
The fight for Florida's fifty delegates was more than just a key test for the four remaining Republican presidential hopefuls. It also took the GOP's three year experiment with far-right politics into a more appropriate laboratory -- a state where the voters didn't reflect the party's base as neatly as they did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
And though Mitt Romney trampled his opponents and solidified his status as the nominee-in-waiting, Florida was also a wake-up call. To win so resoundingly, Romney had to inch away from conservative movement dogma for the first time since he began his candidacy.
It wasn't easy.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)When President Obama and the GOP's primary contenders talk up the 2012 election as a choice for voters between two visions for the country's future, it's only about half hyperbole.
We'll see a prelude of this fact in the months between now and November both on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill as politicians club each other with their past votes and statements on taxes, Medicare, Social Security, and other potent issues. But it's not just rhetoric.
To an unappreciated extent, the legislative whipsawing in 2011 has set the country and the parties up for a major reckoning about the role and size of government at the end of next year. And the outcome of the election will help determine which side of the argument wins.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Is the White House taking advantage of the holiday recess to thumb its nose at Congressional Republicans over the nation's debt limit?
That's one interpretation of an announcement Treasury Department officials made today, which sets in motion an automatic increase in borrowing authority while Congress is out of session.
All of this dates back to the destructive summer fight over whether, by how much, and under what conditions to raise the national debt ceiling. Back then, the White House sought over $2 trillion in new borrowing authority -- enough to assure the country avoided another debt limit fight in the middle of election season, when members of Congress might be even more willing to put the country's creditworthiness at risk for short-term political gain.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)On Monday, the Tax Policy Center published an analysis of Newt Gingrich's plan to overhaul the tax code -- the latest in a series of of analyses of GOP presidential candidate tax proposals. And like all the plans that came before it, Gingrich's constitutes a massive tax cut for the rich. Indeed, no matter how you stack the numbers, Gingrich wants a tax system that permanently holds tax rates on the highest earners lower than tax rates on the middle class.
There are a lot of ways to parse the data. Gingrich proposes creating an alternative tax system that would significantly flatten the code, while keeping the current one in place as an option. So you can run the numbers assuming everybody jumps into the new system, or you can run them assuming that the only people who hop into the new system are people who would benefit financially as a result. And you can compare Gingrich's plan to current tax policy -- including the Bush tax cuts and other temporary tax policy -- or you can compare it to current law, which assumes all of these policies will expire in the next year, and go up on just about everyone.
To be as fair as possible, let's take Gingrich at his word that he would extend the Bush tax cuts for those staying in the current system, and that the only people who would opt into the new system are those who would pay lower taxes as a result.
Here's what happens to people's average federal tax burden as a result.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)If this year's payroll tax cut is extended -- and possibly expanded -- for another year, it will prevent the economy from taking a significant hit at a time when demand is weak and unemployment remains unacceptably high.
That's the good news.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Eight months is a long time in politics, but it will be eight months ago next week that House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a budget that envisioned a massively scaled-down social safety net -- a smaller, privatized health care system for old people, to replace traditional Medicare; Medicaid financially constrained, and handed over to state governments; cuts to various other support programs that benefit the poor, the young, and the elderly.
That didn't sit well with voters. And in the months that followed, Republicans tried to contain the fallout by making federal deficits a central political issue while forcing Democrats to agree to real cuts to these programs -- all while refusing themselves to raise taxes, even on the very wealthiest Americans.
This too didn't go according to plan. The GOP upheld its vow not to raise taxes; Democrats insisted new tax revenue was a criterion for cutting benefits; and Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security avoided the scalpel.
At least for now.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) has come up with an interesting solution to the political debate over the pending expiration of the payroll tax cut: Have workers voluntarily choose whether to continue the cut for themselves -- with the tradeoff that for every calendar year they claim the tax cut, they would also cut their own Social Security, delaying the start of benefits by one month.
The Hill reports that Landry is pitching the bill as an addition to the debate over payroll tax cut's expiration, which has hinged on the fact that the payroll tax is used to finance Social Security. (Republicans have refused Democratic efforts to pay for the tax cut by raising other taxes on the wealthy.)
Many workers would likely see their taxes go up -- but that would be because they declined to cut their future Social Security benefits.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A lot of rank and file Republicans are unhappy that their leaders have vowed to renew the temporary payroll tax cut one way or another. But nearly all of them say that if the tax holiday is renewed (or possibly even broadened) the money will have to be offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
This stands in total contrast to GOP views about permanent income tax cuts. So they're cooking up arbitrary distinctions to justify the double standard.
