Calling Their Bluff
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), formerly a wunderkind college Republican attack dog, but now sort of a journeyman big league Republican attack dog, thinks that a regular old deficit commission is a bad idea. What's needed is a deficit commission that takes tax hikes completely off the table and recommends spending cuts only. Grover Norquist calls this a "grown-up idea," but Pat Garofalo isn't impressed:
How, exactly, does taking taxes off the table from the outset represent a “grown-up” way to make “hard choices”? The whole premise behind a commission is that it will be empowered to make politically unpalatable suggestions (like raise taxes) that Congress wouldn’t normally touch....Getting deficits under control on the spending side alone is economically impossible. Exempting interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending (which Republicans never agree to cut), “the rest of the budget needs to be cut by 51 percent to have a balanced budget in 2014.” So the numbers just don’t add up. Of course, from the outline of McHenry’s plan, it’s pretty clear that gutting those entitlement programs is his ultimate goal, as they are the only things that he cites as needing reform.
I say: bring 'em on, baby. We should let McHenry have his commission, make sure it's well stocked with Republicans, force them to put down on paper just exactly what spending programs they want to gut, and then put it to an up-or-down vote in Congress. We liberals are always demanding that Republican "fiscal conservatives" should tell us just what spending they want to get rid of, and now here's McHenry volunteering to commit political hara-kiri by setting it all down in a nice, official report and then forcing Republicans to put their votes where their mouths are. That would be great.
For Democrats, that is. Sadly, my guess is that the actual grownups in the GOP will put the kibosh on this idea pronto. But I can still dream.
Comments
Yes, I've often wondered why
Yes, I've often wondered why the Dems don't challenge the Nihilist Party, also known as the GOP, to do precisely that. "Go ahead, show how you would balance the budget with no tax hikes, make my day."
Lack of imagination on the part of the Dems. No surprise.
This proves that Republicans
This proves that Republicans have no agenda for governing. But you can't rule out the fact, that politically, sometimes such tactics work in terms of winning the next election
This is precisely why the Republicans came into power in 2000 with a surplus and now there is none. It's easy to complain about deficits when you're out of power, but if you are a party of no tax increases under any circumstances, but yet don't want to cut spending for popular programs, and additionally, have your own corporate bosses that need to be paid off for supporting you, then massive deficits are what you get.
The following two claims
The following two claims should not be controversial:
1) Conservatives would like to see lower taxes.
2) Republicans would like the Federal Government to spend less on social programs.
If both 1 and 2 are true then Conservative statements about making 'hard choices' like cutting (non-defense) spending and refusing to raise taxes are nothing more than stroking their collective ego.
In other news, Sean Hannity has made the 'gutsy' decision to stereotype Muslims as terrorists, Sarah Palin has taken the 'bold' step of meeting with oil industry fund raisers, Congressional Republicans 'fearlessly' chose to go on vacation over Christmas, and Rush Limbaugh, in yet another example of his giving spirit and total disregard for personal self-interest, allowed a team of doctors to save his life.
When the death certificate of
When the death certificate of America is written, the cause of death should be listed as "Democrat Entitlement Programs." If the government wasn't in the healthcare and pension business, our budget would be balanced with room to spare and American citizens would have more freedom over their lifestyle choices. Right now, Americans are forced to turn over 6%+ of their wages on a crappy return rate and about 1.5% more for a bloated and inefficient single payer healthcare system. But hey, at least LBJ and FDR got votes. All it cost was the future of the American republic.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
You write for The Onion, right?
Americans would have soooo many more lifestyle choices if they didn't have pensions and health care, doncha think? Well, or at least some of them would, those with nice pensions and health insurance from big companies (a rapidly dwindling number). And just think, all that freedom could be accomplished on the backs of less than 50 percent of the population!!!
Wowee, zowee! I love me them Republican visions of Nirvana!
... yes, because if it's not
... yes, because if it's not government provided, it doesn't exist. Have you ever run the numbers on the return of investment offered by social security and medicare vs. if you had put the same money in safe investments? Even if you don't factor in employer contribution (money which would otherwise be wages), it's atrocious.
And if you're in the bottom
And if you're in the bottom quartile of income earners, what then? Or if you're in the upper middle quartile but end up living 20 years longer than you'd budgeted for, what then? Social security helps ensure these folks don't end up living, or dying in the street, or being entirely dependent on charity.
1) If the idea is to make a
1) If the idea is to make a welfare program, fine, let's discuss and debate that. But if the idea is to provide to people who don't have the means to save to their own retirement, why force those who CAN save to do so?
2) If you want to mitigate risk, you can get an annuity that will last for the rest of your life as well. It will even be insured by your state of residence.
In conclusion, the first step is an opt-out; you should be able to opt out in exchange for forfeiting your right to collect under SS or Medicare. I would take that deal in a second. I would even waive the contributions I've already made; keep them.
I have run the numbers
For most people, Social Security is a fantastic deal, much better than they could ever get in the private market. All the analyses of Social Security vs. private I've ever seen ignore the life and disability insurance aspects of Social Security and treat it like a savings program.
If you add in the cost of getting equivalent life and disability insurance, it becomes very difficult to also end up with equivalent retirement benefits unless you are incredibly lucky in the market.
And of course some number of people will do really well in the market, but of course for each of them there are a similar number of people who do really poorly in the market. The point of Social Security is that it's a guaranteed benefit, and thus comparing the returns of Social Security to, say, the stock market is not reasonable. You need to compare to the returns of government bonds or an equivalently safe investment.
Moreover, Social Security has never been intended to be the entire retirement savings or insurance for high-income people. It's a stopgap that is intended to keep the elderly and disabled off the streets, and provide a minimum life insurance for working people's dependents. There's nothing to stop you from buying more insurance and investing in the market, and the fact that you have Social Security as a guaranteed retirement benefit frees you to take somewhat larger risks with the rest of your retirement portfolio.
entitlements created the middle class
Liberal social welfare, enacted during the New Deal, is responsible for the creation of America's huge middle class. That huge middle class began its decline in 1980, when supply side economic theory began it dominance over economic policy. Every withdrawal of New Deal policy has led to a decline in American's middle class; the deregulation of finance markets has led to market failures, the cutting of progressive taxation has led to a disparity of income between rich and the not-rich rivaling the Twenties and the ending of welfare "as we know it" has led to the impoverishment of millions, who no longer are able to spend wealth transfers that mostly benefited middle class merchants. Ending entitlement spending will end the middle class.
Don't let them try
Well, we let the Republicans run the show in the '00s, with the exact results liberals predicted: military quagmire(s), the worst economy in 75 years, huge deficits. The fact that there is still a Republican Party and that it will by all accounts make gains in 2010 is clear evidence that making Republicans put their money where there mouth is does not hurt them.
Republicans will survive their own nuclear winter. They are the cockroaches of American politics.
That's hilarious
"Actual grownups" in the GOP? You really do write for the Onion. I'm told there were some once. I'm still not sure if I believe it.
I was going to say the same
I was going to say the same thing: WHAT grownups in the GOP? The bill won't be killed out of maturity; it'll be killed out of the very fear of optics you describe. So the bill won't be killed by grownups. It'll be killed by the marginally less insane.
Just a coincidence that
Just a coincidence that McHenry and Norquist are both members in good standing of the GOP's ever-burgeoning closet brigade? Or could it be that lifetimes spent denying reality encourage their hallucinatory ideology?
Republican state legislators
Republican state legislators do not seem to suffer electorally for their gutting of state budgets after cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. People do tend to focus on national politics rather than local, but it is unlikely Republicans would suffer much for proposing a budget that cuts social spending and hikes war spending.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
