Two budget fights loom — one that matters, and one that doesn’t
The looming budget fight in Washington has two components, the short term and the long term. And it’s important to keep that distinction in mind as events play out.
The short term is going to be brutal. House Republicans are itching for a spending fight, and they’re going to get one. The occasion might be passage of the continuing resolution needed to fund the rest of this fiscal year; it might be the debate over raising the debt ceiling; it might be both. The House GOP is proposing budget moves they know won’t be accepted — a 29 percent cut in the hated EPA, eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Americorps and slashing college tuition aid while defense spending increases — but they show every sign of stamping their feet and throwing a major hissy fit if the rest of Washington doesn’t bow to their every wish.
The damage those cuts would do is serious. But in terms of the deficit, the short-term fight will mean nothing and accomplish nothing. By concentrating on non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for just 12 to 18 percent of federal spending depending on how you define it, the short-term battle sidesteps entitlements, defense or taxes, which means it doesn’t address the deficit at all. Its sole impact will be to strengthen or weaken the political position of the various participants as they prepare for the longer game.
That’s where the money is, and where the change will come. For the first time, we’re seeing signs from President Obama and congressional leaders of both parties that they’re willing to work toward a grand compromise. To his credit, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is reportedly playing a major role in leading a bipartisan, behind-the-scenes discussion in the Senate in which all ideas — entitlements, taxes, defense — are on the table.
Let’s breeze through the major areas of concern:
1.) Saving Social Security is relatively easy. You don’t have to privatize it, you don’t have to slash it. The president’s bipartisan deficit commission laid out a common-sense approach of reductions in long-term benefit increases combined with slight increases in SSI taxes to make the program actuarially sound. Remember, the maximum Social Security benefit for someone retiring this year at age 66 is barely $28,000, so any effort to slash that is going to hit a lot of vulnerable people very hard.
2.) Medicare, on the other hand, is relatively impossible. We’ve got a health-care delivery system that already spends twice as much of our national GDP as any other industrialized country, and we’ve got large numbers of Baby Boomers about to retire over the next decade. That’s a hugely expensive combination.
The House GOP approach to Medicare is essentially to abandon it, converting the program to vouchers that senior citizens can use to buy health insurance on their own. However, those vouchers would be scheduled to diminish in value over time, leaving seniors to somehow pay their own medical bills. The numbers just don’t work, and the impact of that approach on seniors’ access to health care would be far more devastating than the imaginary death panels could ever have been.
Somehow, you’ve got to lower health-care delivery costs not just in Medicare but throughout the health-care system. (Doing it in Medicare alone is impossible.) You’ve also got to means-test benefits to a degree and raise taxes if necessary to cover what’s left. You can’t “solve” Medicare, but you can certainly contain it.
3.) Defense spending also has to be cut. Everyone knows it, although some refuse to acknowledge it. You cannot sustain a globally dominant military without a globally dominant economy, and if you try to do so, you weaken your economy still further. Today, we lack the means to permanently finance a military establishment that spends as much money as the rest of the world combined on defense. Those days are over.
4.) Taxes have to go up. We have to trash the nonsensical idea that tax cuts pay for themselves, because they don’t. Taxes aren’t too high — as a percentage of national GDP, they’re lower now than they’ve been in decades. If we simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as now scheduled in 2012, taxes as a percentage of GDP would still be at or below the historical average since 1970.
Those are the raw ingredients of a deal: Entitlement cuts, spending cuts, defense cuts and tax increases. How much of each will be a matter of negotiation and sometimes bitter political gamesmanship, but without all four components, no deal is possible and we’ll continue right off the cliff.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
489 comments Add your comment
Truth
February 16th, 2011
2:49 pm
Why do we need a “Federal” department of Education? I thought education was handled at the state and county level. Eliminate the “Federal” department of Education.
Why do we need a department of Energy? Why not eliminate the department of Energy because this department has not lowered our energy costs or found us an alternative source.
Why don’t we have a “Federal” balanced budget amendment like the state of Georgia has? You can always add a clause for “War”. What a concept, only spend what you take in immediately.
