One more post, then I need to do some work. A decent summary from GovExec on the framework of the deal we’re talking about.
• President Obama is authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion in three steps, allowing Treasury to continue to borrow through 2012 and lawmakers to avoid a retread of this fight in six months.
• Nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts over 10 years will be implemented immediately through discretionary spending caps.
• Congress will vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year.
• A bicameral, bipartisan group of 12 lawmakers will be charged with identifying additional deficit cuts worth about $1.5 trillion. The joint select committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by November 23, the day before Thanksgiving, and Congress must vote on the group’s package by December 23.
• Should the committee fail to come to an agreement on a deficit-reduction package, automatic across-the-board spending cuts worth about $1.2 trillion will kick in starting in 2013 - with 50 percent coming from defense and 50 percent coming from domestic programs - in order to raise the debt ceiling by an equivalent amount. Entitlements largely get a pass: Social Security and Medicaid would be exempted from the cuts, and Medicare would only face cuts to providers and insurers, not beneficiaries.
• The White House is assuring supporters that the committee can raise taxes, and several senators have said that, as far as they know, there will be no restrictions on the committee. But House Speaker John Boehner’s PowerPoint, sent to his conference, says the group “effectively” cannot raise revenues because any plan it puts forward must be scored by the Congressional Budget Office on current law, which assumes that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will expire at the end of 2012. Either way, it’s kind of a moot point: It’s hard to believe the six Republicans on the committee will agree to raise tax rates. Still, Obama maintains the ability to veto an extension of the Bush cuts if Congress fails to get the ball rolling on comprehensive tax reform, which means that closing “loopholes” and ending various subsidies will almost surely be a big part of the committee’s discussions – and taxes will continue to fuel the fury of liberals and conservatives alike as the House gears up for a vote on the deal this week.
The baggers won by holding the faith and credit of the US hostage. They were willing to let default happen if they did not get their way. They got their way and are still crying like babies.
The committee of 12 can not be legal. They usurp the power of congress to control finances. They are given a dictator power to do the job of congress. They can not be filibustered or their findings rejected. I want to see the justice department go after that stupid committee.
This was brinksmanship and the president blinked again.
One of the worst parts is I had to listen to Hatch, Paul and Sessions today.
False. Congress still must vote to approve the recommendations of the committee by a majority vote. No amendments, no filibusters. However, the findings can be rejected.
If they are rejected, then a BBA is voted upon.
If the BBA fails, then cuts are automatically issued across the board except for food stamps, social security, and medicaid.
No dictators here.
Who will be appointing the commission members?
Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi - 3 each from their caucuses.
I believe it is:
Boehner-3
Pelosi-3
Reid-3
McConnell-3
You’re missing the key difference, though. Given that every other time the debt limit has ever been raised it’s just been raised as a clean vote with no riders or anything, THAT is the default position, the null hypothesis if you will. The democrats are willing to do that. The republicans are not. That’s why there’s no equivalency. The idea of even having an argument in which a compromise must be reached was the republicans’ doing.
Yet another analogy (because, damn it, I love analogies): every Wednesday at noon Sue and Doug, a married couple, have to take the trash cans out to the curb. If they fail to do so, their trash will pile up and overflow their house and it will be horrible and miserable. They hate doing it because it smells, and every time they do, they mutter “gee, we really should cut down on the amount of packaged goods we buy”. But each week, they do in fact take the trash out. Every Monday they do their shopping for the week, and every Monday the may pay lip service to the fewer-packaged-goods plan that they talk about every Wednesday, but once they go to the store the lure of the Hostess Ding-Dongs is too strong,and they buy more packaged goods than ever. One Wednesday at 11:30 a.m., Doug suddenly puts his foot down and says “we’re not taking the trash out until we come up with a plan for reducing our number of packaged goods”. Sue says “great idea, but let’s figure it out later this week before we go shopping next Monday”. He refuses. They get into an argument. They both stake out positions. They eventual get to an impasse where neither one will budge. And noon passes, and garbage piles up in their house, and they end up featured on AMC’s “Hoarders”.
Are they equally to blame?
Max, I hear what you’re saying, I really do. But look at it from the tea partier’s perspective; from where they sit, the current crisis has been caused by one side - the Dems’ spending.
In your hypothetical couple, what if only one person has bought any of the packaged goods or other trash - the other person lives the life of a tree-hugger, creating no environmental footprint, off the grid, etc etc. Why should both have to take the trash? What if the person who is seeing their house fill up with trash finally says, you know, we’re at the end of the line, and I can’t stand it anymore. Something has to change, and I’m going to make sure it does…for the good of both of us (and especially our kids).
