TPMDC
Obama Endorses Bipartisan Debt Commission Opposed By Progressives
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), President Barack Obama, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Share
Send to a friend!
The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow on a proposal to create a bipartisan debt commission charged with reducing soaring budget deficits, which are projected to be around $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The commission would potentially have the power to force Congress into an up-or-down vote on systematic changes to the tax code and government entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security. That's got a lot of progressives worried -- and mad.
On Saturday, President Obama came out with explicit support for the proposal, sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), just as Republicans were pulling back from their early support. Meanwhile, progressive groups and other supporters of entitlement programs, like the AARP, are protesting the proposal, saying that such a commission would limit congressional debate, and shield lawmakers from the political fallout of altering popular social services.
In a statement, Obama said he "strongly" supports the legislation and called on "senators from both parties to vote for the creation of a statutory, bipartisan fiscal commission." According to CNN, the proposed commission would include 8 Republicans and 10 Democrats (two appointed by Obama), and would take several months to study the budget problem. After the midterm election, the commission would vote on a reform package, and if it received 14 votes, the measure would go to Congress for an automatic up-or-down vote.
The proposal is not expected to pass Tuesday. While 20 Republicans co-sponsored the bill when it was first introduced, their support has eroded. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on Meet the Press and expressed his opposition to the measure.
If the measure fails in the Senate, the President could go back to a previous agreement he had struck with lawmakers, that would create a commission by executive order, with the same purview as the Conrad-Gregg commission, but without the ability to force an up-or-down vote from Congress.
Labor leaders and 56 other progressives groups put out a letter saying that if "the Conrad-Gregg proposal were to become law, it could dramatically change by stealth critical benefits and services so vital to America's families" and that the commission "will be viewed as a way to actually cut Medicare benefits, while insulating lawmakers from political fallout." Signatories include the AFL-CIO, NAACP, MoveOn.org, National Council of Women's Organizations, and the SEIU.
The AARP also released a statement against the commission. AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond wrote that the "AARP is disappointed by the Obama Administration's support for a provision that would likely result in significant reductions to the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs - affecting millions of Americans - without the benefit of full and open debate by accountable Members of Congress" adding that the organization is strongly opposed to a proposal that treats "Social Security and Medicare as piggy banks for debt reduction."
The New York Times is reporting that the Bipartisan Policy Center, a group founded by four former Senate Majority Leaders, will form their own task force to take on the budget deficit problem. The group will be led by Pete V. Domenici, a Republican former senator from New Mexico and former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and formerly a budget director for Congress, former President Bill Clinton, and former vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve.
Comments (112) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
brewmn61
January 25, 2010 12:45 PM
People ask me when I'd stop supporting Obama. If anything is done to cut actual Social Security benefits, that would be a "when." I'm not talking about raising the retirement age or the amount of income subject to withholding, but if he actually endorses cuts to the program, he's dead to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to brewmn61
brewmn:
You consider raising the retirement age or the amount of income subject to withholding to be permissible savings measures, but AARP and other lobbies don't. They will not allow any reforms of Social Security or Medicare to save money.
Meanwhile, EVERY attempt at raising taxes to defray the debt is shot down immediately. The only way to address the problem of a debt is through a bipartisan commission like this one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
January 25, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to mrut
And where do you expect to find these "bipartisans" you talk about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to davcbr
They're already there. Everyone wants to hop on the debt-reduction wagon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to davcbr
BTW, there is a long tradition of liberals (back before we rebranded to "progressives") supporting good stewardship in the government, including debt management.
Paul Simon (the senator, not the singer) is one of my favorite. He was a deficit hawk whom no one ever called a conservative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 25, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to mrut
I'm a Democrat who believes strongly in deficit reduction.
But the way to do that is not to cut entitlements.
The way to do that (DUH!) is to get out of two losing wars.
I never thought I'd be a fucking hippy or say fucking hippy things when I grew up, but the war spending is RIDICULOUS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to again
I agree with you. Defense spending is wasteful and unregulated, especially in time of war.
Drawing down defense spending takes time, though, and it won't be enough to solve our fiscal problem. We need to hike up the marginal tax rates for upper income; our debt has exploded each time we cut taxes at the top.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
klip
January 25, 2010 9:25 PM in reply to mrut
An easy place to start cutting defense spending in a meaningful way, is to not only close the Gitmo prison but close the whole Gitmo base and give the land back to Cuba. That place adds little if anything to our national security and in no way helps move forward US-Cuba relations. It's a waste of taxpayer money and our military manpower to keep it operating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to mrut
They could solve the Medicare and Social Security with a stroke of a pen. Lift the ceiling on FICA taxes. Problem solved.
Right now, it's capped at roughly 105K. No earnings above that are subject to FICA, which makes it one of the most regressive taxes on the books. Anyone who makes 105K or less -- that's roughly 94% of the country -- has to pay FICA on 100% of their earnings. If you make roughly a million per year, you're paying FICA on just 10% of your earnings. The percentage obviously goes down the more you make. That's crazy.
We could put those trust funds back into the black and keep them there for generations by lifting the ceiling. While we're at it, we should raise the top rate dramatically, and I'd increase taxes on any CEO who paid him or herself more than 25 times the rank and file worker. Currently, they pay themselves 430 times the rank and file. In 1965, that number was just 26 times. Our income inequalities are skyrocketing.
They won't raise taxes on the rich. They're too chickenshit. And after the Supreme Court decision, they'll be petrified to raise taxes of the wealthy. So, they'll cut spending, and they'll go after programs for the poor first, then the middle, and never the rich. Corporate welfare will be untouchable.
The answers are easy, but no one has the guts to implement them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to cuchulain
Obama explicitly supported the idea of raising the cap, at least above 200,000 or so. It consistently polls well because there is a strong sense that it is fair (we already removed the cap from medicare taxes in the 1990's.)
As for how much of a difference it makes, it depends on whether you just raise the cap or eliminate it, and it depends on whether you will base people benefits on the taxes they pay or not. In the former case, making million dollar earners pay payroll taxes on the entire 1,000,000 would also raise the benefits they are due. (just a note: Social Security is regressive in the taxes it collects but progressive in the benefits it pays, and because we pay disability benefits.)