George W
February 16th, 2011
2:49 pm
AmVet……you said it not me! haha but thank you.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
2:49 pm
“The sad fact is that social security is a Ponzi scheme that was doomed to failure from the start.”
No, it isn’t. It is an insurance “scheme” and has it’s own funding stream that has nothing to do with the regular Federal budget. It is currently fully funded through 2037. Eliminating it would have no effect on the budget deficit.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
2:50 pm
“She attracts some white people too.”
That qualifies for a Letter of Reprimand (or at least a Letter of Counseling) in today’s military -
Truth
February 16th, 2011
2:50 pm
Why is the Federal government in charge of my retirement? Where does it state this in the Constitution?
Let me know opt out immediately and I will invest 15% of my income how I see fit. Social Security is and has always been a ponzi scheme. Why get mad at B. Maddoff, all he did was run his own version of Social Security.
Kamchak
February 16th, 2011
2:51 pm
Kammy:
You’re a hoot and a great person.
Considering the source, thanks for the compliment.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
2:51 pm
“Why is the Federal government in charge of my retirement?”
It isn’t
“Social Security is and has always been a ponzi scheme”
No, it isn’t…unless you define ALL insurance as a “ponzi” scheme
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
2:52 pm
“Oops! That should have been Yusuf Stevens/2016″
Karma is a wonderful thing, isn’t it.
Liberal Pariah
February 16th, 2011
2:53 pm
Granny, what you reported is reprehensible and should have been reported. No place for that stuff in the dialogue. The problem with CT’s blog is that she is a one trick pony and she sees EVERYTHING through the race prism. She counts on the kooks on both sides to post and drive her numbers up.
Truth
February 16th, 2011
2:54 pm
Doggone/GA:
So the Federal government doesn’t make me pay them approximately 15% each quarter out of my earnings for social security?
Are you stating social security is good for you?
Paul
February 16th, 2011
2:54 pm
Why does the Federal government
build roads
regulate air traffic
inspect food
regulate workplace safety
fund K-12 education
check for voter fraud
make and enforce laws for criminals
Where, oh where, oh where does it state this in the Constitution?
Truth: insurance vs investment – don’t forget the ‘I’ in “SSI’
jm
February 16th, 2011
2:55 pm
soco – “If you mean turn SS over to some investment firm so they can collect their fees and retirees end up with diminished returns, I can’t go for that.”
I definitely don’t mean that. But I don’t mean a “board” either, because that creates a host of problems.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
2:56 pm
Truth
15% of your earnings? Wow. That’s about double what most people pay.
You need a new accountant.
Or….. you’re self employed!
Don’t worry, you can just pass the tax on to your customers so it won’t really cost you anything.
Truth
February 16th, 2011
2:57 pm
Paul:
So, social security is actually insurance and not retirement. I am in the insurance profession and ssi is very expensive insurance in my opinion. Why can’t I opt out and take care of myself. I think freedom means I can fail or succeed.
Are you afraid to truly be free?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
2:57 pm
Kammy:
Yes, but I’m always wrong you said.
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
February 16th, 2011
2:58 pm
jm
We’re probably on the same page then..
Truth
February 16th, 2011
2:59 pm
Paul:
I am self employed and everyone pays approx. 15% into the system. If your company did not pay ssi then they would give the $ to you instead. My guess is you are a Federal employee and think things are free if the $ doesn’t come out of your check.
I wish everyone had to pay quarterly taxes and then our tax system would get corrected asap.
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
2:59 pm
Liberal Pariah
well I agree with part of your post….however I don’t think she sees
“EVERYTHING through the race prism” any more than any decent white, yellow, red, black or brown person on the planet.
(personally I am rosey beige)
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:00 pm
And Truth
if you are self employed, you probably know you deduct SS contributions from gross income before you calculate income tax owed, so if you take your marginal tax rate and multiply that by your contributions, that’s what you reduce your taxes by.
Careful, or people here are gonna label you a tax avoiding, game the system, weasel out of your fair share, let other people pay your cost kinda guy –
But at least you’re not as bad off as guys who post here, whining about taxes and all, then let slip they have an S-Corp to avoid taxes -
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:01 pm
Truth
“My guess is you are a Federal employee and think things are free if the $ doesn’t come out of your check”
Good guess.
