I too, though I don’t have LibDem in my username, would like to give credit where credit is due, and thank Mitch McConnell for doing the right thing here. Never thought I’d ever be thinking anything good about Mitch “Make him a one term president” McConnell but even I can be surprised from time to time it seems.
And good on John Boehner for allowing the vote to come to the floor against tea party wishes.
They did the right thing in that, unlike a few of the Tea Party representatives, they understood that a default would really be terrible and that they would be to blame if that happened. That doesn’t take a tremendous amount of courage. It just shows how little we’ve come to expect from these people that they’re getting praised for putting a dent in the economy but not totally breaking it. Boehner was atrocious throughout this episode.
That’s not what it says though. The part on page 24, yes. But it continues on page 25 and 26, and seems to give automatic coverage in the debt ceiling for increases unless Congress specifically disallows it.
Congratulations on doing the bare minimum, guys.
I thought so too, but upon re-reading the bill, Klein is correct.
I retract my earlier comment.
Where and how? I’m not reading that at all, and I want to know what lines I missed.
This is how it’s going to play out:
Republicans: we want entitlement cuts
Obama: I want tax increases on the rich
Republicans: go fuck yourself, give us what we want
Obama: ok, how about we just close some loopholes then
Republicans: go fuck yourself, give us what we want
Obama: Immigration reform?
Republicans: go fuck yourself, give us what we want
Obama: how about no, does no work for you?
Republicans: he won’t negotiate! we are taking the world economy hostage!
This is from the final version of the bill - H.R. 2775, Section 1002(c):
I am interpreting that as, “On February 8, 2014, the debt ceiling is set to the value of the debt on that date.”
He could lose even if not primaried from the right. Kentucky SOS Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) is leading him in the polls. (Granted, that’s Public Policy Polling poll, a Dem outfit.)
I think it’s going to be more like:
Republicans: we want entitlement cuts
Obama: I want tax increases on the rich
Republicans: okay, how about fewer entitlement cuts?
Obama: What part of “tax increases on the rich” did you not understand?
Republicans: how about we cut…
Obama: Rich. Tax increases. Line in the sand.
Republicans: Rich. NO tax increases. Dealbreaker.
I also have this strange feeling that, somewhere along the line, somebody is going to say, “The people voted for ACA when they re-elected Obama, and as not enough young healthy people have applied, the money we need to pay for everybody else isn’t there, so we need to increase taxes on the rich and corporations in order to pay for it; therefore, the people support tax increases.”
What the Democrats should do is to make the first move with something along the lines of, “Okay, here’s the deal; you can’t touch ACA, or Medicare, or Social Security (am I leaving something out?), but other than that, what do the Republicans want to cut in lieu of raising taxes?”.
Negotiating isn’t just letting the republicans decide what they want to cut, they have to give up something for those cuts.
Agreed. The Tea Party wing of the GOP lives in a fact free bubble. However I think the business class may put pressure on Boehner to be more bipartisan. There are always going to be enough votes to get clean debt ceiling and government funding bills passed between the dems and the republicans (87 GOPers voted in the house for the bill that was passed, and the margin was 58 votes above the minimum needed).
In 2013 alone these dysfunctional games cost the US 900k jobs. Supposedly we’ve lost something like 2 million jobs since 2011 because of these games.
Here is a PDF of the bill - H. R. 2775.
Section 3101(b) is the legislation that is the debt limit. So, 3 days after passage the president can raise the limit by ‘suspending’ 3101(b) but that ability ends on the 7th.
The rest of the bill appears to deal with how large the increase can be and how Congress can object.
To add to my last post, very similar language about “disapproval” of a debt limit increase appears in the 2011 bill - but only prior to Dec 31, 2011. Search for Sec. 301.
Quick question -
Is medicare and social security for retirees universal or is it means tested?
Social security refers to retirement benefits (i.e a monthly allowance) for the retired right?
Social Security is more than just retirement benefits, but those are not means tested. The benefits are very progressive with lower paid workers recovering a greater portion of their contributions than the higher compensated. It has a maximum monthly benefit of about $2600 in current dollars, regardless of how much you pay in.
Medicare premiums paid in retirement ($105/month) cost more for those with higher income, so there is some means testing.
Why should the Democrats do that? Assuming the Democrats don’t want to cut anything, given the already harsh cuts programs have faced over the last few years, why should compromise consist of Democrats getting nothing that they want and Republicans getting part of what they want?
Democrats SHOULD engage in a push to educate people about what compromise entails: Republicans who suggest that only cutting a little bit, without increasing taxes, is compromise should be laughed at in public
When you say “pay in” does that mean that your contributions go into “your” account? And that if you never “pay in” (eg: a SAHM) you never get any payout?
I can’t speak for everywhere, but for the places I am familiar with, there are solid moves towards means testing of retirement payouts - I know for New Zealand this was debated 20 years ago, and it was something that made sense to me then (I’m not sure what the current status is, but I still support it)
Here in Singapore, we have compulsory retirement contributions for ALL workers, money that goes into YOUR retirement account. Something I also support (the challenge though is that there are no retirement benefits here, and if you never pay in, then you’re SOL)
No separate individual accounts.
To qualify for retirement benefits you need to have worked for at least 40 calendar quarters during which you and your employers pay the SS tax.
The other social insurance aspects of the SS system have differing requirements.
Cancel some of my respect for Mitch McConnell. Turns out he snuck himself a nice little morsel of pork into the bill. I don’t mind that much since the dam will create some nice jobs.
Where to go from here? I wish Obama would channel Ross Perot and give an address from behind his desk with visual aids. Show the proportion of the deficit due to the Bush tax cuts. Show how the deficit has gone down over the last few years. Democrats have the disadvantage of making the public argument in that they need to do more than recite bumper stickers. Obama and the Democrats need to make the case to the public for why revenues are needed and why higher taxes won’t lead to job loss, how the “job creator” myth is all bullshit, and they need to make a case for no longer spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.