Chambliss takes a leadership risk
By endorsing a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction deal in Washington, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss has risked making himself a target of an angry Republican base here in Georgia, regardless of how the crisis is finally resolved.
The proposal embraced by Chambliss and other members of the bipartisan Gang of Six calls for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other programs,, which conservatives support. However, it also proposes collecting an additional $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, and conservative orthodoxy insists that any plan that produces additional government revenue is betrayal.
Under the circumstances, the last thing Chambliss needs is some liberal columnist praising his willingness to lead on a tough issue of great national importance. And it would hurt the senator even more to contrast his leadership with the absence of leadership among his fellow Republicans in Georgia’s House delegation, most of whom have taken a deeply irresponsible approach to the nation’s fiscal crisis.
So I’ll make sure not to say those things.
Instead, maybe it would be better to condemn Chambliss for backing a plan that would cut future Social Security benefits by hundreds of billions of dollars. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Accuse him of being mean to old people!
Except that he’s not. The Gang of Six does propose to reduce future benefits by changing the way that Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation. But that’s just common sense. Most experts agree that the current inflation-adjusting mechanism is set too high, and over time would boost benefits significantly higher than inflation would require. The new approach — borrowed from recommendations released late last year by a presidential commission — would be more accurate, and thus more fair.
And as Chambliss takes pains to point out, all savings generated by changes in Social Security would be used to make Social Security financially sound. It’s an important point: No revenue generated by the self-insurance program is being spent elsewhere.
In fact, any liberal groups or politicians who attack the Gang of Six proposals regarding Social Security are probably playing politics. The changes sought by Chambliss and his colleagues are reasonable and would be necessary regardless of the nation’s larger fiscal challenges.
Still, that doesn’t exactly improve Chambliss’ standing with his base.
How about ObamaCare? While the Gang of Six doesn’t propose to repeal the entire health-care reform package so hated by conservatives, it does call for abandoning one of its major new programs. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, also known as the CLASS Act, was created to be a voluntary self-insurance plan in which citizens paid monthly premiums in return for long-term nursing-home care should they need it.
The Gang of Six plan calls for outright repeal of CLASS, noting that recent analysis has cast doubt on the program’s ability to be self-sustaining, as required by law.
“Simply put, it could be difficult, if not impossible, to balance money coming into the program with the money that could ultimately flow out, and thus to create a program that would be solvent and sustainable,” as the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation reports.
So hey, killing part of ObamaCare ought to buy Chambliss at least some protection on his right flank, correct?
Still, there’s that little matter of $1 trillion in revenue increases. Poll after poll demonstrates that most Americans support attacking the debt problem through both spending cuts and tax increases. Politically, it’s the only way to cut a deal. And mathematically, it’s impossible to address the debt through spending cuts alone. The numbers just do not work.
As Chambliss noted in a discussion at the AJC back in April, non-defense, non-entitlement spending accounts for just 12 percent of the budget.
“Now you could cut out that whole 12 percent and you wouldn’t solve this problem of $14 trillion in debt,” he said. “You got to have enough money to run the government and you got to have excess money to start paying down on that debt.”
Yes, you do. Unfortunately, many of his fellow Republicans just can’t bring themselves to believe it.
– 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
484 comments Add your comment
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
10:53 am
UJ – it’s all part of the service here at Conan the Grammarian’s House of Useless Knowledge.
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
10:54 am
Jed, I do not care what one’s politics are, but that kind of repulsive garbage indicates what a low life some people truly are.
++++++++++++++++++++++
HEAR, HEAR! (with due credit to The expat among us)
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
10:54 am
USIN: the Sunset Boulevard reference is so classic. : )
josef
July 22nd, 2011
10:54 am
USinUK
The Gandhi School is, imho, a great achievement. A quick funny you’ll appreciate on the Soros’ “tentacles.” I’ve got some friends who took part in the Romany education projects in Hungary and Rumania funded by Soros…a large portion of their expenses were paid for with Soros money. They were on a mission as Southern Baptists!
Bruno
July 22nd, 2011
10:57 am
Want a side of hungry skeeters to go with that?
And for dessert: carmelized palmetto bugs.
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
10:57 am
Mick
July 22nd, 2011
10:48 am
I just hope that all who are moaning and groaning about the heat, will be more appreciative of the cool weather when it gets here…
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Happens every year, right?
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
10:58 am
md @ 10:53
Agreed!!!!
md
July 22nd, 2011
10:58 am
“Two competing parties rarely get everything they want. ”
It’s on those occasions in which they do that screws up the whole enchilada……..poisons the well so to speak…………..
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
Republicans are acting foolish about revenue increases. If we let the govt default things are going to get much worse. Even taking the chance is absurd. The economy is so fragile at this point we can’t possibly take the chance of a govt default. I don’t know what Republicans are thinking?? This is making them look worse and worse every day that passes.
Tony
July 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
Never thought Saxby would become the adult in the GOP.
Thanks for looking out for the citizens of Georgia, Senator.
Message from Matti
July 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
Being snowed in for a week last January was NOT cool.
