-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I hope Michele Bachmann’s people were watching her interview last night with Bill O’Reilly (you can read the whole transcript here) because she did not acquit herself well when it came to his question about raising the age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security:
O’Reilly: Would you raise the age for Medicare? Would you raise the age for Social Security?
Bachmann: Again, No. 1, everyone has to be crystal clear: No one who is a current recipient of benefits would be impacted.
O’Reilly: No, I know. You’ve got to grandfather it in. Absolutely.
Bachmann: It would be subsequent people. That has to be crystal clear.
O’Reilly: Let’s say under 40, you raise the rate, raise the age to 67, 68, something like that?
Bachmann: I think you have to look at longevities. Clearly I think we need to look at that both on the Social Security side and on the Medicare side and on Medicaid. More important than all of this, Bill, is repealing Obamacare.
O’Reilly: I got that, I got that. But you’re dodging the question about raising the age.
Bachmann: No. Hear — hear me on this. Because of couple of months ago, I was in the White House with President Obama. We asked him three times: “What’s your plan to make Medicare solvent?” He mumbled around, didn’t give an answer.
O’Reilly: He doesn’t have a plan, Congressman (sic).
Bachmann: You know what he finally said? Listen.
O’Reilly: If he had a plan, he would have put it out there.
Bachmann: Let me tell you what the president said. Let me tell you what the president said.
O’Reilly: All right.
Bachmann: He said Obamacare. And so what senior citizens don’t realize is that President Obama’s plan for Medicare is they will all go into Obamacare. There won’t be a Medicare going forward under President Obama.
O’Reilly: There’s not going to be Obamacare though. I don’t even — I don’t even think this is worth discussing because I think the Supreme Court is going to throw it out. And if it doesn’t…
Bachmann: It’s the law of the land now, Bill.
O’Reilly: If it — yes, it’s the law of the land…
Bachmann: I hope they do throw it out, but it’s…
O’Reilly: doesn’t kick in until 2013.
Bachmann: As president of the United States, Bill, I will not rest until we repeal Obamacare.
Well, that’s nice. Everyone knows Bachmann would repeal Obamacare if she were elected President. But that doesn’t tell me whether a Bachmann Administration would propose raising the age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security. O’Reilly asked an absolutely legitimate question and she repeatedly dodged it. I think you have to look at longevities? When a candidate answers a question in Washington-speak it tells me that she has been presented with a question that she does not want to answer.
Now I can understand her reluctance to answer the question. Bachmann doesn’t want to rule out raising the age for Social Security and Medicare and then two or three years down the road finds herself in a position where she has no choice but to raise the age and then face the political fallout. She doesn’t want to have a “read my lips, no new taxes” moment. But that’s no excuse for pregnant pauses and using words like “longevities.”
So how would I answer the question if I were in her position? I would say something to the effect of, “Bill, raising the age of eligibility on Social Security and Medicare would be something I would prefer not to do. But given our current fiscal climate, it is something I probably could not entirely rule out as President. To do otherwise would be dishonest and a disservice to the American people.”
Having said that I want to make clear that I think Michele Bachmann would make a much better President than Barack Obama. But in order for her to become President she needs to be able to answer questions like this in a reasonable way. This is absolutely critical because she will need to answer questions from people far less sympathetic to her than Bill O’Reilly.
Bob| 8.9.11 @ 5:58PM
The next interviewer just has to give Ms. Bachmann a geography question?
Question: Do you know the way to San Jose?
Answer: That's between Lexington & Concord, California.
Until she determines the whereabouts of Lexington & Concord who can take her seriously?
W| 8.9.11 @ 9:56PM
Bobby,
Question: how many states in the USA
Obama: 57 or 58, or 60, I have to visit three more. Where is my teleprompter
Question: Did you pay your income taxes?
Geithner: No, it is too complicated. My turbotax is too hard to do.
Question: Did you pay your income taxes?
Rangel: What? Huh? I don't understand.
simon templar| 8.10.11 @ 10:22AM
Well, it is apparent that you know nothing about economics and a host of other topics each day you post here as your comments are illogical, smarmy, liberal talking points and make no sense. Why would anyone give a rats ass what you think about Bachmann's understanding of geography or any subject? You and your ilk can not even get YOUR historical facts correct. Tell us what you know about Paul Revere?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.9.11 @ 6:53PM
She may have had a reason for dodging it for the next few weeks. She should have answered it directly and with a sense of belief. The older I get the more each of these candidates look like cardboard cutouts.
