Isakson: Revenue’s been dealt with, on to spending
The fiscal cliff is dead. Long live the fiscal cliff!
If you were unsatisfied with the deal struck last week or just miss the D.C. drama, fear not. We’ll be back at the abyss soon.
In March, the so-called sequester budget cuts stand to kick in; appropriations for federal operations will dry up; and the Treasury will run out of ways to pay the bills without raising the debt ceiling. As Congress faces that unholy trinity, Georgia’s Johnny Isakson will be right in the thick of things.
The second-term GOP senator was named Thursday to the Senate Finance Committee, which handles those big budgetary matters. Having to face those three pressures at once actually gives Isakson “some degree of optimism.”
“Because it is such a confluence of things, maybe we’ll get a macro deal instead of a micro deal,” Isakson said by phone Thursday.
Isakson has yet to attend his first meeting as a Finance member, but he knows where he wants the debate to go. “I think the revenue issue has been dealt with,” he said. “I know the president probably thinks there is some more revenue somewhere, but we’ve had the revenue debate. No one can say that wasn’t a thorough analysis of the revenue situation.”
Now it’s time to tackle spending, especially Social Security and Medicare.
“Most everyone [in the Senate] understands Social Security is the easiest to fix without harming current beneficiaries or beneficiaries in the reasonable future,” he said. Raising the eligibility age gradually over time is one way. Two others are making benefits less generous for high earners or tying benefit increases to changes in prices rather than wages.
Medicare, though, is “the big, big consumer of dollars,” Isakson said. It’s “the big gorilla” that’s “already running rampant.”
He prefers the “premium support” plan pitched by Rep. Paul Ryan and some Democrats. “That way you can gauge the cost [to taxpayers] and you engage the consumer more” in being cost-conscious than with today’s fee-for-service plan.
Whatever the specifics of a March deal, Isakson emphasized the need to let the legislative process work. He reported “universal frustration” among senators that last week’s deal was struck “by two people [Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden] in a back room.”
He noted the irony that last week, while those talks went on behind closed doors, the Senate engaged in a now-rare regular order of business, with debate on the floor and the opportunity for all senators to offer amendments.
“I think [regular order] would help the public to understand the difficulty of the problem, but also the mechanism of the solution,” he said.
Isakson prefers to work off the Simpson-Bowles proposal introduced in late 2010. That plan would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting spending and making the tax code simpler and flatter to generate more revenue.
He expressed great frustration with President Barack Obama, who commissioned the plan but whose own proposals, especially for taxes, contradict its methods: “I don’t know if he was afraid of it, or if he is so bent on spending and raising revenues, and so averse to fiscal accountability, that he didn’t want to bring it up.”
In any case, Isakson sees no good reason for Washington to break down into its own March madness. “All the solutions are on the table,” he said, “it’s just a matter of which ones you pick up and use.”
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
191 comments Add your comment
Cutty
January 7th, 2013
6:04 am
Yeah ok. This from the same people who said they would never, under any circumstances, raise taxes just a week ago. Republicans have no leverage, no plan, and no principles.
HadIt
January 7th, 2013
6:35 am
I hope the spending side of the equation is dealt with. Isakson’s ideas sound reasonable. But this blackmail over the debt ceiling limit has to stop. Until now no political party or faction of a political party has tried to use this ability to destroy the economy as leverage to exact something they want. Politicians have used the vote as a means to grandstand when they knew their vote wouldn’t matter. Obama is guilty of that silliness and should apologize. But no one has seriously threatened to ruin the nation’s credit with all of its ensuing horrors until the tea party ideologues came to dominate the Republican party. The Conservatives should consider the ramifications if this ploy works. Don’t they realize that one day the liberals will use this weapon as well for an issue they consider just as critical?
Aynie Sue
January 7th, 2013
6:53 am
Isakson is a blithe fool to think there is an ounce of sincerity in the Republicans’ interest in spending cuts. Republicans are interested only in cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and pouring the savings into useless military programs and political pork. The American people have made clear, in votes and polls, that they will not tolerate this.