Eliminating the cap altogether and not crediting the increased taxes for benefit purposes gives a positive balance over 75 years but a the end of the period the Trust funds are losing money. (in other words it puts of insolvency for a long-time, but it is not a "permanent" fix).
Eliminating the cap altogether but crediting the increased taxes for benefit purposes does push out the point of insolvency significantly, but it does not give a positive balance over 75 years, and trust fund balances are depleting rapidly in the 75th year (i.e. it is not a "permanent" fix).
Anyone interested in educating themselves should look here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to Economides
I'd raise the ceiling AND means test. But, really, an even better answer is to end the charade and move Medicare and Social Security into the general budget altogether. Dump FICA entirely and raise taxes on the rich to pay for our retirement system and social safety nets from the general fund. We should be honest and upfront about it. We use current taxes from current workers to pay for retirees. Since the general fund has been raiding the trust funds since 1969, it's really just a charade to say that we are all putting money throughout the course of our working life and then getting it back.
Current workers pay for current retirees. If we support the fiction that individual accounts exist, demographics will eventually kill us. We have fewer workers supporting more retirees, and that's accelerating. We used to have more workers supporting fewer retirees, etc.
Bring it all into the general fund and go from there. No more pretense. We should decide as a nation that we want to provide for our seniors, for our sick, and our poor, and raise taxes accordingly.
I'd go many steps beyond that, but that's a subject for another thread . . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to cuchulain
I have no problem with what you are saying. But remember the purpose of the payroll tax was to give every one and equal stake in a retirement system--it was not supposed to understood as a welfare system even if it was also very clearly a pay-as-you go program
So, we need to tax the rich more, but very frankly we probably need to tax everyone more (just not as much as those at the top). Everyone who works should pay taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to cuchulain
It's nuts that we can't lift the ceiling on FICA taxes.
People have really been sold on the conservative meme that no one pays taxes except the very wealthy. I have heard it repeated by well-educated, politically unengaged people in their twenties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to mrut
The rich actually pay less. The GAO found that 2/3rds of American corporations pay no taxes. Zero. Nada. And 90% pay just 5% or less. They can cook the books endlessly and escape from them. And now that the top rate is so low, it makes a lot of sense for them to pay themselves astronomical salaries and bonuses. Profits are counted after payroll, etc.
This is really a tax issue, but they're going to make it a spending issue. The Dems need to be an opposition party to the right. Instead, they embrace far too much of the right's lies and disinformation, and incorporate much of its bogus economics. That basically adds up to neo-liberalism and the DLC.
I've pretty much given up on the Dems. I want a viable third party, a social democratic party, to kick both money parties to the curb. Democratically. Actually, we should have a dozen parties in our government, not just our duopoly. And I'd dump the damn Senate if I could. Just one House for the people and no electoral college.
I think the Senate is going to block real reform until doomsday, regardless of the party in power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to cuchulain
Yawn. If it does anything, a commission will recommend raising taxes. A commission will recommend increasing the tax cap for social security.
And why do you care about taxing corporations so long as the people who own them and derive income from them are adequately taxed?
People who can only stand to be among those of like minds in the fervent belief that their numbers will grow large enough so they can dominate others are a much bigger cause of concern to me than those who realize they have to work with others constructively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Economides
Are you crazy? You don't care if businesses are taxed? Think about it. If they're not, that means we are and that we have to pay more in taxes to make up for it.
Why should corporations skate? They actually paid their share in the past. The wealthy did too. During our biggest middle class expansion ever, from 1947-1973, corporations picked up more than 30% of the total tax bill. It's now down to under 8%. And during most of that period of middle class expansion, the top rate was 91%. In 1964, LBJ cut it to 70%. The economy thrived, averaging 4% GDP growth during that 26 year period when taxes were double and triple what they are now. Our debt was
Since that time, wages have flatlined for 95% of the country. The rich keep getting tax cuts, corporations keep getting tax cuts, subsidies and deregulation, and our wages flatline.
CEOs paid themselves 26 times the rank and file in 1965, 43 times the rank and file in 1980, and 430 times the rank and file now. Notice the trend?
We work longer hours, for the same pay, our productivity levels have skyrocketed, but our wages stay flat. Meanwhile, taxes have plummeted for the rich and for corporate America, profits have skyrocketed, as have their own wages.
Our stay flat.
And you think we shouldn't care if business is taxed?
In 1973, the national debt was less than a tenth of what it is now. In short, we're going in the absolute wrong direction, and you seem to be okay with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to cuchulain
I am only saying the income from corporations has to flow to individuals, somehow otherwise what is the point of owning a corporation. You can tax the corporation and tax the owners, or you can tax the owners more. There have to be restrictions on how retained earnings are used, so they cannot be transferred out of the US's tax jurisdiction, but I don't think it makes much of a difference when you impose the tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to Economides
@Economides
What would happen if we didn't tax businesses, but only people? (Real question, not rhetorical).
I had a very conservative relative who said that evading the corporate tax is just one more way in which big companies have an advantage over small ones.
What if we just stuck it to high incomes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to mrut
So long as you had protections against the income being shielded from US tax authorities but still made available to the owners, I'm not sure it makes a difference, then again i am not a tax expert. T
he problem with conservatives is they want low corporate taxes and low dividends taxes and low capital gains taxes as if income gained from owning a company is different form working for wages. Really it's just income.
No doubt in practice this gets very tricky which I guess is why a lot of economists prefer consumption taxes.
But I don't think there is any need to demagogue the issue which seems the first instinct of a lot of folks around here. We need to raise more taxes in aggregate, something like 20% of GDP--there are plenty of ways to get there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to Economides
Our taxation to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world now. It's something 18%. Twenty percent is still too low. Sweden's, by way of contrast, is 50%.
There's probably a sweet spot between the two, though I'd prefer a social democracy here like Sweden's to begin with. Actually, one that went even further.