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
11:00 am
And for dessert: carmelized palmetto bugs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My mother told us younguns they was just “waterbugs”. My exterminator cleared up the matter and declared them to really be American Cockroaches. YIKES!!!!!!!
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
11:02 am
Good golly, Miss Agnes, it is 11:00. See y’all later, but not during the “drunks music festival”
RedEye
July 22nd, 2011
11:02 am
“If they [Republicans] want to debate it tomorrow for a period of time, they can do that, but I’m going to — I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come on this Senate floor, and I am not going to waste the Senate’s time day after day on this piece of legislation which I think is an anathema to what our country is all about.” – Harry Reid
And CNN latest poll shows 66% favor Cut, Cap, and Balance. Washington is a hellhole.
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
11:03 am
Woodstock Mike: “Republicans are acting foolish about revenue increases. If we let the govt default things are going to get much worse. Even taking the chance is absurd. The economy is so fragile at this point we can’t possibly take the chance of a govt default. I don’t know what Republicans are thinking?? This is making them look worse and worse every day that passes.”
Glad to see you’ve come around.
Abrazos
July 22nd, 2011
11:04 am
“If you’re planning a move to another state, check this out for the top ten most taxed states and the top ten least taxed states.
Notice the pattern here?”
Like the least taxed states are also among the lowest in SAT scores, highest teen pregnancy rates, highest divorce rates, highest incarceration rates, etc? Patterns like that?
Libertarian
July 22nd, 2011
11:07 am
I’m not so sure that Chambliss is going to run in 2014. He’ll be 70 by then and there have been a lot of rumors of bad health. Hence, he may not care about angering his base.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
11:09 am
“They were on a mission as Southern Baptists! ”
and a thousand heads a’ploded at that thought!
but, you’re right … tenticles EVERYwhere … taking over the world!!! mwahahahahah!!!!
real john
July 22nd, 2011
11:09 am
Jay,
No the Gang of Six plan doesn’t take money out of Medicare. Obamacare’s $500 billion from Medicare already took care of that. Liberals seem to miss or dismiss that part of Obamacare.
Also, new study shows just what most of the Repubs have been stating..”We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”
Spending:
Under Clinton, the American deficit increased. $536 million a day.
Bush. $1.6 billion a day.
Obama. $4.1 BILLION A DAY.
All the libs TALK about spending cuts and revenue increases. However, the only thing I hear them talking about is revenue increases. Jay, please name me a few of the spending cuts in SPECIFICS that the Democrats are proposing. I’m serious, I don’t think I have heard a specific on one.
Swede Atlanta
July 22nd, 2011
11:10 am
Ref RedEye @ 11:02
We have become a society obsessed with polls. Unfortunately the poll you refer to, like nearly every other one out there, are worthless. Why? Because people rarely know what these proposals really contain.
I’ll bet if you asked anyone who “voted” to support CC&B, specifically which programs would be cut, by how much, etc. they couldn’t. That’s because I have seen the CC&B bill. There are NO details in it. It sounds good but people blindly hear something they think sounds good but never take the time to do the necessary research to substantiate their views.
As for a balanced budget amendment, there would be no worse proposal. You never want to tie the federal government’s hands that way. You can always foresee a crisis situation in the future where deficit spending becomes necessary to protect and save the nation, address any number of calamities, etc.
BADA BING
July 22nd, 2011
11:10 am
@ Max Cleland…….married a girl that went to HS with me. Don’t care about his politix, he comes to our reunions, gets out on the floor and dances in his wheelchair. I have seen him at the Punchline Comedy Club, he always speaks and seems to be a real guy.
Mighty Righty
July 22nd, 2011
11:11 am
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
10:50 am
“Unfunded” would mean it wasn’t paid for. I believe what you mean is it was off the books, a bookeeping device agreed to by Democrats as well as Republicans. The money was borrowed against our childrens future and was/is in fact part of the noe 14.5 trillion national debt. As we can each now attest, not a penney can be spent without first being appropriated by congress. While the cost of the war was off budget, it was included in the National Debt.
md
July 22nd, 2011
11:12 am
“among the lowest in SAT scores”
Folks still throwing that one out there??
One may want to research how States apply the SAT……some require all students take it and some only require college bound students take it……….
Good ole apples to oranges comparison……………
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
11:13 am
Uncle Jed – 11:00 – DO. NOT. MISS!!!
(shuddering)
josef
July 22nd, 2011
11:17 am
md
Georgia and the SAT scores…yep! But, that didn’t come with the memo…
ECB
July 22nd, 2011
11:17 am
A typical lower-to-middle class Republican… I may not have a job and I may be about to lose my house to foreclosure, but I don’t want the rich to have to pay taxes so when I get rich, I won’t have to pay taxes either.
mum
July 22nd, 2011
11:18 am
Everyone knows that the DOD wastes money and have always done that and nobody complains because people are more than willing to support defense contractors who survive only through taxpayer dollars. There was mention this morning on Morning Joe that you could cut $1 trillion from the DOD budget for this type of spending and nobody would even notice. People fleece the government (aka taxpayer) because they are allowed to by said taxpayer.