In U.S. News Monday, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) tests a couple different arguments.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A Constitutional amendment that would forbid Congress from running deficits failed in the House Friday, thanks to broad opposition by Democrats, who recognized it as a GOP messaging vehicle, and a tool they'd use to roll back safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security.
The final vote, was 261 - 165. Two-thirds of both chambers must agree to adopt any amendment to the Constitution. Both the House and the Senate are required under the terms of the debt limit law to hold a vote on a version of the BBA.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)So far Democrats and Republicans on the Super Committee have acted as voting blocs. And smart money is on the idea that any plan that can pass the committee will get substantial buy-in from both parties.
But for progressive groups there's a Doomsday Scenario where one deal-hungry Democrat defies his colleagues and votes with the entire GOP to pass a plan. The AFL-CIO is petitioning Dems to prevent that from happening.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)To hear Super Committee Democrats and Republicans talk about it, the parties really hit a wall early last week after each rejected the other's wildly different offer to cut about $2 trillion from deficits over 10 year.
But discussions continued until late into the week, when they stumbled again over much smaller goals, according to a Democratic aide.
The details, first reported by the Associated Press, underscore just how difficult it will be for the panel to reach an agreement by Monday, which GOP co-chair Jeb Hensarling cited Wednesday as the drop-dead date for the 12 members to act.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Liberals and progressive groups are livid at a Sunday New York Times report, which reads as if Super Committee Democrats are about to capitulate to the GOP: spending cuts now in exchange for the promise of higher revenues later. But Democratic aides privy to the negotiations say the angry reaction misreads the Dems' position. And indeed the most recent Democratic offer to Super Committee Republicans would have squared this issue by automatically nullifying entitlement cuts if future tax legislation didn't raise revenues.
The Times story is based on a comment Republican co-chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) made on CNN's Sunday show State of the Union.
Under this approach, the panel would decide on the amount of new revenue to be raised but would leave it to the tax-writing committees of Congress to fill in details next year, well beyond the Nov. 23 deadline for the panel itself to reach an agreement. That would put off painful political decisions but ensure that the debate over deficit reduction stretched into the election year."There could be a two-step process that would hopefully give us pro-growth tax reform," Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the top Republican on the panel.
Progressives took this to imply surrender.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Congress is busy. It has to extend federal funding for all federal agencies before November 18, or else the government will shut down, and the deficit Super Committee has to recommend a big package of budget cuts to the House and Senate by November 23, or set in motion dramatic automatic spending cuts to defense programs and Medicare providers. But it's still suffering a hangover from the debt limit fight. And so this week House GOP leaders will fulfill one of the terms of the debt limit law, and appease some conservatives, by holding a vote on a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment.
There's a bit of a strife among Republicans -- and even among some Democrats -- over the details of such an amendment. But almost any version would constitute a radical policy shift for the country, and threaten key safety net programs as the country ages and the cost of health care soars. It would lead to dramatic swings in U.S. fiscal policy, and at a time of high unemployment, would cost the economy dearly.
Don't believe me, here's what analysts at Macroeconomic Advisers said about it.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As reported here, Republicans have rejected a Democratic Super Committee offer that would have reduced deficits by $2.3 trillion over 10 years. The reductions would be split evenly -- a trillion a piece -- between higher tax revenues and federal programs, plus $300 billion saved in interest on the national debt.
The plan also notably would not reduce Social Security benefits by using a less generous measure of inflation to calculate cost of living adjustments -- a proposal some Democrats have supported in the past.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As of Tuesday morning, betting on the Super Committee to succeed would be playing the odds.
A key member of the Senate Democratic leadership team has openly predicted the panel will gridlock and fail, and placed the blame squarely on Republicans.
As GOP committee members met privately, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen -- a Democrat on the panel -- told Bloomberg, "You need to close some of these tax loopholes and you need to generate additional revenue. And so that balance is going to be important. We saw the dueling letters just last week. We had a bipartisan group in the House that said, 'Look, everything is on the table including revenues - tax revenues.' And within 24 hours you had 33 [Republican] Senators say, 'no new net tax revenues.'"
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Super Committee Republicans are floating a trial balloon that would produce new tax revenue, in apparent contravention of Grover Norquist's taxpayer protection pledge, according to Wall Street Journal editorialist Stephen Moore.