But, knowing that America will never allow anything like that, we still need to increase taxation to GDP here. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have the lowest in the world AND the highest debt in the history of the planet. Our progressive tax structure used to look like this /
Now it's closer to this ____
That's not sustainable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 9:13 PM in reply to cuchulain
Shouldn't you also include state and local taxes to make that comparison apt. (If we were paying for all the nation's health care expenditures entirely with public dollars we'd be fairly close I bet.) OECD puts the total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the US at 28.3% in 2007, Canada is 33.3, Germany 36.2, Italy 43.3, Sweden 48.2. Switzerland is the only other wealthy country under 30%.
As long as taxes coming in are a little larger than spending for a while we are fine.
Bush arbitrarily said that he didn't think anyone should pay more than a third of their income in taxes. And yet taxes are not individual obligations but mutual contributions to a collective enterprise. Policymakers need to set a target for aggregate taxation based on our needs and then set tax policies accordingly. Oh the Bushies knew what they were doing. They set out to destroy the government thinking that would make the country stronger. Instead they pretty much wrecked both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
January 25, 2010 8:21 PM in reply to cuchulain
I agree, but just a point of clarification. I'm pretty sure the Medicare portion of the FICA taxes are not capped, only the Social Security portions. If I'm right, raising the cap would do nothing for Medicare. But, like I said, I think the cap should be raised to help solve Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to mrut
Raising the amount of income subject to payroll taxes is raising revenue! And it is decidedly progressive way to raise revenue--from the highest wage earners. We already do this in Medicare.
Raising the retirement age is only a benefit cut if you assume people retire at the same age. But we know that people are already working longer, and that encouraging people to continue to do so is very good policy. If people work even a couple years longer they will be better off, the budget will be better off and Social Secueity will be better off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Bob
January 25, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Economides
Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut for the people who need it the most. Someone in a professional setting has much greater ability to keep working through their mid-60s than someone in construction trades, manufacturing, or other physically demanding lines of work.
It’s a sad fact of life that greater longevity doesn’t necessarily translate into people having longer working lives in the careers they are trained for. Age discrimination is already a difficult problem for people much younger than those eligible for SS. Where are all of these people going to work? The world only needs so many Wal-Mart greeters.
On a different note, health care reform that broadened access would go a long way towards keeping people in the working population. I can’t imagine how many people are either already on SSI or disqualified from physically demanding work because they are medical basket cases before age 50 due to untreated chronic conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to Joe Bob
Your reply is a mixture of good sense and nonsense.
Why is it that early retirees are the people who "need it the most". People at the end of their working lives are much better off than say poor children. We spend as a government about 25 times more on seniors what we spend on kids. Also for lots of people, taking social security early is a big mistake, as it reduces their stream of income for the rest of their lives.
People are not just living longer, they are living healthier. So, please explain to me why the retirement age is the same as it was 50 years ago (OK we just gradually raised it one year) even though there are far far fewer people working in manual labor or other "physically demanding" jobs, AND we are living considerably longer and healthier.
Explain to me why it is not financially advantageous for people who will need more money for longer retirements to forestall depleting their savings and spend slightly longer working.
You are right that a better health system would make working longer easier. As would a better disability system that was geared not toward defining what people cannot do, but trying to find ways to help them do what they can. Incidentally there are 15 million people on SSI and DI the two Social Security disability programs. people on SSI usually have very sporadic work histories which is why they are not insured for DI. A lot more mental illness cases and developmentally disadvantaged or whatever you call it. the Average age for going on DI is early 50's I believe.
I see no reason why you couldn't combine longer working lives with greater access to disability for those who at older ages are physically unable to work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 25, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to Economides
People are living longer but NOT healthier.
Why do you think older people require more from the government?
And the whole point of a commission is to give cover to the corrupt politicians.
The gutting of medicare and social security is needed to maintain military spending.
And like you, no one needs any expertise in economics to understand that.
And BTW, giving myself a screen name like superman, doesn't mean I can fly.
But it might mean I was self delusional.
Get it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 25, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to mrut
Liar. Social Security is solvent. It doesn't need reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to expatjourno2
And right now I am healthy and alive so why prepare for when I am dead.
You have to explain why we should only look at the Social Security Trust Funds in isolation and not in the total context of money coming in to the government and money going out. Social Security will begin making increasing claims on the total revenues of the federal government this decade (we were cash flow negative this year because of the recession). So you are right, we don't have to lift a single finger until some time in the 2030's to change Social Security, but when your income taxes go up or your services are cut because the government still has to come up with the cash for Social Security recipients please do not complain.
Also you should explain to your children why you are not going to lift a finger to solve a problem you created. They will have to pay all the costs of raising revenue or cutting taxes on the day of reckoning in 2037 or so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 26, 2010 3:16 AM in reply to Economides
Social Security is solvent. Period. The government has borrowed money from the trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the fratboy's rich friends and to pay for illegal, unnecessary wars. But the obligations are just as valid as the obligations to pay the Chinese interest on their government bonds.
It is a damnable LIE to talk about a highly profitable program (in that it takes in more money than it pays out) as if IT is the problem. It is the REST of the budget that needs reform. It is the REST of the budget that is in deficit. That means that the solution is to raise general tax revenues and or cut general spending.
Personally, I'd start by canceling that 30 billion dollars to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 25, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to mrut
So do we get to bipartisanly VOTE for this commission or is this just the latest example of how we've become a plutocracy rule by brainless oligarchs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 25, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to brewmn61
now you see why people (like me) have been warning against obama.
he is determined to end medicare and social security.
and since i like to be called names for my accurate predictions you all can look for the next thing obama will push for government control over, the internet.
before obama leaves office the internet in this country will resemble half the freedom that chinas does now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 25, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to JadeZ
What predictions of your have been accurate to date?