RedEye
July 22nd, 2011
11:18 am
“You never want to tie the federal government’s hands that way.”
Actually, yes I’m in favor of that.
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson
Bruno
July 22nd, 2011
11:20 am
Personally, I like the heat……..people watching is a whole lot more fun than in the winter when all you get to see is a walking coat………….
md–I’m assuming “people watching” is a euphemism for “girl watching”.
Being snowed in for a week last January was NOT cool.
Matti-I’d invite you to come stay with me in Columbus (no snow shut-ins here), but somehow I think that you and 40,000 buff soldiers might not be a good combination.
jt
July 22nd, 2011
11:22 am
Obama’s latest message——————————————–
.
We must all sacrifice to subsidize Federal incompetence.
.
And you WILL pay us.
CJ
July 22nd, 2011
11:22 am
Jay Bookman: “In fact, any liberal groups or politicians who attack the Gang of Six proposals regarding Social Security are probably playing politics. The changes sought by Chambliss and his colleagues are reasonable and would be necessary regardless of the nation’s larger fiscal challenges.”
With due respect to Jay, mentioning the presidential commission report does not add credibility to a proposal. Many of the Bowles-Simplson recommendations are so heinous that that report should be placed in the trash heap of history.
I agree with criticisms of the suggested cuts to Social Security, and I’m not playing politics (I resent the implication that I am). Social Security is not driving the deficit and changes it to it should have no part in this discussion.
That said, if we want to secure social security for several more decades, then we can simply raise or eliminate the cap on social security payroll taxes so that it goes from being a regressive tax to being a flat tax (if we do that, then we might even able to lower the rates slightly). Or better yet, replace the social security tax with a carbon tax. Either way, non-crisis solved.
Now, with regard to the proposal to index social security to a “chained-CPI” (the proposal that Jay is referring to in this post) anybody who believes critics of it are playing politics should watch Congressman Peter DeFazio explain what it would mean to seniors in this three minute YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWiSJVtTZ8Q
I’m no expert, and if Congressman DeFazio is wrong, then I’d love to hear why Jay or anybody else thinks so. But many who receive Social Security rely primarily or entirely on those payments to pay their bills…a large portion of which are health care related. So I’m severely disappointed that those of us who care about these people (some of whom are our loved ones) would be accused of playing politics for opposing this seemingly awful and unnecessary provision in the Gang of Six proposal.
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
11:23 am
You’re right, Mighty. I meant it in the sense that the wars were undertaken even while tax cuts were being enacted that made it even more unlikely that we could afford the military actions and still afford the various other programs we have. But of course, maybe that was the point (see “Starve the Beast strategy”).
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 22nd, 2011
11:24 am
Bruno, absolutely right on medicare fraud. Hard to prove fraudulent billing for religious agenda and medically-unsound therapy like that practiced at Bachmann & Associates unless of course you have some effective investigation and the investigators to prove the case.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
11:25 am
I’m sure these polls that say people favor a balanced budget amendment never bother to ask if people understand the process of ratifying a constitutional amendment. By the time you get an amendment voted on and passed (about a snowball’s chance in hell right now), you still have to have it ratified by the states. In as partisaned a society we live in, you’ll be able to put a camel through the eye of a needle first.
The main people crying about budgets and deficits now would be the first ones crying about where’s the government if they were hit with floods or tornadoes like other Americans have experienced this year. We never want government spending unless it’s all about our own selfish needs. That’s why we’re a country of 300 million plus and not a country of one.
Obama is over
July 22nd, 2011
11:25 am
I really enjoyed Peggy noonan’s colume today. She points out that the best thing about the gang of six proposal is that it is bipartisan and removes the class warfare rhetoric that has been so prevalent in the ugly debate the past few weeks. The proposal is not perfect, but it is somewhere to start which is a lot more than we had two weeks ago. Obama needs to work behind the scenes to get this deal done and quit trying to get on TV to take credit for everybody’s work.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
11:26 am
“people watching is a whole lot more fun than in the winter when all you get to see is a walking coat”
but, can’t stand getting on a crowded train with sweaty guys who think it’s okay to take their shirt off. YUK!!!
Libertarian
July 22nd, 2011
11:28 am
“A typical lower-to-middle class Republican… I may not have a job and I may be about to lose my house to foreclosure, but I don’t want the rich to have to pay taxes so when I get rich, I won’t have to pay taxes either.”
Typical response from someone who doesn’t understand how taxes work and who probably wants someone else to pay for all of their govt services.
Doggone/GA
July 22nd, 2011
11:29 am
” just hope that all who are moaning and groaning about the heat, will be more appreciative of the cool weather when it gets here”
Oh, they WILL! It’sll be their chance to start chanting: “WHAT global warming?”
Doggone/GA
July 22nd, 2011
11:30 am
” I don’t know what Republicans are thinking?? ”
Thinking? What makes you think they’re THINKING?
Bruno
July 22nd, 2011
11:31 am
but, can’t stand getting on a crowded train with sweaty guys who think it’s okay to take their shirt off. YUK!!!