O'Reilly is a dweeb also.
NWBill| 8.9.11 @ 7:12PM
I don't have a problem at all with how she answered the question, because it's obvious in her mind that you have to change the overall framework before you can plant your flag for specific changes to the system. She understands first of all that ObamaCare has to go - period. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is irrelevant if, as she believes (and I agree) the ultimate goal is to gut Medicare and put everyone in ObamaCare. Anyone who reads the bill will see that's true. So, whether she answered O'Reilly's question or not is, in the long view, irrelevant.
The most telling statement she made is that, as President, she would repeal ObamaCare. Bill should have, if he truly understood what she was trying to say, then asked her: "Once you do that - or if the Supremes overturn it - and replace it with some other form of healthcare ... would raising the eligibility age be a component of that?"
You have to remember - she has a tax lawyer's mind about these things. In other words, she looks at the overriding structure of a situation before she gets into the minutia; which is how you should interpret her answers. All you have to do is listen to her speeches; she takes this tack over and over again. To me, it's one of her best qualities - as opposed to Obama, who ignores the larger questions and completely misses the minutia.
Clint| 8.9.11 @ 7:40PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
"Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government's obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.
Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs."
Red Uctio| 8.9.11 @ 10:31PM
Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.
To make that work we have to make sure that if someone gets cancer or diabetes something and doesn't have a way to pay for treatment, they don't get to leach off the system. If you opt out of Medicare and can't find other money, tough cookies. Maybe we can give them some strong painkillers if the price per pill is low. I don't want to see anyone suffer. If the pills are too expensive then just make sure they can't hang around where people can see them. I don't want to see anyone suffer.
Similarly if you opt out of Social Security and end up without enough money for food and rent, don't go looking for a handout. Not that I'm heartless. If someone doesn't have the money and can't find someone to help them out, let's have a program that collects big appliance boxes after the appliances have been delivered and gives them (the boxes, not the appliances) to the poor. Of course the person living in the box should have to set up camp outside of town, where hard-working folks don't have to see them, but they should do that anyway so they can forage for food in the woods.
Bert Spence| 8.9.11 @ 9:05PM
Aaron, when you run for President, then we will care what you would have said if Bill O'Reilly were interviewing you.
SBD| 8.9.11 @ 9:38PM
I disagree with the author's premise that Mrs. Bachmann was dodging questions. She answered O'Reilly's question promptly when, after pointing out that current retirees would not lose benefits, she stated "It would be subsequent people." Looking at "longevities" is perfectly reasonable and a key component of entitlement reform.
The larger problem is O'Reilly's typical interviewing style which involves constant interruptions and "opining" from the host, often without all the facts. In this case, O'Reilly mentions Medicare and Social Security in conjuction with the idea of raising the eligibility age to 67-68. Normal retirement age is already 67 for many future retirees, so what exactly is he referring to?
Personally, I would like to see all entitlement programs privatized, so I am looking forward to hearing specific, detailed reform plans from ALL the candidates.
Nite| 8.9.11 @ 10:38PM
I don't want to even hear cuts to Social Security unless the following step happens. All Social Security funds that comes in should be placed in an actual trust fund. Right now, it goes into the general fund and is spent on other things. (Supposedly, it is invested in Treasury Bonds, which comes due, then the government is in hoc for the funds.) Both parties have been using Social Security funds since it's inception as a cash cow to spend (I would say fritter) on other things. Increase age from 62 to 66 unless ill, take cap off social security tax on wages. No social security funds paid outside of the US. You must live in the US to draw these funds. These 4 things would stabilize the Social Security program.
Lord Karth| 8.10.11 @ 1:40AM
There is only ONE moral solution to the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security problem.
Eradication. Now.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Solo| 8.10.11 @ 9:35AM
I'm shocked that she didn't repeat :"Did I mention that I was a tax lawyer?"
Every time an interviewer pulls her string about her qualifications, that's what reflexively comes out.
O'Reilly's question wasn't in her pre-programmed response que, so there was no chance of a coherent answer. An interview with Bachman is like sitting down with a talking doll and pulling its string for answers.
I've tried very hard to get on board the Bachman train but...no joy. She's an empty-headed cheerleader and Obama's best hope for re-election.
simon templar| 8.10.11 @ 10:14AM
Yes, sorta like your comments, pull the liberal troll string and get, "she is stupid", "she is a slut", "they are terrorist", "they are racist".