Like many commenters here, I'm thinking this commission is just a cosmetic fix, and nothing will ever come of it. I'm still waiting until Obama either does something that violates my fundamental political beliefs and can't be explained by political circumstance (a cutting of SS would fall into this category, as would starting to bomb Iran), or proves himself such an unutterable failure that replacing him seems like the only viable alternative. Bot as of now, I'm going to give him every chance to succeed. And all of you that have been certain that we were witnessing the Failed Obama Presidency since March 2009, but claim to believe in progressive values and goals, might want to do the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
January 26, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to JadeZ
"(obama) is determined to end medicare and social security."
wow. you make a lot of baseless claims around here, but nonsense like this puts you in the same unhinged crackpot category as the guy who got rfid chipped by the feds...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 25, 2010 12:45 PM
I don't think this is going to pass at all. So I am not worried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 25, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Maritza
Sounds like the right analysis, to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 25, 2010 12:46 PM
Obama supported it knowing it will fail. This was nothing but an attempt by Gregg to paint the Democrats as soft of fiscal responsibility. So he basically called their bluff here. Club for Growth is against this because the commission could report that taxes should be raised - and they're putting pressure on Republicans not to sign on to any thing that could potentially raise taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
January 25, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"Obama supported it knowing it will fail"
- LOL. Another check in the box that arleady includes Corzine and Coakley. What a mystifyingly smart guy he is!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 25, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
I'm mystified!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 25, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
amazing how people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
January 25, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
It'll make a nice big club to beat the Republicans over the head with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 25, 2010 12:53 PM
I don't get how the White House and many Democrats don't get that:
1) Reducing the deficit in the midst of a recession is the one sure-fire way to prolong it and make it worse (see 1937).
2) Deficit reduction has never been the electoral winner many make it out to be -- people want to see results in job creation, financial security, health security above all, and they won't get that by cutting the deficit.
3) It's the Republicans who drove the deficit through the roof, wasting it on tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq; this needs to be hung around their necks and that won't be done through Dem capitulation.
4) Someone out there (too bad it's not the president) needs to be making the case that the problem isn't deficit spending per se, it's what you're doing with the money. Using the analogy of a business, if you're borrowing money invest in future growth, that's a good move, not a bad one. If you're borrowing money to piss it away on luxuries (i.e., tax cuts) or putting into non-productive expenditures (i.e., Iraq war), then you're putting yourself on a path to bankruptcy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 25, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to Moose49
If you run up a debt subsidizing the armaments industries, then start wars to use up their production, so you can run the debt up further while replacing the used up goods, you are intentionally shrinking the real government to the size of a gas station lavatory, the better to leave it stinking in the bowl for the next person to clean up.
There are some really good things that the Obama administration is doing. Will someone please try to discover a few of them? Surely they exist, don't they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
January 26, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
bingo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Moose49
Good points.
And another thing being missed here. Both parties have embraced subsidism and privatization. The GOP are more aggressive about it, but the Dems have done far too much as well. The government can actually save trillions for tax payers over time if it stops outsourcing and does whatever it can in house. If it keeps it in house, it remains non-profit and by definition less expensive. If it outsources, it immediately pays more for the same exact service.
For example: In Iraq, we've privatized 50% of our military expenditures. In Afghanistan, it's nearly 70%. By way of contrast, in Viet Nam, is was less than 15%.
Soldiers can do their own laundry, KP, security, cafeteria and logistics for a fraction of the cost of a Halliburton or a Blackwater. And this sort of blackwater economics is spreading throughout the government. No one talks about it, but it increases government expenditures geometrically.
We'd also save a fortune if we had Single Payer universal health care coverage. I'm guessing that if the CBO scored it honestly, it would show a savings of literally trillions over the next decade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to cuchulain
I appreciate your comment and agree that contractors are much more expensive than soldiers in the short-run. But what about the long-run?
Bush/Cheney hired contractors to perform combat and support functions because the US Armed Forces weren't big enough for the size of war that Bush/Cheney wanted to have. Bush/Cheney hired contractors to get people into Iraq quickly--much more quickly than creating and training new combat and logistics battalions would be.
Aren't contractors also cheaper (in terms of dollars--not in terms of anything moral) in the long-run than creating a couple of new divisions?
I'm speaking of dollars here, not about the wisdom or ethics of using contractors to fight our wars. (They are terrible for morale in the military and for unity of command.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to mrut
I don't think they're cheaper short or long term. We don't seem to have any desire to stop going to wars, so where are the eventual savings going to kick in?
Plus, on top of the instant increases in cost due to for-profit companies, you increase the chance of massive cost overruns and shoddy work as well. Halliburton was guilty of billions in cost overruns, and we've all read the stories of private companies killing our soldiers via poisoned water and bad electrical wiring, etc. I'd rather we reduce our presence around the world, stop playing world cop, so we don't need to hire contractors or increase our armed forces in the first place. It's time to pull back and dismantle our empire. Concentrate on what's going on within our own borders first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 25, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to cuchulain
I couldn't agree more. While Afghanistan shows a move in the wrong direction, in terms of the inner workings of the federal government, the Obama administration is making some good moves here by changing regulations that make it easier to INsource inherently governmental functions. Hopefully, over the next couple of years, corporate welfare will shrink and the accountable public sector will grow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 25, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to cuchulain
"We'd also save a fortune if we had Single Payer universal health care coverage. I'm guessing that if the CBO scored it honestly, it would show a savings of literally trillions over the next decade."
Apparently the CBO can do an analysis, which is different from scoring a piece of legislation. When they score something, they look only at its effect on the Federal budget. An analysis, which they can also perform, looks at the effect of proposed legislation on the entire US economy. It is in doing an analysis that the huge savings of single payer health care would be made apparent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Moose49
No one said any budget impacts would be implemented in the short term, so the idea that somehow a commission could slam on the fiscal brakes the day it is convened is daft.
Bill Clinton reduced the deficit at the same time the economy was creating lots of jobs (one might even say because). Are you suggesting that the this is impossible in the future?
Why do you think this commission will do anything other than reveal that indeed it has been the republicans who are at fault, and have been all along.
Every responsible person understands that future taxes have to increase to put our house in order. Those who continue to fight this will be revealed to be completely unhinged.
No way a real commission could ever endorse the idea that you can raise revenue by cutting taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Economides
Unfortunately, I don't think a commission of this sort would place blame for deficits where it belongs--on the Republicans.
And, sadly, it's true that a commission (bipartisan or partisan) would NEVER recommend raising payroll taxes.