I’ve read that in Japan, the lady train riders are likely to get a little butt-rubbing during the ride. Getting any action on the British trains??
harvey
July 22nd, 2011
11:31 am
It is too much to hope that they will ever cut the pork, the idiot grants and contracts awarded by the government through NIH, NEA and the like. I think they will never be statemen, but always be pandering for the vote of their local constituency, ergo, the country as a whole is doomed to the petty interests of those who don’t care if the ship sinks so long as they have a berth on the top deck.
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
11:32 am
UsinUK – clueless like always. The IMF is involved bailing out Greece for the second time now. Amercian taxpayers fund almost 20% of all IMF monies.
Liberals = Ostrich party. Keep their heads in the sand.
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
11:33 am
Off-topic driveby numero uno:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-ok-end-military-gay-ban-224823254.html
Panetta says it’s okay to end the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
From the article: “as training has gone on this year, senior military leaders have said they’ve seen no real problems”
What have I been saying all along? The results of the end of Don’t Ask Don’t tell would be a great big “no big deal”.
Thanks for playing!
TaxPayer
July 22nd, 2011
11:37 am
And for all the contradiction, the polls of the last week or so have produced some consistent findings:
•Every poll released this week that asked found Americans prefer a deal featuring a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts to a deal featuring just spending cuts.
•Most of the surveys find strong sentiment in favor of compromise, especially among Democrats and independents.
•The surveys all show Americans expressing significantly more confidence and trust in President Obama’s handling of the issue than of either the Republican or Democratic leadership in Congress.
•The polls that have tracked identically-worded questions about raising the debt ceiling, such as CBS News, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Pew Research Center and YouGov/Polimetrix, have all shown sentiment rising in favor of increasing the limit.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
11:39 am
Partisans always have their heads somewhere other than on top of their heads.
Liberals = Ostrich party. Keep their heads in the sand.
Others might say Conservatives keep their heads up their asses. Doesn’t matter though, as partisanship will ruin this country long before anything else.
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
11:39 am
mum – no one would notice if $1 trillion is removed from DOD funding???
(1) How about the engineers & scientists laid-off that Obozo said we need more of here in the US?
(2) The military is specifically called out in the constitution as a federal government responsibility – all of this other liberal spending is not – stimulus, ObozoCare, bailing out his union buddies, etc., etc.
(3) How about the resulting increase of our trade inbalance??? The defense sector is one of the few that results in a fair amount of exports with the proceeds being delivered back to the feds.
The logic of liberals – truly amazing
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
11:42 am
taxpayer – also saw a poll about Obozo approval rating down to 42%. At this point even the clown Newt would have a good chance of beating him.
Paulo977
July 22nd, 2011
11:42 am
Chris
just a ‘tid bit’ re:SS
http://www.writers-inkwell.com/?p=183
Bruno
July 22nd, 2011
11:42 am
Bruno, absolutely right on medicare fraud. Hard to prove fraudulent billing for religious agenda and medically-unsound therapy like that practiced at Bachmann & Associates
The problem runs much deeper than that, Keep. Ever hear of “upcoding”, whereby a simple procedure like taking a tube out of a child’s ear all of a sudden becomes “surgery” billed at $700?? Many practitioners will tell you that they are forced to do it so that they receive reasonable payment once all the “discounts” are applied by the insurance companies.
I’ve covered it in great detail in the past both here and on Kyle’s blog, but most of the problems in our health care system can be traced to an over-reliance on the third-party billing system. When people no longer are pulling money out of their own pockets, a natural indifference occurs so that the fraudsters can bill whatever they want and no one cares. ObamaCare will only exacerbate the situation by increasing our reliance on third-party billing. If “universal coverage” is the goal, then socialized medicine is the only way to go. If lowering overall costs is the goal, then returning insurance to its rightful place as a hedge against catastrophic loss is the only way to go. ObamaCare, unfortunately, gives us the worst of both worlds and will do nothing but drive up overall costs. Mark my words.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
11:44 am
“The surveys all show Americans expressing significantly more confidence and trust in President Obama’s handling of the issue than of either the Republican or Democratic leadership in Congress.”
And what handling of the issue has he done?? Last time I checked no deal has been passed…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 22nd, 2011
11:46 am
Uncle Milty is on a tirade this morning. How bout this Milty. We let Medicare negotiate the price of drugs the way that the VA and private companies do. We require payments of SS and Medicare to be determined by a % of entire income without a cap so that all pay the same %. We impose a AMT tax on corporations the same that we do individuals.
Oh we can likely reduce US Military spending to 40% of what the rest of the world does from the current 48%….
That liberal logic ought to stupify you in amazement.
TaxPayer
July 22nd, 2011
11:46 am
MiltonMan,
If you wish to cast your vote for “clown Newt”, that’s certainly your prerogative.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
11:46 am
“Everyone knows that the DOD wastes money and have always done that and nobody complains because people are more than willing to support defense contractors who survive only through taxpayer dollars.”
I don’t think putting thousands more people out of work is the answer…
Message from Matti
July 22nd, 2011
11:46 am
“Doesn’t matter though, as partisanship will ruin this country long before anything else.”