But as Moore explains that the offer has a catch:
One positive development on taxes taking shape is a deal that could include limiting tax deductions, perhaps by capping write-offs on charities, state and local taxes, and mortgage interest payments as a percentage of each tax filer's gross income. That idea was introduced on these pages by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In exchange, Democrats would agree to make the Bush income-tax cuts permanent. This would mean preventing top rates from going to 42% from 35% today, and keeping the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 15%, as opposed to plans to raise them to 23.8% or higher after 2013.
Senate Democrats' top messaging strategist predicted Monday that the deficit Super Committee will fail to meet its required minimum target of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
"I don't think the Super Committee is going to succeed because our Republican colleagues have said 'no net revenues,'" said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on MSNBC. "When Democrats move too far left, we lose. We're now -- the basic mainstream of Democrats...we're willing to move to the middle," Schumer said. "They are not willing to do any revenues."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As noted previously, the deficit Super Committee is gridlocked largely because the GOP is unwilling to accept higher taxes on wealthy people as part of a compromise with Democrats that also cuts Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But the parties also differ on the question of whether their recommendations should include any near term spending and/or tax cuts to give the weak economy a much-needed boost.
Recently committee Republicans and Democrats presented each other with competing plans -- some details of which were leaked to the press. Aides note that the Dem plan contained about $300 billion in expansionary measures, while the GOP plan contained... well, see for yourself.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A simple yes or no would have sufficed, but when House Speaker John Boehner was asked whether anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist was a positive influence on his caucus, he feigned ignorance.
"It's not often I'm asked about some random person in America," he said.
The context here is that Republicans are gridlocking the deficit Super Committee because they've pledged publicly never to raise taxes -- a pledge Democrats say they'll have to break to get bipartisan support for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) acknowledged that the 12 member deficit Super Committee is having a hard time reaching consensus, and dismissed as unserious a Democratic proposal that would have reduced the deficit by nearly $3 trillion, split fairly evenly between cuts to entitlement and other federal programs, and new taxes.
"I'm not surprised that, you know, we're having some difficulty," Boehner told reporters at a Thursday Capitol briefing. "Because this isn't easy. It's going to be very hard. But I do think it's time for everyone to get serious about this."
Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have taken a more active role in the negotiations to hasten progress, according to reports, and Boehner seemed to confirm that.
Democrats want the 2012 elections to turn on the question of which party has a better vision for the country, and to win the ensuing battle of public perception, both parties are putting the brightest shine they can on their particular designs.
On Wednesday, the GOP pitted conservative darling Paul Ryan against liberal hero Elizabeth Warren, with Ryan serving as a tribune to wealthy Americans and Warren as a populist fighter for working people.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)At the request of the Senate Finance Committee, the Congressional Budget Office has produced a report analyzing trends in the distribution of household income from 1979 until 2007 -- just before the economy fell off a cliff.
The results will be familiar to economists and policy wonks, but they're eye-popping. These charts and graphs tell a story of a massive income growth in the Reagan and post-Reagan years, and particularly during the George W. Bush administration -- but only for the famous 1 percenters.
The flat tax is becoming a litmus test for Republican presidential candidates, and on Tuesday it won a key endorsement from the former chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
At an event sponsored by the American Action Forum, at the National Press Club in Washington, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour argued in favor of key elements of Rick Perry's freshly released budget plan, which includes the option of a single income and corporate tax rate, unspecified spending cuts, a spending cap, and private savings accounts for workers as an alternative to Social Security.
"Is a flat tax good tax policy? Yes. It's not the only good tax policy. But it's certainly can be very good tax policy, particularly if you eliminate a lot of deductions so that it increases the appropriate amount of revenue," Barbour said.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The House GOP has hit upon a way to undercut President Obama's attacks on them and advance conservative policy goals all at once. This week, they'll pass legislation that includes perhaps the least stimulative measure in President Obama's jobs bill and pay for it with perhaps the most regressive measure in a recent package of deficit reducing proposals he submitted to the joint deficit super committee.
It's a case study in the perils of offering concessions to your opponents before negotiations have begun. And it will force Democrats in both chambers, but particularly in the Senate, to decide whether to pass a proposal comprised of measures Obama's backed in the past, even though they've been cherry picked to essentially constitute a Republican piece of legislation. If Senate Dems block the measure, Republicans will accuse them of wanting to pick political fights instead of passing Obama jobs legislation. If Dems pass the measure, and Obama signs it, the GOP can cite it as evidence that they're not simply standing in the way of action on the economy.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Mitt Romney caught a lot of heat Tuesday for his comments about foreclosures. But in the same interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal, he outlined a plan for the country's future that would please Paul Ryan, and conservatives hell bent on rolling back the social safety net.