But there might be some less politically explosive measures it would recommend, like raising the FICA ceiling and the retirement age.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to mrut
I'm not sure why you think raising the Social security tax cap is not raising payroll taxes. It's not an increase of rates, but it's still an increase.
You do not need the commission to place the blame, it will be evident in any analysis they do. You can't hide the impact of the Bush tax cuts, or an economy that gives increasing rewards to the top end of the incomes scale while also reducing their tax liabilities. The very exercise of analyzing the issues will point out how irresponsible the republicans (and the "deficit peacocks" as someone called them today have been).
The sad thing about democrats, including progressive is they always assume that they can not take control of events. "If there is a commission then it will be on automatic pilot to implement policy changes we don't like." Why not start from the idea that there are reforms that can strengthen both Medicare and Social Security and make the budget more rational in ways that are consistent with Democratic and American values?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 25, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to Economides
Two points:
1) My guess is that it's going to take years for the economy to recover -- remember, this is the worst recession since the Great Depression -- and that a substantial public sector fiscal stimulus (through deficit spending, though hopefully on job-creation and infrastructure) will be necessary for far longer than those with Obsessive Deficit Disorder are willing to tolerate.
2) I wish I could trust a bipartisan commission to do the right thing. But my guess is they will try to split the difference between the two parties and come up with something that's very heavy on reducing entitlements and very light on raising taxes, and that the goal of reducing red ink will take precedence over the impact of their actions on the lives of working families, the poor and senior citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 25, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to Moose49
I agree I think we're looking at +10% unemployment for at least a decade, and that we should be supporting legislation that works on that assumption. So yes, serious stimulus spending is in order, a WPA equivalent.
Will we ever get over our aversion to tax hikes? What is it about our society? How can they do it in Western Europe? Big question, I know, with a lot of good answers, cultural and political, but it's leads to very irresponsible government. We have to grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
I don't think we can run $1 trillion dollar deficits for a decade without serious repercussions.
And let's remember the burden is so heavy on fiscal policy because interest rates are essentially at 0. Monetary policy which would normally be an equal partner here is almost entirely useless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 12:57 PM
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who strongly supports this commission.
The only way we can raise the retirement age or raise taxes to pay off the national debt is through a commission like this.
Otherwise, any reform attempt will be defeated piecemeal. This is the ONLY way to cut our debt. (A similar commission now operating in Congress turned out to be the ONLY way to close military bases.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to mrut
Raising payroll taxes and raising the retirement age will make Social Security much stronger for today's and future generations.
I am waiting to hear a convincing explanation why workers should have to subsidize longer and longer retirements for people who are healthier and healthier at older ages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
January 25, 2010 1:02 PM
I thought we were all in favor of ways to get around the supermajority requirement? What's so bad about an up or down vote in Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 25, 2010 1:07 PM
A bipartisan commission?
Great!!!
Bipartisanship worked so well with health care!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 25, 2010 1:12 PM
I for one am not shocked that Obama is endorsing this. The President seems to side with Conrad and the conservatives on many things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:27 PM
I'm willing to suspend judgment on this one. Commissions are the usual Beltway strategy for quietly burying issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 25, 2010 1:55 PM
This isn't even going to pass. This is just symbolic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 25, 2010 1:59 PM
There are too many entitlement programs, that even republicans/conservatives use, so yes, some should be cut. I know too many people who feel like they are entitled to stuff without working for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
January 25, 2010 1:59 PM
The Obama presidency is quickly shifting to become something of a Clinton-style centrist administration. Bowing to the Right...
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to jim43
I don't understand. Why is it "non-progressive" to address the national debt?
I hated many things that Bill Clinton did, but he was the only president who managed to level off the growth of the national debt. He did it with a 4.3% federal tax on gas (which the oil companies didn't like)!
Bill Clinton's debt reduction was a big part of what made the Democrats more trusted on economic issues.
Why is addressing the debt considered to be so awful?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to mrut
We raised income tax rates, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
January 25, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to jim43
For every two steps the Republicans take to the right, the Democrats take one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maynard
January 25, 2010 2:03 PM
Get it folks? Both parties pursue the same policies for the same benefactors. Party loyalty and association have no benefits whatsoever for citizens. The only benefits conferred are for elites who funnel money to representatives. They'll even gladly take your money in small donations, lie to you, and then prefer their big-donor cronies when it comes to policy-making anyway.
Citizens have been stripped of representation and citizen rights while those rights have been conferred feudal like, to corporate vassals. This is in no meaningful way a republic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
January 25, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to maynard
I for one am greatly looking forward to my mandated tribute payment to the insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 25, 2010 2:07 PM
Jesus FUCKING Christ!
Forget Barrack Hussein Obama. We've got Barack Jimmy Carter Obama.
Fucking Loser-Crats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 25, 2010 2:16 PM
I wouldn't be alarmist about this. The GOP has no intention of ever raising taxes EVER for any reason.
We also spend tons of money on military which we probably can't afford but no one wants to touch that.
Medicare and SS are too popular to touch, and old folks would create a backlash if you tried.
Basically I expect Congressional gridlock to prevail as it always does.
I would say that Democrats should move away from being the "responsible" party. The GOP can run up deficits and launch foreign adventures and cut taxes fo the rich ... and we're supposed to tighten our belts when a Dem is in there? No thanks.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/deficit-commission-redux.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
January 25, 2010 2:32 PM
What fun! Obama endorses something so meaningless that every commenter on this board can use it to support their own pre-formed opinions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 25, 2010 2:34 PM
At this point, given this reactionary move, I'd like to know how much more the bots can take before they admit this guy is, at minimum, not a very bright person and certainly a wholly owned subsidiary of the DLC? Well, I think progressives ought to do whatever is necessary to kill this ill concieved idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zipperupus
January 25, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to oleeb
Reactionary?
Surely, you jest.