Yup. We’re almost all the way there, now. Too bad so many Americans love “being right” more than doing what’s right. Win your arguments; lose what once made this country great; then pat yourself on the back. For what? The right to say, “SEE? Told ya!” Sad.
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
11:47 am
I congratulate Chambliess and other Republicans that see reality. Yes, a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases are needed.
And yes, ending the “Bush/Obama tax cuts” when they expire will help the budget as well.
Once Social Security is “fixed” remove it from the budget, since it can be solvent fairly readily (flat tax, no cap, raise retirement age, etc). Keep that separate so the funds aren’t raided again. What this actually means is that along with the “regular” debt that we need to pay off, we (as a country) need to spend less because we won’t have extra Social Security funds being raided.
And when we (as a country) spend less, those jobs related to teh spending MUST be taken up by the private sector. What? You said it’s not the government’s job to create jobs? It CAN create jobs, but only government jobs that requires taxes to pay for them. So, when you cut governement spending, you also create a little bump in unemployment. So spending cuts must be done wisely so the jobs don’t disappear.
And Government, please don’t hire the same people as consultants at twice the rate. Please!
Thanks again!
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
11:49 am
“We require payments of SS and Medicare to be determined by a % of entire income without a cap so that all pay the same %.”
So how does this benefit someone with low income, would this mean they get very little SS and Medicare?
Bruno
July 22nd, 2011
11:49 am
CJ @ 11:22–I can only assume that you are nowhere near the cap on FICA taxes. I didn’t mind it so much when the cap was 60K ( = a little more than 9K in taxes), but the current cap seems a little excessive to me considering the high earners will never draw back out anywhere near what they are putting in. Which is only important if SSI is truly a pension plan as originally created. Otherwise, just sock it to the “rich” once again.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
11:49 am
Milton – you might want to read further. this has already been well-covered. Buuuuuut, if you want to flog a dead horse …
the IMF is only paying 30% of this round of the bailout (20% of the last) – the rest is being funded by Europe via the EFSF
and, yes, the US is the largest player in the IMF, but it isn’t the ONLY player.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
11:51 am
Bruno – well, they don’t on the circle / district line … and if they did it to me, they’d get a swift elbow in the sternum – I don’t put up with that crap.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 22nd, 2011
11:53 am
Woodstock, there would be no change needed to the way current outgoing SS payments are determined, which is based on amount contributed. So those who contribute less, receive less.
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
11:55 am
“Republicans are acting foolish about revenue increases. If we let the govt default things are going to get much worse”
Just curious…. How much money are you willing to send in to aid these revenue increases you want?
Paulo977
July 22nd, 2011
12:01 pm
md
“Good ole apples to oranges comparison”
Blatantly !!!
Mighty Righty
July 22nd, 2011
12:02 pm
From Rtoday:asmussen
Voters are skeptical about the promises of spending cuts in the debt ceiling debate. A commentary by Scott Rasmussen, published in Politico, put it this way: “Based on the history of the past few decades, voters have learned that politicians promising unspecified spending cuts should be treated with all the credibility of a six-year old boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar promising to be good for the rest of his life.”
CJ
July 22nd, 2011
12:04 pm
Bruno @11:49,
You know what happens when you assume.
I’ve advocated many times to raise MY taxes when applicable, including in my previous post. In fact, there are many notable wealthy people, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. come to mind, who are advocating for higher tax rates on themselves.
For the record, I don’t believe in “socking it to the rich.” I believe in a pragmatic tax structure, and there’s nothing pragmatic about regressive taxes. To the contrary, regressive taxes are counterproductive.
On that issue, however, you might want to find out what Adam Smith, the Father of Free Enterprise wrote about socking it to the rich decades before Karl Marx was born: “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess…It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
You may be greedy, Bruno, but please don’t project your greed onto me.
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:05 pm
RB asks: How much money are you willing to send in to aid these revenue increases you want?
Enough to pay for the multiple wars until they end, enough to take care of the poor and needy for a reasonable amount of time, and enough to reach the moon and stay there.
You?
Message from Matti
July 22nd, 2011
12:06 pm
RB from G,
Just curious… .How many government services are you willing to opt out of — for yourself, not others — in order that you might not be bothered to pay for them? After all, you never asked to be born into the “greatest country on earth” or enjoy the opportunities afforded you here! How “third world” are you willing to go, for the privilege of forgoing the privileges of living in a strong nation where people have roads to drive on, schools to attend, law enforcement, emergency services, clean water, and a strong defense?
Tundra Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:06 pm
JB wrote, in part:
Poll after poll demonstrates that most Americans support attacking the debt problem through both spending cuts and tax increases. Politically, it’s the only way to cut a deal.
Why should there have to be any kind of deal…? Both Bush and Ronoldo the Great got their raises almost automatically.
Let’s Win (Raise) one for The Gipper!!
Here’s the text of the letter Reagan wrote to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker in 1983
Dear Howard:
This letter is to ask for your help and support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an increase in the limit on the public debt.
As Secretary Regan has told you, the Treasury’s cash balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses, and thus the United States could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.
