, following the Romney/Obama debate, that Nobel Prize Winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman will be offered the job of chairman for the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Should President Obama be reelected, it’s no secret that there will be major changes in his second administration.

At the top, both Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner have said they plan to step down. Geithner wants to return to Wall St. – no surprise there; often, his actions at Treasury made it seem as if he never left – and Clinton will have a dizzying array of attractive options from book deals and corporate directorships to planning a presidential run in 2016. Other cabinet secretaries are likely to follow, including Attorney General Eric Holder who’s become a lightning rod for Democrats and Republicans alike thanks to a triad of missteps including not prosecuting anyone on Wall St. for their role in the financial meltdown, not being more aggressive in fighting voter suppression and mishandling the “Fast and Furious” controversy.

. . . One advisor who will leave is Alan Krueger, chair of the Council of Economic Advisors since 2011. And even more persistent rumors are floating around that the president will ask Princeton University professor, New York Times columnist and blogger, and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman to take Krueger’s place.

Romney ‘s Moment of Candor?

On May 7, 2012, Mitt Romney spoke at a $50,000 a plate dinner in Florida.  At this event, he made the following remarks in response to a question. Ed.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax...

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Are YOU a Moocher?

The following test will enable you to ascertain whether you are a dependent moocher in the opinion of GOP candidate Romney.

Your score

2-10: Yes, you are a moocher. Scum like you vote for Obama.
1: Congratulations. You are a non-moocher, and you should vote for Romney.

Romney’s  Duplicitous Strategy
by Ivan Light

Romney claims that he can create more jobs than can President Obama. Ask yourself: How might his claim ever prove correct? The answer hinges on Romney’s cryptic five-point plan, details of which he will not disclose. Romney says he will add two trillion to the defense budget, reduce tax receipts by five trillion dollars, and balance the budget. Obama replies that Romney’s plan cannot work because he cannot increase expenditures, reduce taxes, and balance the budget without drastically cutting social security and medicare, which Romney declares he will “never” do. Romney is promising a fiscal miracle that he cannot deliver. Romney is selling snake oil.  Obama is right about that. However, Romney’s plan is only snake oil if Romney means what Romney says. What if Romney is lying to the voters? Suppose Romney does not really care about balancing the federal budget, and just says that he cares in order to conform his stated policy with the GOP’s platform; however, Romney intends to forget deficit reduction as soon as he’s elected President. This is what George W. Bush did.  Possibly Romney is taking a play from Bush’s book, and it might work.

By cutting taxes on the wealthy, Romney would stimulate spending to some modest extent, and the result would be enhanced job creation. By throwing unnecessary money at the Pentagon, Romney would also create employment. Taking both policies together, Romney’s plan would indeed create employment just as he promises. Under Romney, the federal budget deficit would hugely increase, but government spending and tax reduction would increase employment all right. The beneficiaries of Romney’s largesse would also be the rich and the Defense Department, two core constituencies of the Republican Party. The problem would be, of course, the vast increase in government deficit which this policy of “military Keynesianism” would produce. But would anyone really care in 2016? I don’t care now, and neither does Paul Krugman, and Romney may not care either. In that case, once elected, Romney will forget his deficit reduction pledge, and take credit for increasing employment. He will claim to have accomplished this by successful restructuring of the private sector, cutting “red tape,” etc.  but the real reason will be deficit spending by government. Voters will forget the increase in the deficit out of gratitude for the increase in employment.

On the other side, President Obama actually feels obliged to reduce the deficit as Bill Clinton did.  He promises to do so, and, unfortunately, he means it. This promise, which, unlike Romney, President Obama takes seriously, compels Obama to reduce government spending and to increase taxes.  That’s how deficits get reduced. However, those two policies in tandem tend to reduce employment. It is easy to increase employment by lowering taxes and deficit spending; hard to do it while reducing government spending and raising taxes. The fact is, alas, Obama’s misguided fidelity to the deficit reduction credo has already created problems for the economy, and now creates them for his reelection campaign. By following an economic policy of austerity, the Obama administration forsook what should have been a Democratic administration’s main program tool for stimulating employment: vigorous counter – cyclical spending that increases federal deficits while rebuilding our civilian infrastructure. The result of Obama’s austerity has been a feeble recovery that permits the Republicans to complain that they could produce more jobs. This is precisely why Obama is now fighting for his political life.

It need not have been this way. Had Obama embraced Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of massive government spending to create employment, as the progressive wing of his own party begged him to do, then Obama might have greatly strengthened the economy’s job creation. In that case, Republicans could not now complain with some justice that the recovery has been anemic. Instead, Obama embraced austerity, and got the feeble growth austerity permits. Obama embraced a Republican economic nostrum, austerity, and meant it, whereas the Republicans have secretly taken on board the Keynesian economic policy that was once the hallmark of Democratic policy. When challenged to get real during the debate, Romney and Ryan issue bald face lies about their devotion to deficit reduction, and declare the existence of secret plans whose arithmetic implies the stimulation of the economy by increasing (not reducing) the deficit.  In the last analysis, when facing the election of 2016, four years hence, the American voters will be happier with the Romney policy because voters really care about jobs, not about deficit reduction. And it’s right that they should not care about deficits now. Deficits do not matter; growth maters.

To make this point in the remaining days of his anemic campaign, Obama and Biden must call the Republicans liars to their face, and mockingly challenge their ability and even their intent to reduce the deficit if elected. Unless they do this, and make the voters listen to harsh words, Obama and Biden may lose the election. This policy would be impolite, and Obama is a very polite man. But, to “everything there is a season.”  A time for politeness, and a time for brutal candor.

Let 'Em Hear From You


This letter by Ivan Light appeared in the Claremont Courier October 31st

While President Obama and Governor Romney were studiously ignoring the issue of climate change for the third time on Monday, Oct. 22, the Green Party candidate for President, Dr. Jill Stein, was arrested and handcuffed to a chair in a nearby detention center.  This arrest was ordered to prevent Dr. Stein from protesting the exclusion of the climate issue from the national debate. The politicians thought they had excluded the issue of climate change from our Presidential election in this time-tested way.  Jail the opposition. However, Mother Nature had a different plan for us. Mother Nature is harder to control than Jill Stein. Out in the mid-Atlantic Ocean , Mother Nature had prepared a storm that is remarkable both for its intensity and for its timing. It is predicted to inflict a billion dollars of damage on the Atlantic Coast.  Meteorologists are viewing this storm as another sign of dangerous climate change.  Listen to Mother Nature, and vote accordingly.

The Voorhis Voice is published by the Democratic Club of Claremont, PO Box 1201, Claremont CA 91711.  The newsletter’s name commemorates the late Jerry Voorhis, a talented and courageous Congress member from Claremont.

Newsletter Editor

Ivan Light: Email him at

Any registered Democrat may join the Democratic Club of Claremont
on our web site!

  Join us using our website form:

P.S. – Part of your dues and contributions may be contributed to Federal and State candidates.  Individual contributions will be deposited into the club’s Federal account, subject to the Federal Elections Campaign Act.  Non-individual contributions and contributions of individuals who so request will be deposited into the club’s State account.  Contributions are limited under State law.  No anonymous contributions of more than $50 will be accepted.  Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, address, occupation and employer of each individual contributor.  Political contributions are not tax-deductible.  FPPC #841491.  FEC #C00404319