If the commission wants to remove the FICA income cap and make the tax less regressive, is that reactionary?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 25, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to Zipperupus
The problem isn't raising the FICA income cap. That's a sensible idea. The problem is that this "commission" will have carte blanche authority to do anything they please, at any time. This is simply another back-door way of eliminating S/S and Medicare. We know Republicans love the idea; it's just disgusting the DLC loves it too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 25, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to EastWest
Addendum: For an idea of how this works, look at the BRAC Commission. For some good, they did a lot of harm. Best example there is closing Walter Reed and sending ALL war wounded into the already-overburdened Bethesda Naval Hospital system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to EastWest
The BRAC Commission has saved a huge amount of money in defense spending over the years. Any base or facility closed by BRAC has been in line for closure for years.
In the old pre-BRAC days, the Defense Department couldn't close ANY bases or facilities; Congress would band together to protect their home districts, even if the base was unnecessary.
Walter Reed was closed because it was in bad shape and renovating it would have been too expensive to make sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to EastWest
"Carte blanche". Do you even know what that word means.
The smartest way to fix social security's long term deficit is to remove the tax cap and increase the retirement age gradually over 50 years. Democrats, liberals, progressives, moderates, whomever sould be able to get behind this.
The nice thing about reforming the cost of the public systems of health care is that we can get better care while making it less expensive. I repeat, we can do lots of things that will make the care you get much better, and it will cost us less. Our health care is expensive because we are wasteful and disorganized and we allow those who push new technologies to push them way beyond the populations for whom they truly benefit. Again democrats can spearhead these reforms as the President has tried to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
January 25, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to Economides
Well, if you're talking just about health care, it would save trillions if we switched to Single Payer.
Private insurance companies make their profits because they get to cover people who rarely make claims. By definition, they have more such people in their consumer pool than people who make claims. Or, more simply put, they take in more from customers than they pay out. That's a "duh" moment, as the young kids used to say.
Right off the bat, Medicare is at a massive disadvantage along those lines. It covers the worst demographic in the country, as far as costs are concerned. It covers people who are always going to take out more than they put in.
If we folded all of our health care insurance programs into one, got rid of all privatization and outsourcing, and opened one Single Payer system to all, we would balance the ledger in no time. Instead of only covering the old, the indigent, and children, we would be adding the working young and healthy who typically don't make claims.
The overhead of Medicare right now, even with all of the disadvantages mentioned above, is less than 3%. No private insurance company comes close to that. Most run overhead ten times as much or more. They need to make profits. They need to pay their CEOs tens of millions. They need to pay lobbyists and advertisers and shareholders. The government doesn't.
If our government went to Medicare for All, we would reduce the debt over the course of the next decade. It would need higher taxes initially for the transition period, but it would eventually save trillions.
It would do all of that as well as save tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies. It's the logical, rational, humane thing to do, which is apparently why it's impossible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 25, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to Zipperupus
A bipartisan commission won't recommend that. An authenticly progressive party with control of the White House and Congress would, if we had such a party, which we don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 25, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to Zipperupus
No that would not be reactionary but are you so naive as to believe they will be proposing taxation on wealthy people to help solve the problem? That's about as likely as Jesus returning tomorrow morning. Get real.
The whole point of the panel will be to cut and otherwise undermine social security and medicare so the money can be divered to the absurd, imperialist military budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 25, 2010 2:42 PM
Pentagon budget should be only entitlement. Civilian population is entitled to nothing they cannot earn by the sweat of their low brows. Life is by definition poor, nasty, brutish, & short, except for the well-connected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iggy Pop
January 25, 2010 2:44 PM
Social Security is solvent. The myth that Social Security is destined to
go bankrupt is the biggest lie ever told to the American people. There is
a 3 trillion dollar surplus in Social Security. That money is meant to
ONLY pay for Social Security. Plenty for seniors and medicaid. The ONLY
reason it is in danger is because Obama and all the crooks in Washington
use Social Security as a slush fund to pay for wars and kick-backs to Wall
Street. I'm sick and tired of my retirement fund being used to pay for
ceo's yachts and bombs that fall on civilians in Afghanistan. Obama is a traitor to every working man and woman who voted for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 25, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Iggy Pop
Exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 25, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Iggy Pop
thats the point people are missing here.
this WILL pass and you will see the end of SS and medicare as we know it because the SS fund has 100 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and there is no intention of ever even trying to pay it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 25, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to JadeZ
That is a damnable lie. Social Security is sitting on a surplus built up over many decades and especially built up after the tax increases under Reagan. It is solvent for 75 years.
Go peddle your horseshit somewhere else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 25, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Bush spent the money. The surplus exists only on paper now. They will take the money to fund our idiotic wars and the ever growing military industrial complex. That is precisely what is going on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 25, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to expatjourno2
LOL.
There is no trust fund.
There never was.
All extra monies are spent.
And if you want to learn more go do some research.
At least you might have a clue about what you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 25, 2010 2:49 PM
People have a right to support from their government. They do not have a right to make huge amounts of money and refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.
We waste a titanic amount of money on the military, distorting our foreign policy and our economy.
A rational discussion of reducing the deficit or the debt begins with progressive taxation and slashing the military budget. It does not begin with figuring out how to shaft the poor, the old, and the sick.
Also, any attempt to look at this problem will fail if Republicans are involved. They should be cut out of the process as much as legally possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
January 25, 2010 2:51 PM
The first appointee to this commisssion will be Lee Hamilton, ole reliable.
These cretins on Congress, on both sides of the aisle don't want to do the heavy lifting like cutting defense or raising taxes so they hand it off to some commission. I think they should pay the commission out of their salaries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iggy Pop
January 25, 2010 3:01 PM
Thanks expat and Jade. I have been reading TPM for two years. I've
resisted opening and account and writing comments. This "commission" has
broken the proverbial camel's back. I can't take it anymore. I feel like
such a damn fool for believing in "change." God, how could I have been so
naive to think that the power of money in this country would ever be on
the losing side of political discourse. High finance and the industrial-
military complex owns my sorry ass lock stock and barrel. With this
"commission" they will even get the few pennies I had squirreled away for
old age. Roosevelt had some sympathy and empathy for lowlights like me.
Obama and his masters have no mercy, they want everything I have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to Iggy Pop
Well that was a totally worth less comment. maybe you should go back to sleep.