But wrong.
Self employed.
Liberal Pariah
February 16th, 2011
3:02 pm
Granny
Red, yellow, black or white they are precious in His sight….Personally, I am closer to Neopolitan
Old Boy
February 16th, 2011
3:04 pm
Are people on here seriously still talking about the race thing? If there are biggots on either side of the color spectrum here, no one’s digital insults or opinions are going to change their views.
George W
February 16th, 2011
3:05 pm
Liberal….I am as pure as a white snow flake.
Truth
February 16th, 2011
3:06 pm
Paul:
Why won’t you allow people to opt out of ssi? We don’t require people to purchase life or disability insurance. Do you think we should pass a law requiring people to purchase life, disability, long term care, health, dental, vision, etc. so we are all secure with no worries?
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:06 pm
Truth
“So, social security is actually insurance and not retirement. I am in the insurance profession and ssi is very expensive insurance in my opinion. ”
Really?
I’d like a policy. Level payments dependent on income, capped. If I die, my wife gets an annuity with cost of living increases until the kids turn 18. My kids get covered thru high school. If my kid’s disabled, he gets payments forever. Oh yeah, and when my wife gets to her 60s she gets benefits, too.
But if I live I get an annuity with guaranteed cost of living increases for about 20 years.
How much would that policy cost?
Truth
February 16th, 2011
3:07 pm
Paul:
Let me guess again, you are self employed but your main client is the Federal government so you like the current system?
Truth
February 16th, 2011
3:08 pm
Paul:
If you like it so much then give more of your income to the Federal government. In your mind, the Federal government is doing a great job with your money.
Old Boy
February 16th, 2011
3:09 pm
It comes down to two points a view: people should make their own decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions OR people (other than those making the argument, of course) are too stupid to make their own decisions and need a government to do it for them to protect them from the consequences of potentially bad decisions. Fans of social security fall into the latter, opponents fall into the former.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:10 pm
Truth
“Why won’t you allow people to opt out of ssi?”
’cause I don’t write the laws. Now, if you want to make me king…..
BTW, someone with a new moniker pops up here every so often repeating the same questions, making the same arguments. Some of the regulars do the same under the same moniker. Not sure if you’re new or not – if you’d told me you’re really, really rich and got that way with no help at all from anyone or no tax breaks or anything and you spent a whole $12 for lunch at the upscale Golden Corral or someplace like that it’d be a dead giveaway.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:12 pm
Truth
“Let me guess again, you are self employed but your main client is the Federal government so you like the current system?”
Ummm, you should know who one’s clients are has nothing to do with how much taxes owed are (not counting some special credits and such,of course).
BTW – I’m taking a break here from preparing my taxes for my accountant – LOL!
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
3:12 pm
Liberal Pariah
Yes, Jesus loves the little children of the world, I think he has some serious concerns about some of the adults…..
especially since he wasn’t “white as a snowflake” to quote our resident
racist.
George W
February 16th, 2011
3:14 pm
Granny…why is that racist? please inform me what makes that racist?
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:15 pm
Truth
“If you like it so much then give more of your income to the Federal government.”
Weak. Really. Cliche.
” In your mind, the Federal government is doing a great job with your money.”
Countering mischaracterization of a program means loving all Federal spending.
Sure you want to counter with that? It’s starting to get off course.
And, I’m not trying to be irritating. It just kinda happens -
Truth
February 16th, 2011
3:17 pm
Paul:
Taxes are not dependent upon your clients but your income or cash flow is dependent upon your clients.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:19 pm
Truth
I’ve never read a gov’t solicitation that had “tell us your feelings about social security’ in the specifications.
And nope, zero Fed clients.
Truth
February 16th, 2011
3:20 pm
Paul:
You are stating Social Security is an insurance program but I would state it is more of a retirement program. Either way, I wish it never began in the first place but all I know is if you want to keep it in place then there must be modifications to the benefits and funding. The longer SSI is ingnored the bigger the problem will be for someone to correct. My guess is they will push back the benefit age and eliminate income cap and make all income subject to SSI taxes.