This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the cost, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.
I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an extension of the debt ceiling.
Sincerely, Ronald Reagan
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:07 pm
“Based on the history of the past few decades, voters have learned that politicians promising unspecified spending cuts should be treated with all the credibility of a six-year old boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar promising to be good for the rest of his life.”
If that’s supposed to be a bad thing about politicians, what does it say about the public that has continued to elect them over and over again throughout those past few decades? When you point a finger at somebody, remember there’s three on that same hand pointing back at you.
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:13 pm
Tundra: Why should there have to be any kind of deal…?
Because the full faith and credit of the United States is at stake.
If we don’t raise the debt limit, the possibility of default will cause Global Economic turmoil.
If we DO raise the debt limit, the burden on the American taxpayers is greater and greater. Each year, the percentage of your tax dollars JUST PAYING INTEREST is gettting out of hand. Interest payments are sucking the life out of our tax dollars. We have reached a good point to actually do something about the debt, and since nobody agrees, the only way they can do it is by having some sort of deal where everybody loses.
And when I say “everybody loses” that only means policians who are trying to score political points by telling everyone that they can have anything they want and not pay for it.
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
12:15 pm
“Enough to pay for the multiple wars until they end, enough to take care of the poor and needy for a reasonable amount of time, and enough to reach the moon and stay there. ”
I don’t want feel good liberal speak bumper stickers from you, I want a number. In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:16 pm
Well Jay can cruise for the rest of the year now. He’s written his obligatory once-a-year column praising a Republican.
So when someone attacks him for ALWAYS being negative towards the GOP, Jay can then trot this little ditty out and say, “See?”
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
12:16 pm
Man that fat lady sho is loud this week.
I’m out for now.
Latoya
July 22nd, 2011
12:19 pm
Why is Washington sending Atlanta $47 million to help build a trolley to nowhere at the same time they’re saying we don’t have enough money to pay our bills? No one but a handful of tourists will ride the stupid thing. What a waste.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:20 pm
I don’t want feel good liberal speak bumper stickers from you, I want a number. In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?
Regardless to how self-important you feel, nobody here is obligated to divulge any of their personal financial information with you. Do you put your personal financial information out for all to see here? Didn’t think so….
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
12:21 pm
“How many government services are you willing to opt out of…”
NPR funding, funding for Pakistan, the Dept of Education, the energy dept, arts funding, most farm subsidies….
There’s more, but in the interest of brevity, we’ll leave it at that.
“enjoy the opportunities afforded you here! ” The opportunities here are quite impressive, however, I’m tired of being held financially responsible for the “less fortunate” who have chosen not to participate in our education system, won’t show up for the work they’re qualified to do for 5 days in a row, and then whine like little children that they’re being left behind. Opportunity is what you make of it. It’s not a promise or a guarantee of sucess.
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:21 pm
“How “third world” are you willing to go, for the privilege of forgoing the privileges of living in a strong nation where people have roads to drive on, schools to attend, law enforcement, emergency services, clean water, and a strong defense?’
This poutrage would mean so much more if we were talking about actual Federal government programs, but since roads (largely), schools, law enforcement, emergency services, and clean water are taken care of at the LOCAL level, any discussion regarding the current debt ceiling and taxation is irrelevant.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:22 pm
“Just curious…. How much money are you willing to send in to aid these revenue increases you want?”
What tax increases have been proposed? I’ve read different things, if it’s coming down to raising taxes 5% on people making 500K to 1M I have no issue. Yes, it wouldn’t be effecting me so that makes my answer a little easier. Listen, I’m not for increasing taxes during a recession, however, I don’t think raising taxes 5% on individuals making 500K-1M hurt the economy the same way a 5% increase on individuals making 250K or less would. I’m still not clear on what the tax increase proposal even is though, please share if you know…
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:25 pm
“I’m tired of being held financially responsible for the “less fortunate” who have chosen not to participate in our education system, won’t show up for the work they’re qualified to do for 5 days in a row, and then whine like little children that they’re being left behind.”
There is plenty of truth to this, however, I don’t think this is the main reason for our deficit situation…
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:26 pm
Dave
Aren’t you neglecting the fact that many of those things you listed also receive matching FEDERAL funds?
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
12:27 pm
“Regardless to how self-important you feel, nobody here is obligated to divulge any of their personal financial information with you. Do you put your personal financial information out for all to see here? Didn’t think so….”
Just admit it, the answer is “NONE. I don’t want to pay any more, I just want other people to pay because in my opinion they have too much money (liberal speak for more than I do)”. Why don’t you just go down to Sandy Springs, rob a few of the mansions there, and give the money to whatever your feel good cause is this week. What’s the damn difference?
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:28 pm
RB asks for specifics: In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?
$1000
How about YOU?
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:33 pm
“Aren’t you neglecting the fact that many of those things you listed also receive matching FEDERAL funds?”
Only roads, Brosephus (which is why I said largely). Occasionally grants from the Feds for fire and police, but usually only for equipment and not people. Federal funds account for less than 2% of most local budgets for everything except roads.