By the way how old are you that you think you have no responsibility to try to solve these problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iggy Pop
January 25, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Economides
Economides,
Thanks for the dressing down. I pity your naive trust in "justice."
You claim it is "insane" to think that Social Security will be gutted. It
ALREADY has been gutted. The minimum retirement age is up, I pay more
into the bloody thing than before the last "commission." This is a
slippery slope. Don't give me that crap that people live longer now so
these prior reforms made sense. Baloney. Americans work 40+ hours a week,
get two weeks of vacation if lucky, and have little or no benefits. Things
are supposed to IMPROVE, not get worse. But they are not getting better.
We are REGRESSING as a society. Average Americans work, work, work all
their life. Maybe you don't. I guess you don't have to worry about
having to be a Walmart greeter in your golden years, so you are fine about
this "commission" and you can afford to be cavalier about Social Security
being safe.
Again, I pity your naivete and am jealous of your priviledged
position in life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
busdrivermike
January 25, 2010 3:04 PM
I would like to form a commission to reduce our permanent war status and entitlement programs to that welfare daddy Eric Prince and Haliburton.
Oh yeah, that is not part of the new "deficit neutral" standard for citizens, is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traunch
January 25, 2010 3:18 PM
No.No.No.No. No Commissions!!!
If corporations (who now have unlimited $$ access to or against politicians) and politicians have more access to the people's funds via these undemocratic commissions THE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS LOSE!
remember Bush II touring around the country advocating SS privatization? What if such a thing were funded and amplified by Wall Street?
Imagine the fiscal carnage if it succeeded and more than just 401ks got sandbagged last year.
NO COMMISSIONS.
http://www.ourfuture.org/category/group/deficit-commission-wrong-remedy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zipperupus
January 25, 2010 3:31 PM
The level of presumption in this thread is staggering.
There has never been an extreme bipartisan commission. Commission exist to whitewash, and if they don't exist for that purpose, they are largely ignored.
There might be good results from this commission. They are probably going to avoid the Pentagon black hole, which is crucial.
The major orgs coming out strong against this are picking an easy target in order to drum up contributions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to Zipperupus
Thanks for a dose of good sense.
The idea that a commission is going to try to kill Social Security is insane. The idea of replacing social security with private accounts was pretty much decimated by the Bush experience, and the financial meltdown. There is widespread recognition, among most everyone but doctrinaire conservatives (is there any other kind) that taxes have to go up. i think Bill Gates was even quoted as saying that today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to Zipperupus
For some reason, everyone is going all "Rosebud!" at the mention of "bipartisan." This ignores the fact that there have been bipartisan commissions in the past that made a real difference.
Deficit-reduction is a cause that a bipartisan commission might do well on, because it's a popular cause (okay, well--slogan) for Democrats and Republicans alike. And there is no way for us to cut our way out of growing debt. A commission might just introduce into the popular consciousness the size of the debt compared to the size of, say, the annual budget.
This would show how inadequate the "cut only" response is. I would hope. I think we should also walk around with bar charts showing people how big the debt is, and how small discretionary spending is compared to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 25, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to Zipperupus
There has never been as extreme a collection of Republicans and as spineless and corrupt a collection of Democrats as there are today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 25, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to bluebell
Well, in the run-up to the Civil War. Congress was more polarized then than it is now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gilpin
January 25, 2010 4:09 PM
I haven't read all of these comments, but only a combination of tax hikes and entitlement cuts will start to get us out of this enormous fiscal hole.
Dealing with Social Security is pretty easy - raise the retirement age again, and push up FICA taxes a bit. The Greenspan Commission did it in the 1980s.
Medicare and Medicaid are the really big problems. And I'm sorry to say I am not literate enough in either to offer ways to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traunch
January 25, 2010 4:29 PM
1. A toothless commission is not being proposed.
"...a deficit-reduction commission that would override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate."
2. 'Killing Social Security' is a straw-man. Despite 'Economid's' allusions, this is not the equivalent of teabagger dreamed 'Death Panels'. It is a subversion of representative democracy which would favor corporations and the rich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traunch
January 25, 2010 4:40 PM
You don't need a commission to show this graph to people:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/fiscal_responsibility_wall_str.html
The Bush tax cuts are that dark Blue chunk. Keep it simple. Rescind the cuts. Make the code more progressive (help the poor, middle class, and small businesses). I think any whining of Wall Street against the commission is simply brer rabbit noise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
January 25, 2010 5:14 PM
This is the pattern of decision-making in the Obama White House
1. Decision - Ignore previous Republican crimes, misdemeanors and profligacy – tax cuts for the wealthy: Constituencies - Republican voters and Republican Senators and Representatives he hoped would become 'bi-partisan'.
2. Decision - Support a stingy stimulus that was half of what was needed and included one-thirds tax breaks, increasing the deficit and further reducing the stimulus to one-third of what was needed: Constituencies – Wealthy investors, special interests.
3. Decision - Kill the only option that would have slowed the cost of health care & led to universal coverage – $ 753 Billions : Constituencies - Health insurance and pharmacy industries.
4. Decision - Accelerate the Bush bailout, $ 4.3 Trillions in bailouts, guarantees and purchasing assets from the private sector at well above market value: Constituency - Financial industry and banks.
5. Decision - Escalate a meaningless and fruitless war, $600 Billions: Constituencies - military and corporate mercenaries.
6. Decision - Gut real financial reform and substitute finger wagging and silly taxes and fees, while banking fees continue up, lending freezes and credit tightens - $UNK Billions: Constituencies - financial industry and the wealthy.
7. Decision - Not help people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation – accelerating middle class decline: Constituencies - financial industry, banks and wealthy.
and
8. Decision - Fiddle around and not pass a jobs bill – accelerating middle class decline (Already spent to much money, cut taxes and increased the deficit – so, sorry, no money for the middle class and American voters): Constituencies: Wealthy and Republicans.
Obama’s constituencies are the health insurance and pharmacy industry, military-mercenary complex, the financial industry and banks, and the wealthy.