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
3:24 pm
George W
February 16th, 2011
3:14 pm
Granny…why is that racist? please inform me what makes that racist?
Be specific as to what you are questioning.
If it is the terms that got your posts removed and possibly banned….
well if it ain’t obvious to you it never will be and all your Sundays on the stage are for naught.
George W
February 16th, 2011
3:26 pm
Granny….great job answering the question…..very typical.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:26 pm
Truth 3:20
Points of a discussion. Thank you.
I see elements of both. I’d finesse it a bit and say it is an element in retirement planning – which is why I have heartburn over means testing. Simple illustration is, person A lives below his means, does without, invests. Person B earns the same, blows everything every month. They get to 67 and now the system says to B “you poor person, you. Here, you get the max.’ and says to A “WOW! Look at all your assets!!! You don’t need this.”
I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone here argue against modifying SS. There are some points to consider, like the effect a lonnnng extension of full retirement age has on certain classes of workers, but that’s about it.
SS is a given. It does a lot of good. The amount I contribute makes me… well, I usually don’t think about it. ’bout the easiest strategy I’ve found is, I could look at my grandmother and say “She’s who it’s going for.”
I gotta get back to these taxes -
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
3:27 pm
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.) @2:41 pm Except that I suspect when you say not-for-profit, you really mean government (taxpayer) funded. Those are two very different things.
SOCO Your spidey senses are way off. I have no problem with non-profits or other people doing health care. I don’t think the government should be the one controlling it. I just think it is morally wrong to be in the business of health and be more focused on bottom line profits as opposed to the health and well being of the person you’re trying to help.
Then they’re off. Wouldn’t be the first time. But I wasn’t really trying to be accusatory, just trying to point out that there is a marked difference between “non-profit” and “government funded”. But just to be clear: we have an environment *today* (and had even before O-care) in which non-profit health care organizations could operate alongside of for-profit organizations. No one is forced into for-profit health care–they may not be able to locate a non-profit, but that’s not quite the same thing.
The question would be “Why aren’t there more co-ops and non-profits?” If you and so many others feel this moral outrage at profits being made on health-care, what is it that you want to see done differently? Many seem to want to *force* (using government power) health care industry as a whole to become non-profit.
SOCO: A business will be a business regardless to what industry it’s in. Co-ops would be a more logical solution to our health care system for me as opposed to what it is now. Don’t try to assume anything about something I’m trying to say. If you have a question about a point I have, just ask. I have no problem clarifying a point. I’m not one of those who need the government to bail me out. I’m also not one of those who think everything should be open for profit mongers either.
I know. You’ve always been one of the most reasonable folks on these blogs, one who’s comments I may disagree (and then only sometimes) with but never object to.
But again, we already have a system that supports non-profit health care organizations. What do you think should be done differently? Market proponents will say (count me in this group) that if you provide a superior product at lower costs, you will drive your competitors out of the market…at last until they change to outperform you. So all a non-profit needs to do is offer superior products at lower costs–since they aren’t making a profit, they should at least have an edge there. So we are left to wonder why the non-profits aren’t driving more for-profits out of the marketplace?
P.S. What’s with the various letters? I must have missed that day…
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
3:31 pm
“great job answering the question”
i know.
George W
February 16th, 2011
3:32 pm
Granny…..hilarious!
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
February 16th, 2011
3:35 pm
Benevolent
Protective
Order of
Inane
Blatherers
Worldwide
Some anonymous poster called the regulars here inane blatherers. I figured I’d form a group for us all.
As far as the non-profits, I can remember when BCBS and other insurers operated as non-profits. Some people say market forces were the reasons they changed their operating methods. I think it was more about the people in control seeing $$$ in their eyes.
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
3:35 pm
yep
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
3:38 pm
Paul @2:54 pm Why does the Federal government build roads Where, oh where, oh where does it state this in the Constitution?
Roads are one thing that is provided for, after a fashion. Article 1 Section 8 allows the federal government to “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;”
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
3:40 pm
You progressives are hysterical. 14 trillion in debt and Obama still produces a deficit spending budget.
