Wasserman-Schultz stands by claim that GOP budget is a "death trap" for seniors
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) on CNN, April 14, 2011.
/ CNNIncoming Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on Thursday stood by her claim that the GOP's 2012 budget proposal represents a "death trap" for seniors.
Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat, told CNN's Kiran Chetry that she believed the 2012 GOP budget could have dire consequences for elderly Americans.
"It stands to reason that when 60 percent of seniors are in nursing homes or on Medicaid, and you dramatically cut the amount of funding that we are providing to states for Medicaid, then you are going to have some seniors not survive," she said.
Wasserman-Schultz first asserted that the GOP budget would "literally be a death trap for seniors" on MSNBC on April 6. On Thursday, when asked specifically if she thought the plan put seniors' lives at risk, she said, "That's exactly what I'm suggesting."
Seniors, she argued, "won't be able to either get access to a nursing home, or they'll get kicked out of a nursing home, and they'll have to make it on their own."
"That is not what America is about," she added.
The GOP budget plan would transform Medicaid into a block grant program in which states get a lump sum from the federal government. It mandates $771 billion less in federal spending on the program over a decade. The GOP budget also turns Medicare into a voucher program, potentially leaving some seniors to pay more of their health care costs.
Wasserman-Schultz also targeted Republicans for their negotiating techniques.
"There's the difference between Democrats' approach to our major fiscal problems and Republicans': Republicans start out saying, 'There's something off the table.' President Obama starts off saying, 'Everything's on the table and we need to come together,'" she said.
But she added that she believes the two parties will be able to compromise on a plan for reducing the deficit.
"I'm confident and I think our leadership is confident that we can do this again - but everything has to be on the table," she said. "We can't balance our fiscal health on the backs of those who can least afford it exclusively."
Wasserman-Schultz was appointed to the DNC chair on April 5, after Tim Kaine, the current chair, announced that he would be leaving the position to run for Senate in Virginia.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 103 Comments
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave
- Protester heckles Obama during counterterrorism speech Play Video
- Rep. Jo Bonner to resign from House for university job
- Obama: America at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism 106 Comments
- Obama announces steps toward Guantanamo closure
- Obama: The war on terror, "like all wars, must end" Play Video
- Obama to tour Jersey Shore with Gov. Christie















So she says that Obama is killing seniors??
That i can believe.
There are a lot of ways of saving Medicare/Medicaid without simply cutting back. You can always increase revenues (taxes) although by itself that's probably not a great idea. As for the Republican plan, I'd have to see the details. Personally I'm a believer in liberal federalism which says pick a goal and let the states figure out how to meet it. If one state wants a single payer system and another wants vouchers and private insurance, so be it. Block grants would be perfectly reasonable assuming they're large enough and the requirements on the states are reasonable.
She is absolutely talking nonsense, but there will be a host of people who will just eat it all up. The CBO and President Obama's Deficit Commission have stated that what we are doing is UNSUSTAINABLE. What have to change things, and it can't just be taxing the so called rich.
How does President Obama not understand that increasing taxes on businesses and people making more than $200,000 will, result in higher unemployment? If a business has to use the money it has for hiring an additional worker to send to the federal government in higher taxes - it equals JOB LOST. If people making more than $200,000 have to use money for purchasing a service or good from a business to send to the federal government in higher taxes - it means that businesses have less activity and it equals JOB LOST. The President has to understand this, but he must be thinking that he can confiscate more money from less people.
We have two concepts of deficit reduction here:
1) Paul Ryan's Plan: Cut government a lot, requiring far less revenue to run the government. Lower taxes on business, but get rid of the tax loopholes. This enables businesses to be more able to afford additional workers, and additional workers paying taxes will send more revenue to the government. It also diminishes the power of lobbyist to control government, and gives more power back to the people.
2) President Obama's Plan: Cut the federal government only a little, causing a greater need for revenue to run the government. Try to make up the ground by increasing taxes on businesses and those making more than $200,000. It will result in higher unemployment, and that means less people paying taxes. He just hopes to collect more from less people. Without getting rid of tax loopholes, it leaves the lobbyists in power in Washington.
My vote is for option 1.
Someday.
Until then, we should resign ourselves to our second-class status in the world. Not everybody can live in a nation as wealthy and powerful as Denmark.