Jeff| 8.10.11 @ 10:47AM
but she didn't did she ... so maybe she's not so empty headed, unlike you ...
simon templar| 8.10.11 @ 10:10AM
Aaron,
She answered the question.
The question was, would you raise the age?
Answer: "It would be subsequent people. That has to be crystal clear."
That is an affirmative answer.
He wanted her to be pinned down to a specific age.
She answered wisely..one would have to review demographics, longetivity stats, etc. It is not a good idea to just give an age and it is unecessary at this point. When discussing medicare, the real and overiding issue is Obamacare as medicare will be a moot point in a few years and there will be nothing to fix or reform. You did not get this, did you?
Do you have some problem with intelligent attractive women? Did you get snubbed by some cheerleader or attractive sorority girl in high school or college?
I think you need to take Old Farte's advice, "It's the DEMOCRATS stupid!" Perhaps, rather than taking cheap shots at conservative women candidates, you might want to put some focus on the idiocy, contradictions, lack of ideas, lack of plans, disastrous policies, and downright lies.
BTW, thanks, you threw a few fish to the trolls here..there now flapping their mouths and hands like good little seals.
Jeff| 8.10.11 @ 10:45AM
How is your weasle worded answer any better than her answer ?
Please spare us your sage advice ... If you were in her position ... your experiences and background would be completely different than the ones that led you being writer ... and guess what, your weasle worded answer would be different too ...
Wayne | 8.10.11 @ 10:51AM
Bachmann handled the questions correctly. If Republicans go around talking about cutting medicare and social security between now and the election, they lose to Obama. It is that simple.
O Reilly once again badgered her, making himself look like a dufus.
simon templar| 8.10.11 @ 11:10AM
This will put a smile on your face. Check it out.
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZDGOI
simon templar| 8.10.11 @ 11:11AM
Aaron,
This is especially relevant to you.
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZDGOI
Solo| 8.10.11 @ 11:29AM
Holy smokes! "Liberal troll"? Really?....Really?
Sheesh! Some of you guys employ the same reflexive sycophant response as those among Obama's crew.
Aside from being the human child version of some "Cat Lady" with about 400 cats in her house, a tax attorney and getting elected to Congress--what the hell are her qualifications?
None! That's what!
I'm far more conservative than most here and I've got some sobering news for you Bachman sycophants: There's no "there" there. She's never accomplished anything of note in her personal or public life.
She's never successfully moved a piece of legislation in the House. She's never formed a cogent plan (ala Paul Ryan). Nothing!
She's little more than a Pep Rally Cheerleader.
"We're going to stop em on defense and we're going to score our touchdowns. Yeeeeah Team!"
But....she can't run or pass the ball herself.
I can't shake the memory of one of her first Iowa speeches:
"You're here and I'm here...and we're here together and I'm here with you..". "Iowans are the smartest people in the country and Iowans are the most beautiful people in the country" (I paraphrase here).
And...."I'm proud to be an Iowa native" (which is why, no doubt, that she's a Representative from Minnesota)..." and I'm proud to be from the same small Iowa town as John Wayne...". Errrr.....that would be John Wayne Gacey, by the way, but....hey, it sort of sounds like the actor's name, huh?
I mean.....good grief! How Reaganesque, eh?
We need a quarterback with proven skills and a plan...not the Prom Queen Cheerleader....to lead us out of this mess and to victory.
If she wins the nomination (God help us), I'll vote for her. And...given Obammy's record, she just might win. But....then what?
We'll have traded a leftist empty suit for a conservative empty suit. An improvement, to be sure. But- not- by- much!
We need someone with proven skills, a track record of accomplishment and a plan. Bachman has none of the above.....and that's a fact.
W| 8.10.11 @ 5:20PM
So Solo, which conservative do you support?
Big Jim| 8.10.11 @ 11:52AM
I'm no fan of Bachman but this article is just silly. She answered the question as well as anyone could under the circumstances. While I hope I'm not forced to vote for her, this type of nitpicking has to stop.
Allen Heffler | 8.11.11 @ 8:47AM
Great exchange. Surprisingly, O'Reilly pushes Bachman. It may be political suicide, but Americans are hungry for politicians to say truth and confront bad news head on. She should have said YES, we need to raise the age! Where's Christie when you need him!
www.mymedicareadvsior.com