Absolutely, positively infriggincredible…
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:43 pm
MPercy
Just so long as there aren’t any roads that don’t go to post offices, I suppose it might be okay……
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:44 pm
Original
“and Obama still produces a deficit spending budget. ”
And the Congress, once they got the //proposal// countered with what, exactly?
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
February 16th, 2011
3:46 pm
And the Congress, once they got the //proposal// countered with what, exactly?
Whining and bitching so far….
Paul
February 16th, 2011
3:47 pm
SoCom
Kinda sounds like a country song, doesn’t it?
Mick
February 16th, 2011
3:57 pm
paul
I think it’s like jay pointed out about unions, some people seem to have an anti social security gene and nothing can change their mind. They truly are not students of history when the depression took everything from so many and the elderly suffered the most. If they live long enough to collect, they will be damn glad we saved it…
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
3:58 pm
Paul…Obama is the president, you would think and hope he would lead on entitlements but there has been nothing of substance or consequence. You ask about the republican counter from the house, I believe that is still being finalized and it is my guess entitlements will be addressed.
It is also my guess that republicans will then be demonized by democrats and Obama even though they know entitlement spending must be addressed but are afraid to raise the issue.
Granted both parties have avoided this discussion for way too long which is one of the primary reasons we find ourselves near insolvent. However, back to my original point given the fact that Obama created his own debt commission and then does not even incorporate a single recommendation specific to entitlements is extremely disappointing and shows very weak, if any leadership.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
4:00 pm
Actually, it shows leadership if one does not agree with the recommendations, it’s his call as president..
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
February 16th, 2011
4:01 pm
Kinda sounds like a country song, doesn’t it?
Only things missing are the pickup truck and the hound dog.
Darwin
February 16th, 2011
4:01 pm
Bottom line is this: Republicans won’t really cut because it means cutting the big ticket items that are favored my the majority. But, they will get to attack those government agencies that are against the wishes of their corporate lobbyists and that play to their base: EPA, FDA, Public TV, etc. What gets me is wanting to de-fund education. Wait a minute – now it makes sense. Why would you want to educate people? They might actually start to think for themselves. Very dangerous indeed!
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
4:02 pm
Paul @3:06 pm I’d like a policy. Level payments dependent on income, capped. If I die, my wife gets an annuity with cost of living increases until the kids turn 18. My kids get covered thru high school. If my kid’s disabled, he gets payments forever. Oh yeah, and when my wife gets to her 60s she gets benefits, too. But if I live I get an annuity with guaranteed cost of living increases for about 20 years.
See, my policy, which costs the same as yours provides $255 to my wife if I die. I have no children. When my wife reaches age 60, she will be eligible to receive some payout on my policy, but her own policy (which she paid for too) also starts paying at that point. If we both should die before age 60, the Government keeps everything we’ve paid in–I cannot will any of the benefits to any other heirs.
My cost this year for this lovely package is a mere $4,485.60+$6,621.60, or $11,107.20 (once the portion my employer must pay by law “on my behalf”) is figured in, plus the same for my wife, but she is self employed and must pay the full amount herself. I’m pretty sure I can do better than that for $22K+ every year. I have been paying the maximum for about 15 years, and expect to do so until I retire (about 20 years from now), so I will have paid in about $300K, as will have my wife. If we live to our life expectancy, we will each take out about $435K. As an investment, this will provide a very poor rate of return.
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
4:03 pm
Mick…that is total crap and you know it…try again
Mick
February 16th, 2011
4:05 pm
**that is total crap and you know it…try again**
Why, because you say so? If I recommend that you jump off the george washington bridge because it will be good fun or recommend that you buy some great property in the everglades, would you go for it?
Paul
February 16th, 2011
4:07 pm
Original
Well, yeah… I was picking up on the comment about continuing the deficits. Not even Republicans are aiming for a balanced budget this coming year. You are correct, lotta politics. But the people are dragging them along, kicking and screaming and thrashing and yelling.
Mick
I grew up listening to those stories from grandparents and elderly neighbors and parents talking about coming out on Christmas and finding…. nothing.
It ain’t theory. It’s reality. And I don’t ever want to see that happen again.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
4:09 pm
MPercy
I was responding to the “I’m an insurance guy and this is an expensive policy.”