Left wing management
July 22nd, 2011
12:33 pm
But before I go, here’s a quick shot at a classic example of the fallacy (or maybe, it’s more accurately described as malevolent argumentation) that’s so typical of conservativism these days:
RB from Gwinnett: “I don’t want feel good liberal speak bumper stickers from you, I want a number. In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?”
This statement is obviously based on the fallacy that each of us “owns” our money before taxation, which is a corollary of that other conservative fallacy and fantasy that each individual exists full-fledged and in full sovereignty outside of and prior to society.
Which is wrong.
The poor and struggling middle classes understand in their bones all the ways that we are all dependent through some minimal level of social solidarity — and taxation is one of the main expressions of that.
To the conservative of today, everything they stand for hangs on the ability to convince people that we’re these little atoms that float, like so many little islands, in a stream that we can just check in or out of at will. The big lie of it all is that this argument directly serves the interests of those who have gotten theirs already.
That’s why conservativism boils down to a kind of social strip-mining, the systematic scraping off of the top of what used to be the social solidarity of the past, but they don’t give a damn if it all just crashes down in the future, because they’ve already made out fine and can coast on their capital.
The role of the progressive is to rip down that pseudo-argument structure — and to do so with extreme prejudice.
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
12:33 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE. Spare us the lecture. Tell us in dollars how much you’re willing to send in.
The proposal Obama wants is $1 Trillion in additional revenue. That’s $3,700 for every man woman and child in this country. Take out the kids, retired, and the 47% who don’t pay taxes and that leaves some real money for the 53% who do. Got 3 kids and a wife, you owe $18,500.
So,MIKE, how much?
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:36 pm
RB? Can you answer your own question now?
In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?
To keep the full faith and credit of the United States, to pay down the debt, to reduce the possibility of Global Economic turmoil? Enough to offset the likely rise in interest rates that make borrowing more expensive?
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
12:36 pm
Logical Dude… $0
You’re $2,700 short of your “fair share” already without including kids or a spouse. Unless you’re willing to put up your “fair share”, how about at least having the dang courtesy of saying “thank you” to the “millionairs and billionairs” who are carrying your load for you.
Kamchak
July 22nd, 2011
12:37 pm
Mighty Righty
July 22nd, 2011
10:25 am
Saxby might want to remember why we got rid of “Ironsides”, I can’t think of his name, the one that blew himself up playing with hand grenades, for pretending to be conservative when he was in Georgia while coming out of the closet in D.C.
Tighty whitey needs to be laundered.
Severe case of swampass.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:39 pm
RB
Why don’t you understand that you are no more self important than anybody else? I’ve answered that question, not to you, but to others before many times.
Kill the mortgage deduction, do away with the child tax credit as well. I don’t know the exact dollar amount, but I end up with a few thousand in refunds each year because of it. Would it hurt me financially??? I wouldn’t miss the money as I end up having way more deducted in taxes than what my eventual liability is at the end of the year. Losing those deductions wouldn’t do sh*t to my pay as I’m already deducting way more than what I owe.
You and others use the whole “robbing” thing and that’s far from what happens. As md would say, you have plenty of choices to make. The more you earn, the more you pay. If you don’t like your tax bill, give yourself a tax cut and make less money. Isn’t that how you Conservatives like to do things anyway.
I have no problem with paying more. It’s obvious that you have a problem even paying what you pay now. I think you have far more issues with taxes than I or many others here. You’re the main one here bitchin’ about what you pay day in and day out.
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
12:39 pm
RB, so you’re more than willing to let the government default on debt, not pay the interest, and cause economic turmoil?
Gee, Thanks.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:40 pm
“WOODSTOCK MIKE. Spare us the lecture. Tell us in dollars how much you’re willing to send in.”
Not that it would be your business to know, looking at the 2010 W2 I paid a little over 31K in federal income taxes…
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
12:40 pm
Jay
A senior Republican politician does what’s right for the country.
I think the message is lost on many.
USinUK
RE: the Raptor link: I realize the author’s background, but I’d take issue with some of her opinions, such as “the Air Force doesn’t want it.” The AF fought tooth and nail for it and is still doing back-door politicking to preserve it. They were willing to retire entire lines of current aircraft to justify ‘needing’ it.
And the half billion cut to the F-35. Author spoke of pork-barrel spending to justify the F-22. The F-35 cut was for the dual engine option – pork barrel at its finest.
It’s the nature of the beast.
JM –
“the military is getting very large expenditure cuts. Actually the only place in tue budget where expenditure will actually DECLINE.”
Cite? Only ‘cuts’ are a very small percentage, many to be ‘reinvested’ elsewhere. Most are reported in ten-year terms, so the per-year cuts are less than they appear. What Republicans call ‘insignificant’ when the numbers apply to tax reform. As far as decline, no, it’s just a reduction in the rate of growth.
Hi Woodstock Mike
““Everyone knows that the DOD wastes money and have always done that and nobody complains because people are more than willing to support defense contractors who survive only through taxpayer dollars.”
I don’t think putting thousands more people out of work is the answer…”
Then what is? One answer is to do it over time, say over the same ten-year span that’s the window for the current negotiations. If the topic was cutting people at the lower economic rung off welfare, there’d be a lot more support.
