The debt-reduction plan President Obama put on the table last week includes several hundred billion in savings, on top of the cuts that the administration has already accepted in social-insurance programs. Republicans responded by saying the cuts aren't "serious" enough.
And why not? Because as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) argued yesterday, "painful cuts ... have to happen."
This matters insofar as policymakers seem to be having a debate over the qualitative nature of "cuts." As Igor Volsky noted, the right seems to believes "serious" plans are ones that "directly reduce benefits or substantially increase out of pocket spending for seniors and poor Americans."
Quite right. If at-risk Americans aren't adversely affected by the cuts, then GOP policymakers aren't interested. As Corker seemed to suggest yesterday, "painful" = "serious."
Even putting aside the callousness of the argument, the larger Republican approach doesn't stand up well to mathematical scrutiny, either.
As Paul Krugman explained over the weekend, the White House's call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes "gets treated with an unmistakable sneer," while Republicans' calls for raising the Medicare eligibility age "gets very respectful treatment."
So I thought I'd look at the dollars and cents -- and even I am somewhat shocked. Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
So, the non-serious proposal would reduce the deficit 14 times as much as the serious proposal.
I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class.
It's a point to keep in mind as the debate continues to unfold.
Leave a Comment:
Good to hear the GOP wanting "serious" cuts. Start by not paying Republican members of Congress.
Peanuts. And I don't mean "peanuts" in terms of the budget, I mean "peanuts" in terms of "pain" to the Congresscritters. The ones who care the least about the least of us are also the ones doing the best from other sources of income.
how about...
annual salary = (base pay) x (approval rating)
you want to hold this country hostage with your legislative powers granted to you by the people, then suffer the consequence when the people speak out about how well you do your job.
D.C. is right. Raising the top marginal rate really wouldn't be painful for the rich, so it can't be serious. You must screw the poor and least-well-off!!!
Jesus must be so proud.
Well, we'll just let Corker's buddies in the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex take the "serious" reductions.
And this is not yearly - if we could get 1.6 trillion a year through spending cuts and increased revenues - then that would be some serious numbers!!
Until the Republicans can accept a minimum of 39.6% taxes on their uber-rich buddies, they are not serious about anything. Corker is throwing flak into the debate to divert attention away from the revenue side of the equation.
Hey Corker, until the tax rates on your buddies making millions returns to the Eisenhower rates, your blowing hot air out your nose! -Kevo
Corker wants "cuts = painful", here are a few:
1) Cut off DOD contracting - eg. Haliburton, Northrup Grumann, et.al.
2) Cut off welfare (subsidies) to BIG OIL/COAL/PHARMA/Agriculture
3) Stop welfare to companies hemorrhaging jobs to low/no wage nations.
Let's start with these and see how "painful" they are to those that no longer receive them; then we can talk about how much "pain" working Americans need to further feel!
Carl Gibson at Reader Supported News explains what really needs to be cut in support of Zora's list: Why Democrats Should Embrace 'Entitlement Reform' - redefines "entitlement". http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14798-focus-why-democrats-should-embrace-entitlement-ref
Like Sen. Corker, I am an Old White Male, and I totally agree about those "painful cuts".
First off, the Young need to pick up Newt's Mop and Bucket, and clean the schoolhouse bathrooms for free. And pay to ride the school bus.
And teh Blahs/Browns cannot continue to get all that Free Stuff from Obama. Abolish HUD, WICS, SNAP, -maybe even Crackle and Pop.
Finally, the Wimmen need to take a pay cut- 40% less that men. (What? They already earn 40% less? Give us a moment, Corker and I will come up with something else equally painful.)
Day, you forgot your /snark tag. There are some RWNJs that might mistake your (obvious) snark for a serious proposal.
as a further cost cutting measure we will start recycling calenders beginning with 1956
He actualy meant "Logicaly" painful
Day
For the women, you can add a forcible TV Ultrasound to verify their IRS filing status and/or eligibility for any social programs.
(also snark)
raising the age of eligibility gets "very respective treatment" because it has become the go to easy hanging fruit for way too many "respectable" voices on both sides of the aisle down through the years.
The outcome on this, should it come to finding a compromise deal, very predictably will include an increase in the age of eligibility. Because, judging from past performances of Congress, Congress simply has not been looking after the best interests of the common working folk.
And wait until the big companies that pay for healthcare have to pay benefits to employees who cannot afford to retire at 65. That will probably cost them more than the tax increase.
So Republicans want the country to go back to a time when seniors lived without heat and ate cat food to survive.
But millionaires going back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton administration (and the accompanying economic boom) is unacceptable.
I wonder how soon Republicans will demand that retirees and the poor be horsewhipped as a condition of receiving their government checks.
There's no profit in horsewhipping. But you're never so old or so poor that you can't be tapped for blood plasma.