The 'Debt Commission' will come up with recommendations that continue to screw the middle class. Obama will try trivial and meaningless gimmicks to try to 'attract' middle class voters, but he has made certain that taxpayers money is already safely in the hands of the corporations and constituencies listed above. Organize to find politicians who will govern in the public interest - if we can find them !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iggy Pop
January 25, 2010 5:21 PM
Economides,
Thanks for the dressing down. I pity your naive trust in "justice."
You claim it is "insane" to think that Social Security will be gutted. It
ALREADY has been gutted. The minimum retirement age is up, I pay more
into the bloody thing than before the last "commission." This is a
slippery slope. Don't give me that crap that people live longer now so
these prior reforms made sense. Baloney. Americans work 40+ hours a week,
get two weeks of vacation if lucky, and have little or no benefits. Things
are supposed to IMPROVE, not get worse. But they are not getting better.
We are REGRESSING as a society. Average Americans work, work, work all
their life. Maybe you don't. I guess you don't have to worry about
having to be a Walmart greeter in your golden years, so you are fine about
this "commission" and you can afford to be cavalier about Social Security
being safe.
Again, I pity your naivete and am jealous of your priviledged
position in life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 25, 2010 11:25 PM in reply to Iggy Pop
How does one dress down Iggy Pop? The dude never wore a shirt. that is, unless you are not the real Iggy Pop.
To respond to your post:
* the "minimum retirement age" has not gone up. It's at 62 the same place it's been since 1961. I think you must mean the "normal" or "full" retirement age as SSA calls it, has risen from 65 to 66 (starting in 2009), and it will reach 67 in 2022.
* You do indeed pay higher payroll taxes but that in large part is because people are living longer, retiring earlier and will therefore receive Social Security payments much longer. The other reason is that birth rates have declined, so there are fewer workers to support more retirees, so you have to get more form each worker to pay the same benefits.
*Social Security benefits actually increase in real terms over time, because they are indexed to wages (not your wages but average wages in the whole economy which tend to rise about 1% faster than prices). So for example, in 75 years the real value of initial benefits will be about twice what they are for a person retiring today (CBO, The Future Growth of Social Security:
It's Not Just Society's Aging, 2003)
*Between 1950-1955 the average age at retirement was 67 for men who on average were expected to live another 12 years. By 2000-2005, the average age at retirement was a little less than 62 for men who were on average expected to live another 19 years years.People retired earlier and live longer. That's a dilemma (Source: Murray Gendell, “Older Workers: Increasing Their Labor Force Participation and Hours of Work,” Monthly Labor Review, January 2008.)
NO one who can not work can be required to work, nor should they. But we should encourage older folks to work longer if they can. Working just a couple years longer makes a huge difference to the resources opne will have much later in life, say in one's 80's. Working longer increases the period during which a person can continue to save or accumulate savings balances. It delays the start of drawing down pensions and savings balances. It reduces the period during which savings will be needed. It increases permanently one's social Security benefits. It increases the period one contributes tax revenue, making it easier to fund all the other government programs, including for example health care.
BY contrast, retiring earlier when you are still able to contribute means existing workers will have to sset aside more of their earnings to support a larger cohort of longer lived retirees.
You've worked all your life and at age 62 you are tired. Just as tired or more than people aged 62 working 50 years ago. I mean we have it just as hard as they did. And who cares if you kids have to pay more and more and more in payroll to keep you afloat. You earned it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 25, 2010 8:42 PM
Republicans will nay say any increase in taxes and Democrats will shoot down any entitlement reform. Yay Bipartisanship!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
January 25, 2010 10:02 PM
Hardly a shocker; when has Obama done anything that progressive actually like? It's almost like he's set out to deliberately demoralize and infuriate his base. Why the heck does he think they lost Massachusetts?
And a spending freeze? In a recession? Excuse me, but that's fucking insane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RocketEngineer
January 26, 2010 12:01 AM
Ok, fool me once (ok, maybe many times, cause it's taken this long), shame on you... So the only way the goppers could get back to power after the disaster of the Bu**sh** administration was through a false flag operation. Obama is a plant. A double. Change my ass... but you can Hope.
I'm ashamed to say I bought it. I bought it lock, stock and barrel. I mean, I watched Bruce Babbitt shaft the UMW, pretend it was just what he was legally bound to do, and then after he got out of office pick up that sweet consultancy with Phelps-Dodge... So, ok, I voted for him the previous election, but he didn't campaign on the strike because it wasn't an issue.
But this guy... I kept thinking that, yeah, even though he's screwing up some major things, the details are getting done. He's making government run on science rather than some stupid religious dogma. He's making soothing noises about closing Guantanamo and getting out of Iraq (I support Afghanistan), but it's really beginning to look like all that is a smokescreen.
He's a business Republican. Pure and simple. The greedy bastards that run this country are smart. They saw the writing on the wall and knew they were likely to need an option. Much as I dislike Hillary, they dislike her more, so they found a house boy (I use the term deliberately), a smart house boy to do their bidding. These guys are ok with science and Iraq is a drag on business. Guantanamo hurts their trade with the Saudis, so Obama's down on those.
But... Getting the chance to put more distance between themselves and the hoy poloy, priceless. So their boy talks balanced budgets in the midst of recession, right in line with the goppukes. We gotta reign in non-defense spending, and cut what? Education? EPA? Parks? NEH? NEA? PBS?
I'll wait to hear what he's got to say, and if this is true, I'll work harder to get him out than I did to elect him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RandyMacon
January 26, 2010 7:45 AM
CUT DEFENSE SPENDING
We will now have a budget freeze on non-military expenditures and a Gregg-Conrad commission to statutorily cut anything they want out of Medicare and Medicaid. Yet the single most wasteful item in the US budget is the Defense budget, which is as large as the defense budgets of the rest of the world combined.
We are fighting two unnecessary wars, maintaining a military presence in god knows how many countries, and we continue to build useless military weapons systems at the behest of powerful lobbyists for the military-industrial complex (including every general and admiral in the armed services).
One can cut 200B$ a year without threatening our country's security, and both reduce the deficit and pay for health care. Add to that a return to pre-Bush tax rates and an increase on the SSI cap and you will have a sound fiscal footing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?