Your situation may be different.
But… no one ever said life is fair, right?
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
4:14 pm
Mick…it was the man’s own deficit commission… to say he did not agree with any of the recommendations makes him look beyond stupid…sort of like you
Cal Elson
February 16th, 2011
4:26 pm
The budget fight in Washington right now is the pragmatic equivalent of arguing over which window to open on a train headed off a cliff. Both sides are arguing over a hundred billion when they should be talking about a trillion. Medicare is impossible to save, so don’t. Social Security could be saved, but why? Both transfer money from young working families to older, better off, retirees. End both and keep some level of basic welfare and Medicaid for the truly needy, regardless of age. Cut military spending dramatically, but don’t raise taxes — we pay plenty already.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
4:29 pm
real wanker
Go look up the word recommendation, not implementation, then get back to me….
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
4:32 pm
Muck….total blockhead loser; don’t quit your day job of sanitation engineer..
Keep your head buried in the garbage, perhaps reality will hit you in the head soon, I trust it will not be too painful…
Mick
February 16th, 2011
4:40 pm
real
Nice, very mature reasoning abilities, I’m sure your sophistication and deft analysis along with your cutting edge sophomoric humor will be most pliable to the mass of your seventh grade peers.
fitzgerald
February 16th, 2011
4:53 pm
I know there is someone that cleans your office every day. I bet they don’t make near as much money as you do. If you will be so kind, please cut your salary 25 percent and give it to some person that cleans your office that is struggling to make ends meet. This would do more good than expecting me to pay more taxes.
fitzgerald
February 16th, 2011
4:54 pm
I wasn’t through so here continues. If you are not careful, you will be compared to Tucker in your paper. Then you and her will become as one. If you two write together, it will save they rest of us the pain.
WillieRae
February 16th, 2011
4:55 pm
How exactly will cutting the funding for the corporation for public broadcasting do “serious damage”? Your suggestion does much to undermind the rest of your column. The whine and latte lovers can just pony up a little more at pledge time. Big deal.
The rest of us don’t need to subsidize the leftie’s private network.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
4:58 pm
jm: Democrats are fear mongerers.
That’s rich. Next you’re going to tell me the Democrats started this anti-Muslim hatred and that Orly Taitz is a Democrat.
The CONservative side of the aisle comes up with these fear tactics. You can bet there’ll be another couple of them just in time for the 2012 election. It’s just how the CONservative media propaganda machine works.
But you don’t have to admit to it. Remember, a good CON doesn’t admit to anything.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
5:00 pm
fitzgerald: I don’t want to make any assumptions, but unless you’re on the bottom bracket of the income tax table, then you have nothing to complain about when it comes to being taxed as much as you are, or as much as you would be if the tax cuts expired.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
5:02 pm
WilleRae: Cutting PBS and NPR means that people will not have access to any non-profit news organizations for national coverage. It means that you’re saying the free market does everything better, which it does not. This funding is a good service for people to have, and cutting that and education are the absolute WORST things you can do unless your goal is to have an even more stupid electorate in the future than already exists today.
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
5:25 pm
Muck…the truth hurts but you truly need to wake the hell up…
If you cannot fathom that a president completely ignoring any form of entitlement reform in his budget that were recommended by a commission that he crafted is not lack of leadership then you have had a massive aneurism and just do not realize it yet.
Everyone knows that the entitlement reform recommendations need to be invoked in one form or another but the leadership must come from the president…oh well, that clearly is not going to happen.
I wish you well in your happy fantasy world of unicorns, lollipops, fairies and magic bunnies…
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
February 16th, 2011
5:29 pm
What is news here? Liberal dems ALWAYS want to take from the tax-paying rich and give it to the leeches of this country. My God, what did they do in the founding days?
Mick
February 16th, 2011
5:30 pm
real
Still with the name calling I see, when you can get past the lame insults, then we can have a serious debate or maybe that’s just not possible..