They want to go back to the time when children had to support their elderly parents. When my Grandmother had a gall bladder operation at the age of 75, my father and his sister and brother had to pay for it.
It's a simple matter of efficiency. The most vulnerable citizens are the ones who can be hurt the most with a minimum of tax hikes and spending cuts. Imagine just how high you'd have to raise marginal tax rates before the rich were making a real sacrifice! imagine how deep you'd have to cut -- let's say, defense spending -- before the most powerful and wealthy among us felt the sting! Small government can hurt only the poor; no one wants the kind of big government that would be needed to rein in the rich.
I suppose it's necessary to state that I'm being sarcastic. Otherwise i might end up with squirter as my best buddy.
If your tax rate does not hurt then youare are living off the charity of other peoples money.
Then a lot of wealthy people are living off the charity of other people's money.
Yup.
Remember, the whole point of the "fiscal cliff" campaign is to scare Obama and the majority into volunteering to cut SS and Medicare. It's becoming clear that this campaign will fail - there won't be a "Grand Bargain" in December, at most a small-ball extension of tax cuts for income <$250k. SS and Medicare remain the political third rail, and everyone knows it.
So there will have to be a new campaign next year. Again, the point will be to scare Obama and the majority into volunteering to cut SS and Medicare. Probably the debt ceiling will be the fulcrum. Rest assured they will not stop. And they (Republicans and wealthy) haven't the courage to state their true positions and negotiate fairly, so the theater will go on.
The question is: how will the theater play in the 2014 campaign? Can the liberal and demographic gains be extended to off-year elections?
The Romney Ryan "team" were telling us all through their campaign that Pres.Obama cut $416 billion from medicare. Now he proposes another $400 billion in cuts. So almost a trillion in cuts is'nt enough for the republicans. How much do they want? They want enough to kill it. No "painful" tax increases for the wealthy,just put it all on the backs of the seniors and the less fortunate. All the while, congressmen and senators have voted themselves sweet health care and pension deals for life. What a bunch of gotdamn hypocrites.
That's a good point, although I believe the number was $716 billion. It begs that these reporters ask repubs like Corker "Had Romney been elected and succeeded in repealing Obamacare, putting back the $716 billion he said Obama took out of Medicare, would you then be advocating that Medicare spending should be cut?"
I'm sure he'd respond that he won't answer hypothetical questions.
Maybe they want to raise revenues by having seniors pay higher Medicare premiums from the Social Security benefits.
For renewed committement to placing hardship on someone else's doorstep, try the new improved post-election conservative mindset. It might appear to be the same as the pre-election conservative mind-set, but that's just liberal bias.
/s/
If the tax increases on the rich don't hurt, they aren't serious
It might be good to recall that they want the Democrats do make the move because they know that it's going to be massively unpopular. They want the Democrats to do the dirty deed so that the Republicans can blame them for it. It's like the chess player whose entire plan is based on his opponent making spectacularly stupid moves.
They blew their chance in 2011. By all reports, Obama was prepared to offer up "entitlement reform" to get his $4E12 "grand bargain." And, by those same reports, Paul Ryan nixed the deal.
Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for us) Obama isn't as stupid as they tell themselves he is, and has learned from experience. This time, if they want someone to touch the "third rail" they're going to have to do it themselves. And they're in denial: still holding out for Democratic suicide.
The Republicans (most of them anyway) and their rich friends need to act like they are citizens of the U.S. Start giving a damn about the real people who have made this country successful. The workers!
These higher-ups don't have a clue what hard work is. Put them in a low paying job. Homeless. Have all their wealth and power vanish. Let's see what they would do then? These idiots need a reality check.
My favorite was the Norquist threat of a second wave Tea Party. Really? Because your first wave did so well.
Sorry. This just ticks me off to no end. We have worked our behinds off and this handful of heartless morons have our future held hostage.
We are only talking about approximately 400 people. We could do without them all and start over. Fine looking dogs you have there.
Too funny Sal L...
If you don't drastically reform SS and medicare, they will soon cease to exist. What is it that liberals don't understand? That must be what the libs want. Also, libs don't understand that our country is broke. They want the people to be taken care of by the government. With what? There is no money! They want to continue all entitlement programs, put forward new spending programs etc. Again? With what? The rich, although they already pay the lion's share of the taxes, can't pay all that libs want to add to spending even if the government took all of their money. The only bargaining power the republicans have is not giving on tax hikes until Obama gets serious about entitlement reform. If they give on that first, there will be no spending cuts. Obama is not interested in cutting spending anywhere. He only wants to spend more.
Wrong.
The only thing needed to make Social Security solvent for the long term is to remove the cap on the salary subject to it. And to make ALL income, from whatever source, subject to FICA.
And going to Medicare-for-All would vastly improve medical care and reduce costs.
See, it wasn't that hard, was it?