That’s where we are. An inflection point, and the Tea Partiers, with what they believe is a mandate from the last election (and they might have a point - even a lefty must admit this), are going to do what they can to stop the insanity (Dems deficit spending). That’s why the debt limit is being used as a vehicle, or if you prefer, a proxy: for a discussion on the appropriate size of government.
So because the Democrats have no backbones, the Republican party (or Tea Partiers, whichever) are the bad guys for doing what they said they’d do when ran for office? lolwut?
No, they are the bad guys because they are the bad guys.
If you setup a business in an area run by the mob and they tell you they will extort money from you they are still the bad guy even if you do not stand up to them. Doesn’t matter that they told you ahead of time.
Have you any suggestions to offer on how they might “make due”? Recipes, perhaps, from the Mr Smashy cookbook, to make that cat food into a gourmet treat? Or, perhaps the cat itself? Or maybe you would recommend that Medicare parasites adopt a homeopathic approach, diluting their heart and cancer medication to streeeetch their prescription dollar? Of course, their doctor will not approve, but hey, we’re not talking medical science here, we’re talking finance.
Is that what you seriously think? That these issues can be resolved with just a bit of judicious scrimping, here and there? Trim some of the fat from a grossly over-generous program, is that it?
If these are not our people, who’s people are they? If we have no obligation to them, to whom do we have any obligation?
If meeting this obligation means we must tax the wealthy, tax them. If it means we must soak the rich, soak them. If it means we must seize them by the ankles, dangle them upside down and shake them until all the change drops out of their pockets, do it. Perhaps the rich cannot afford us. Can we afford them?
Clearly, they don’t need us. Do we need them? Why? What do they do for us that we need so very badly, that we would allow the old and the poor to suffer?
How about cutting medicare and social security for wealthy seniors?
Why is it that the government always proposes fixing medicare by taxing the wealthy more, but not by cutting benefits to the wealthy?
Oh, I know… because one involves the government as a middleman and makes government bigger, and the other doesn’t.
What is the retirement income from SS? What can a married retired couple who paid in all their lives expect to collect? I honestly don’t know.
How about instead of instituting a wealth tax, or raising the estate tax, seniors who are cash poor but equity-rich be required to take out reverse mortgages to provide for their own retirement, consuming their own estates? If a working class couple retires with $500,000 in home equity, why can’t they just take out a 25 year reverse mortgage on their home to provide for their retirement income, with government merely making up the gaps if their income falls below a living wage threshold?
How about putting a deductible on Medicare costs, with the amount of deductible indexed to your wealth? A poor person with no assets still gets free medical care, but a retired professional couple with $2 million in assets has a $20,000 per year deductible, and Bill Gates has a $1 million per year deductible.
All of these are ‘progressive’ in that the rich bear the brunt, but instead of raising taxes and growing government, they push the burden for health care and retirement back on wealthy people to look after themselves. It’s outrageous for millionaires to get handouts from the government to cover basic health care and retirement costs.
Scrap the universality of social security and medicare. Increase the FICA tax to the levels of other countries, but offer a full tax credit for the increase if a person puts the money in a private plan. Instead of eliminating the cap on FICA taxes for high income people, put a cap on SS and medicare benefits for high income people.
Sam, not an unreasonable request. Waiting for the Republicans, with their new found sense of urgency over the size of the US debt, to offer this up in a bill. Some might even argue it would have been appropriate in the bill submitted yesterday…
Two things: first, those are reasonable suggestions, that a thoughtful lefty such as myself might well regard as useful and worthwhile suggestions. Second, who are you and what have you done with Sam?
Not an unreasonable idea, assuming that the goal is genuinely reducing spending and not funneling benefits to the rich.
Well, true to form, he did slip this in at the end, allowing the wealthy to opt out of SS altogether:
I personally love means-testing SS benefits as a potential solution to the demographics problem. It’s generally oppposed because many SS supporters believe it will be easier to attack as “welfare” if it is means-tested. The others who oppose it consider it class warfare.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
What is the retirement income from SS? What can a married retired couple who paid in all their lives expect to collect? I honestly don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Social Security Administration]
What is the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker?
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,177 at the beginning of 2011. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.
[/QUOTE]
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker
I believe Medicare does have a deductible. For Medicare Part A its something like $1k.
Your proposals are reasonable, and have been considered before. They are also pretty explicitly “class warfare” and will combated as such.
“Full tax credit for the increase” - does this mean that only the delta is creditable, or the entire FICA amount if I “opt out”.
I was wondering the same thing. I hope that he isn’t feeling lightheaded, but something is different about him for making the un-Sam-like statements that he did. At least he has that good universal Canadian healthcare to make him better. 
Oh, it was bound to happen. We’re right, he’s smart, sooner or later, he’s ours.