Without noting that Social Security has been in good shape for about 20 years, Romney proposed making it solvent in the long term through a mix of benefit cuts, taking the option of imposing payroll taxes on higher-income earners off the table completely.
"Arithmetically, there are probably three ways of making Social Security permanently solvent," Romney said. "One would be simply raising taxes. I don't favor that one. Number two would be to increase the retirement age. Number three would be to have a little slower growth in benefits for higher income beneficiaries.... Some combination of those last two is the place we can go in my opinion to solve Social Security for future retirees."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Herman Cain's flagship 9-9-9 policy is perhaps the most memorable slogan of GOP primary season. Cain proposes to wipe out the existing tax code and replace it with a 9 percent individual income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax rate, and a 9 percent national sales tax. No more loopholes, no more deductions, no more exclusions, no more capital gains taxes, no more payroll taxes no more...Social Security or Medicare?
The 9-9-9 plan actually says nothing about Medicare. But numerous analyses conclude swapping out the current tax code for 9-9-9 would leave the Treasury significantly short of the insufficient revenues it currently collects. Cain has no interest in raising those rates. And that means barring unfathomable economic growth, 9-9-9 would yield enormous budget shortfalls and eventually require the government to offload popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)House progressives will press the joint deficit Super Committee to ditch entitlement cuts and pass measures to bolster the economy.
The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are rounding up Democratic signatures on a letter, obtained by TPM, pressing the 12 member panel to pair emergency jobs legislation with deficit reducing measures based on tax increases on wealthy Americans.
"We ask that you lead the Select Committee by these simple core principles," write Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). "The American people have spoken loud and clear on their priorities for our nation. They want Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare protected, they want billionaires and corporations to finally pay their fair share and they want to be able to get back to work to earn a fair living."
Their effort is partially bolstered by a new CBO analysis, which found that the unemployment crisis is a massive driver of the deficit. In other words, effective job creation measures will go a good way toward closing the near and medium term hole in the budget.
You can read the entire letter, which has not yet been delivered to the Super Committee co-chairs, below the fold.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Just a month ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry touched the Third Rail of American politics by calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." There was some real data that showed it hurting him with independent voters and even some Republicans. But on Thursday some data from CNN came out showing Americans going a few different directions on the program: namely, a majority that favored a partial privatization and a fifth that believe the program is actually unconstitutional.
The most traditional number was familiar. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said the program has been good for the country, which held across all parties and ideologies. People still showed concern however: 71 percent of those polled said that the system was either in a state of crisis (22 percent) or had major problems (49 percent), something which all party subgroups agreed on again.
Then results started to get crossed, or at least counter-intuitive.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Democrats on the new deficit Super Committee are determined to be better negotiators than their predecessors in earlier deficit discussions leading up to the debt limit fight.
According to aides with knowledge of the discussions, they're trying to keep the panel's early focus on revenues, to avoid falling into a familiar trap of agreeing to a bunch of spending cuts only to have Republicans freeze up when they try to change the conversation to taxes.
A bit of background is appropriate here.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republicans and conservative operatives have become obsessed with the idea that wealthy liberals should prove their largesse not by making public arguments for higher taxes on people like themselves but by donating money to the U.S. Treasury.
This is the fiscal equivalent of the old critique that environmentalists should just buy hybrid cars and never fly anywhere instead of fighting for laws meant to combat climate change. It's silly, but it's combustible, and it exploded on Twitter and elsewhere after an Obama supporter in California this week asked the President to raise his taxes.
Anti-tax warrior Grover Norquist has turned this talking point into world class snark.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
In a speech at Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered a recitation of his controversial, alternative vision for the country's social safety net.
But despite the backlash Republicans have faced taken since they voted overwhelmingly in the spring to adopt his approach, Ryan says now's the time for conservatives and GOP candidates to renew their support for that vision, not to walk away from it.
[W]e took a few dings at first, we survived," Ryan admitted. "The Democrats' tried the same old scare tactics for a few months, and in the first special election that took place after our budget passed, we learned a costly lesson. We learned that unless we back up our ideas with courage, and defend them in the face of attacks, we will lose. But once we learned that lesson and started to get our message out... well, a funny thing happened: People listened. They learned that our plan did not affect those in or near retirement; that it guaranteed coverage options like the ones members of Congress enjoy; and that choice and competition would drive costs down and quality up. They also learned more about the Democrats' plans for Medicare, and they didn't like what they heard."