Yeah! If things keep going as they are, when my children reach retirement age SS will only be able to pay 75% of their benefits out of current revenues. (Which, by the way, is about the same 20-30 year horizon that's been forecast since I was their age. For some reason the disaster keeps receding.)
As for Medicare, its horizon is also receding. Something about a thing called "Obamacare."
How wingnuts keep getting away with flagrant lies and spewing numbers that don't even come close to adding up.
There they go again, revealing what sadistic perverts they are, motivated by the desire to hurt. Sickening.
Cuts are going to be painful whether they happen now or later. They will have to happen. It is a matter of when the politicians get the courage to do what is necessary. If those cuts don't happen until later, they will be much more painful. It would be much better to do them now than wait until they are forced on us. But.... They are actually being forced on us now, but half the people in the country are in denial and continue to want more and more spending. We are a very selfish generation if we force our children and grandchildren to bear the brunt of our foolish spending.
How about before you make painful cuts to the programs that keep some people alive, you cut waste in all areas, cut some military spending, cut subsidies to oil companies and other unnecessary subsidies. Painful cuts should be the last resort, not the first.
Then start with something really painful - raise the tax rates on all income above $2 million to 90%.
Remember, you always hurt the one you love...
These turds really hate poor people.
It's about time that the leeches of society get cut. Try and report someone for fraud. You are told that there are not enough fraud investigators. Hire more, the savings will well offset the costs.
You do realize that we're shorted something like $300 billion per year of tax revenue due to inadequate enforcement? That's not a ten-year figure, that's just one year.
Adequate staffing of the IRS wouldn't close all of that $300 billion, of course. Let's say just $200 billion of it, at a cost of $20 billion (close to projections.) That's still half of the $4000 billion over the next ten years that is supposed to be the grand objective. And no changes to current law required.
So why can't the IRS get funded to enforce the laws we have already? Hmmmm.
Mommy wants the computer back, little boy. Go out in the back yard and fornicate the sheep, it's what you're good at.
See thats the difference the GOP wants painful cuts to the middle class but the Dem are asking for the wealthy to pay more in taxes which currently are at historically low levels. The middle class is struggling with the mess Bush and the GOP created and during that time the top 2% got wealthier and now they are pushing for that to continue. And they say class warfare doesnt exist
The vast majority of middle class and poor people have already fallen off the cliff, we were just waiting for the rich and famous to come and join us down here. It's not so bad, it's a real eye opener. They need to find out the true meaning of being forced into being conservative. Bam, Bam shut off the lights! Try watering your plants with old dishwater. I do rather enjoy hanging my clothes outside though to dry. Ahhh, for dinner french toast again with ramon noodles Supreme, that's when you add leftovers to the noodles. Wala! dinner is served, we have marmallows for dessert, I'll even throw a candle in for good measure. Candlelight suppers!
The White House and Congressional Democrats could say to the Republicans something along the line of "for years you have been calling us 'tax and spend' liberals who have no idea how to cut spending, therefore, we are bowing to your greater expertise to come up with the proposal for specific cuts for us to consider".
The thing that struck me about that clip was that McCaskill pointed out several areas where wasteful spending could be cut but Corker blew it off.
Republicans are single-minded on 'entitlements', they won't even consider discussing areas where there is actual waste. If lesser-fortunate americans aren't feeling the pinch then it's not up for discussion.
to smb Corker was performing for Norquist who was back stage monitoring the Republican Sunday show. Norquist was on the panel. I hate the way Norquist talks in euphemisms like a 60s English spy in a Jon Le Carre novel. Their positions are old and outdated. The world is watching.
Thanks for another demonstration of how ignorant stupid has to be to be able to pass the IQ test low enough to be a Republican.
GOP: if cuts aren't 'painful,' they're not 'serious' No commonsense cuts have to be made based on real world criteria that will ensure the lest amount of "pain" with the maximum amount of actual cuts...like stop funding projects the Military does not want.
Its time we stop administering Government on an "Ideological construct" that does not work.
Obama's ridiculous proposal amounts to:
1.A deadbeat credit risk asking to have his credit card limit doubled so he can buy presents for his friends
2. Will pay down the minimum payment and talk about any further reductions when he gets around to it. That's a promise....oh, and have someone who is credit worthy make that initial paydown.
3. Further, going forward, he can personally increase his credit limit without the bank's approval.
I think that about sums it up..... and Dem's can't understand why GOP is laughing.
Go back to fornicating sheep, asswipe. It's what you morons are good at.
Amazing! All that and not a single factual statement or charge! That's talent, that is.
It's also a talent not appreciated by Democrats/liberals/progressives...
Could the difficulty in coming up with a deal, and the current stalemate, be evidence of a larger problem. This negotiation, or lack thereof, has me considering the possibility that, at least for now, we've have a governing body that simply can't make major decisions.