Paying people above-median wages to build stuff we can do without is still wasteful.
““We require payments of SS and Medicare to be determined by a % of entire income without a cap so that all pay the same %.”
So how does this benefit someone with low income, would this mean they get very little SS and Medicare?”
Before you showed up, and since, we’ve been treated to regular postings on ‘fair.’ As ‘it isn’t fair poor and middle class people don’t pay as much as the job producers (we can’t say ‘rich’ any more, according to Republican leadership
) . So this is an effort to impose ‘fairness’ – which, it seems, is opposed by fairness advocates because it’s directed at job producers.
And Bruno makes a fair point at 11:49
Hi USinUK!
“and if they did it to me, they’d get a swift elbow in the sternum – I don’t put up with that crap.”
One of the posters the other day related how he’d become a bit fond of you and regretted not being able to meet you on a recent trip thru London. Said it was for the best as he’d found out you are married. I read that and having met you, a vision just like your description came to my mind. Woulda’ been fun to watch, though!
CJ 12:04
Adam Smith wrote in an era when some people starved while others had houses like this which I toured this past summer:
http://www.castlehoward.co.uk/
So it wasn’t an abstract theory.
RB from Gwinnett
““How many government services are you willing to opt out of…”
NPR funding, funding for Pakistan, the Dept of Education, the energy dept, arts funding, most farm subsidies….
There’s more, but in the interest of brevity, we’ll leave it at that. “
Remember the beginning of the article: “As Chambliss noted in a discussion at the AJC back in April, non-defense, non-entitlement spending accounts for just 12 percent of the budget.”
In other words, you can’t get there from here.
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:41 pm
LWM, your 12:33 is a prime example of the most amount of utter nonsense ever printed in the history of this blog.
And considering all the columns Jay has written, that’s going some on my part.
But THIS quote below takes the cake for utter tripe:
“This statement is obviously based on the fallacy that each of us “owns” our money before taxation, which is a corollary of that other conservative fallacy and fantasy that each individual exists full-fledged and in full sovereignty outside of and prior to society.”
A free society “owes” nothing to anyone except that which they CHOOSE to owe.
I am constantly astounded at the depths to which some people think they have a claim to what I do or earn.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:42 pm
And it wasn’t about me being “willing” to send it in unless you know something I don’t about paying income taxes… I didn’t have the choice to pay taxes or not pay taxes??
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
12:42 pm
RB from Gwinnett – “I want a number. In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?”
Last year I put up exactly $585,000 I’d be willing to throw another 30% in if it will make you happy.
Thomas
July 22nd, 2011
12:42 pm
Actually 100% correct statement. There is no lien, mortgage or otherwise on the monies that are earned by each and every taxpayer. There is mandatory withholding on FICA, SSecurity, and unemployment but the net check a taxpayer receives is that taxpayer’s money. The taxpayer is then tasked to file a complete and accurate tax return and pay (or receive) a refund accordingly.
To suggest otherwise is absolutely incorrect.
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
12:43 pm
Liberals & their “poor & downtroden middle class” garbage. How about you liberals/progressives/mouchers take a trip (being a liberal it would be on the government dime) to a third-world country to truly see what a poor person looks like. A poor person in America = overweight, has cable, cell phone, refrig, electricity, food, etc. and an Obama sticker on their car which was obtained through the Cash for Clunkers program.
TaxPayer
July 22nd, 2011
12:44 pm
“How many government services are you willing to opt out of…”
NPR funding, funding for Pakistan, the Dept of Education, the energy dept, arts funding, most farm subsidies….
Where would you like your penny refund mailed.
My Migraine
July 22nd, 2011
12:44 pm
What would happen if we simply cut all non-defense and non-entitlement spending totally and completely?
Mary Elizabeth
July 22nd, 2011
12:44 pm
“The changes sought by Chambliss and his colleagues are reasonable and would be necessary regardless of the nation’s larger fiscal challenges.”
———————————————
What is “reasonable” to one may not be reasonable to another. The degree of cuts into Social Security must have a continuous watchdog to insure that “all savings generated by changes in Social Security would be used to make Social Security financially sound.”
To Left Wing Management: That is why your 7:55 a.m. post was valuable in restating one source of the financial crisis (and ideological politics behind it). Thank you for your comments which point out, also, that “it would be the middle and lower classes who bear the ENTIRE burden of balancing the budget” if we are not alert to the unfairness of that happening to the middle and lower classes and if we fail to protest against that happening to the middle and lower classes.
I wish Jay and his family a restful and rewarding vacation.
ragnar danneskjold
July 22nd, 2011
12:45 pm
Good morning all. I think our host misperceives the conservative position on tax revenues. Conservatives do not object to higher government revenues that result from general economic growth. Conservatives object to misguided efforts to increase government revenues via higher tax rates or general elimination of deductions.
There is a case to be made for elimination of deductions, as those are government-imposed “corruptions” of the free-market, but a general policy of eliminating deductions for the purpose of enhancing revenues would be objectionable.