Ryan went on.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Highly unpopular Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) sat down with the folks of Morning Joe on Wednesday to discuss the Republican presidential candidates' chances in Florida as well as some of his state's own issues.
Asked how Mitt Romney and Rick Perry would do in Florida, Scott said he thinks either candidate could win in a general election. And Scott doesn't think Perry will be in much trouble for calling Social Security a "monstrous lie" and a "ponzi scheme."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The key dilemma facing President Obama and Congressional Democrats is that Republicans are wholly unwilling to support any new job-creating spending projects -- even projects with bipartisan support -- unless they're offset with spending cuts or savings elsewhere in the budget.
Thus, Democrats on the new joint deficit Super Committee will seek more than the $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction they've been tasked with finding, in order to help offset some of those costs.
"All of us would like to set as a target for ourselves even more than $1.5 trillion," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who's also the top House Democrat on the Budget Committee, told reporters at a Tuesday Capitol press conference.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sometimes campaign spin works to distance a candidate from his controversial past statements. And sometimes the candidate comes back and makes a hash of all the work his staff has done for him.
We could be witnessing the latter scenario when it comes to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and one of the nation's most popular government programs. Last week, Perry's campaign spokesperson took to the Wall Street Journal to help back Perry off the less election-friendly sections of his book, Fed Up!. That includes Perry's suggestion that Social Security is an unconstitutional scheme which should be privatized post-haste.
Over the weekend, Perry walked all that back and fired off some more fiery rhetoric about the perils of the entitlement program that most Americans do not want to see changed.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The most powerful union official in the country offered reporters his harshest critique of President Obama to date Thursday, questioning Obama's policy and strategic decisions, and claiming he aligned himself with the Tea Party in the debt limit fight.
"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Former Sen. Russ Feingold and his new group Progressives United are petitioning the six House and Senate Democrats serving on the joint deficit Super Committee to walk away if Republicans don't budge on tax increases, and insist on cutting entitlement benefits.
"If we don't get our policy priorities, Democrats need to be ready to walk away from the deal," Feingold emailed his supporters. "You can guarantee extremists on the other side will continue to push relentlessly to give even more to corporations and put even more of the burden on the middle class. We have to fight harder than they will."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Rick Perry's recent political manifesto Fed Up doesn't just hint that Social Security should be privatized. It also advocates for a farther-reaching overhaul of the tax code than most conservatives support.
Perry says that government's access to new sources of revenue should be fundamentally limited -- either self-imposed by Congress, or by the Constitution itself. "One option would be to totally scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax, and thereby make taxation much simpler, easier to follow, and harder to manipulate," Perry writes.
"Another option would be to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (providing the power for the income tax) altogether, and then pursue an alternative model of taxation such as a national sales tax or the Fair Tax. The time has come to stop talking about fixing the broken and burdensome tax code and to take bold action to replace it with one that is not a burden for the taxpayer and that provides only the modest revenue needed to perform the basic constitutional functions of the federal government."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Texas Governor-turned-Presidential candidate Rick Perry is already walking away from his brand new controversial political manifesto Fed Up, and in particular its attack on Social Security as an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme.
His campaign spokesman told the Wall Street Journal that Fed Up "is a look back, not a path forward" written "as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto."
That's not exactly true. Perry spends most of the book criticizing New Deal, Great Society, and Obama administration policies, among others. But there are plenty of shoulds, coulds, and ought tos -- both explicit or implicit -- scattered throughout the book.
Here's one section on Social Security.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) made a lot of hay last year with his contention that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and his suggestion that states should be allowed to abandon it for their own senior support systems before it's too late.
Less than a week after Perry announced his White House bid however, he's tempering that last idea a bit.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
We now know who's serving on the 12-member deficit Super Committee this fall. We know who the two co-chairs will be, we know many if not all of the requirements it must meet, and we know what happens if it fails.
Which means we know the battle lines and can project with some certainty how the fight will play out.
Of the six Democrats on the committee, most if not all have publicly proclaimed they'll support certain cuts to Medicare and Medicaid -- particularly if they fall hardest on providers and not beneficiaries -- but only if Republicans are willing to accept some "meaningful" new tax revenues.
Of course, all of the six Republicans have pledged never to support tax increases, and most if not all have demonstrated extreme reluctance over raising any revenues at all, including from loophole closures that benefit extremely few privileged individuals and businesses.