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
February 16th, 2011
5:32 pm
Adam – Wake the hell up. You sound just like a LOONEY lib, that doens’t have a clue. Age should mature you.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
February 16th, 2011
5:36 pm
Adam -NPR and Public Radio? Yeah, that the voice of reason. Next tell me how well the government has handled Unemployment, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the post office, the VA, Katrina, and the hits just keep coming……
The Original Get Real
February 16th, 2011
5:59 pm
Mick..nothing to debate, you simply do not acknowledge the reality that not having ANY entitlement reform in the president’s budget is a complete lack of leadership.
Laurie
February 16th, 2011
6:01 pm
Jay makes some good points here. But the credit he gives to Saxby Chambliss for his future endevors in regards to this issue is misplaced. Chambliss does not display bipartisanship, and will surely try to sabotage the process in hopes of making Obama and the democrats look bad. He is not the right guy for that leadership role.
Watson
February 16th, 2011
6:23 pm
“…but without all four components, no deal is possible and we’ll continue right off the cliff.”
As Mr. AFLAC goat says, nah nah nah. All the sound and fury is just theater for the base back home. At the end of the day they’ll raise the debt ceiling as usual and trim a little spending for show. The “off the cliff” scenario is still a few years off.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
6:29 pm
get real
Let me ask you something, how many blue ribbon commissions did the previous president have? Did he follow their recommendations? If I’m elected president, I will consider advice but if the majority of the people don’t want me to mess with something and I agree, then I’ll thank the commission and lead by my choice in the process. Just because you disagree with his actions does not preclude a lack of leadership. In fact, that is the essence of leadership…Now, I want you to notice my response included no insults…it’s possible..
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
6:43 pm
Adam @5:02 pm WilleRae: Cutting PBS and NPR means that people will not have access to any non-profit news organizations for national coverage
Only about 6-10% (depending on the source) of NPRs revenues come from the federal government, mostly in the form of Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants. PBS depends more on the federal government. Between 15 and 18% (depending on the source) of PBS’s revenues come from the government.
Eliminating the subsidies would not eliminate NPR or PBS.
poison pen
February 16th, 2011
7:05 pm
Please go to ” Dick Morris Reports ” and read the article the talks about the damage that Obama has done.
Very interesting.
"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010
February 16th, 2011
7:15 pm
Jay has written his ideas well.
Here is my response:
#1 – Constitutional Amendment requiring Term Limits for all members of Congress
#2 – Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Federal Budget every year, no excuses.
#3 – Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and replace it with a Flat Tax or Fair Tax, a National Lottery and massive consumption taxes on alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.
#4 – Congress must repeal The War Powers Act. This law allows the POTUS to start wars without an official declaration by Congress. Congress granted it and they can take it back. Get it done.
#5 – A comprehensive, unrestricted and mandatory audit of The Federal Reserve System every five years.
George Watson
February 16th, 2011
10:33 pm
How many angles did they say were on the head of that pin? Our economy generates the greatest wealth and productivity in the world – we just don’t manage it for a balanced society. There are those who gladly take the money and run, while blaming anything and anybody for the results. That so many of the victims want to believe it’s ‘them’ and not those laughing all the way to the bank, is one of the great tragedies of modern America. Let us hope we are not reduced to the luck of a World War, as we were in the ’30’s for an end to our economic quagmire.
George Watson
February 16th, 2011
10:36 pm
Yeah, I know, angel is misspelled.
I got the number on the head wrong too.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 17th, 2011
8:15 am
“Medicare, on the other hand, is relatively impossible.”
———-
Jay, didn’t your Idiot Messiah, who you claim has done a good job, already fix the healthcare system and bend the cost curve down?
Where are your Idiot Messiah’s solutions to these entitlement problems?
Adam
February 17th, 2011
4:57 pm
MPercy: Well if that’s the case, that means cutting NPR and PBS are negligible and scapegoat cuts.
Adam
February 17th, 2011
4:58 pm
LBB: Where are your Idiot Messiah’s solutions to these entitlement problems?
Although we can’t ask her today, her book Atlas Shrugged should help you to discover what an Idiot Messiah would want done with so called entitlement programs.
Adam
February 17th, 2011
5:23 pm
Where are you Jones? I know you’re out there, just waiting to post when you think I’m not looking any more so you can avoid a real discussion