The best source of spending cuts is the military. We should not continue to fund cold war technology since we have no potential technologically-advanced enemies. The billion dollar aircraft carriers and half-billion dollar combat aircraft we are now funding will end up on the scrap heap without ever being deployed.
The next approach to spending cuts should be to reform the exorbitant cost of health care for all Americans, including Medicare and Medicaid patients. To do this will require a national health insurance program administered like Medicare Part B, with specific coverage schedules and low administrative overhead. It will require repeal of the Republican-sponsored law forbidding price negotiation for prescription drugs. No medical program should pay the cost of consumer advertizing of prescription drugs; the advertizing should be banned outright, as in all other countries, or negotiated out of prescription drug prices. And, finally, it will require putting financial pressure on medical providers to streamline their practices by consolidating offices, reducing paperwork, sharing staff and expensive medical equipment, and operating preposterously expensive diagnostic equipment like MRI and CT scanners for longer than a few hours a day.
The future shortfall of Social Security funding can be solved once and for all by removing the ceiling on SS tax liability and offering expanding benefits for high earners.
The potential for revenue increase from progressive taxation has not even been explored. Denying tax cuts for high-earners is farcical since they escape paying the legal tax rate through dozens of exemptions, deductions, and tax-dodging gimmicks like the notorious “carried interest” scam.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
7:06 am
“I don’t know if he was afraid of it, or if he is so bent on spending and raising revenues, and so averse to fiscal accountability, that he didn’t want to bring it up.”
I’ll betcha he’s ready to talk about some new spending.
“I know the president probably thinks there is some more revenue somewhere, but we’ve had the revenue debate. No one can say that wasn’t a thorough analysis of the revenue situation.”
This^^ is so Orwellian it boggles the mind -
In business, revenue or turnover is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers.
They can’t even call it what it is anymore – a tax.
Cherokee
January 7th, 2013
7:10 am
The Simpson Bowles proposal that Vice Presidential candidate Ryan voted against??
Yeah good luck with that Senator.
TiredOfIt
January 7th, 2013
7:34 am
Time to get rid of the DoD contracted moochers and the ones that must stay will receive a maximum pay of $20 per hour.
Ronnie Raygun
January 7th, 2013
7:36 am
Once again another GOPer courageously proposes to “fix the debt” by cutting the two public pension programs that have their own independent funding sources and haven’t added anything to the national debt.
Hey Johnny, how about cutting some of the billions in pork (farmer welfare, corporate welfare, defense contractor welfare) that caused the debt? Or flattening the tax code so that all income is taxes at the same rates? Why the obsession with hurting retirees?
Out by the Pond
January 7th, 2013
7:51 am
The Simson Bowles plan was never approved by the Simson Bowles committee due to lack of support by the republican members of the committee. Why do republicans now love Simpson Bowles?
rwcole
January 7th, 2013
7:51 am
“so averse to fiscal accountability” – from a GA Republican. Didn’t he vote to give away prescription drugs to everyone just a few years ago? Now, it’s a problem. Duh!! It just gets deeper and deeper in Kyle’s room.
Don't Tread
January 7th, 2013
7:51 am
I’m sure the next “cliff” will end up the same way as this one, because of course we don’t have a spending problem.
rwcole
January 7th, 2013
7:54 am
Kyle, if we had elected Romney, would Congress be giving away our treasure and telling us deficits don’t matter again? I just can’t figure out how this works.
david c
January 7th, 2013
7:59 am
http://costofwar.com/
Lynnie Gal
January 7th, 2013
8:00 am
You left out the obvious best fix for Social Security–raising the cap on who pays. The current cap is far too low–yearly wages of $100,000. If you make more, you don’t pay more into the system. A person making a million a year pays the same into Social Security as a person who makes $100,000 a year. That’s wrong. The cap should be at least $250,000. As far as spending goes, I’d be all for a reduction in spending on defense and the military. End the wars and bring every soldier home. Slash military spending. Leave other programs alone. That should fix things.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 7th, 2013
8:04 am
Actually Kyle, weren’t there cuts in “entitlement spending” when the republicans took office in 2010 and then again when they had the country by the “balls” during the time they held our credit rating hostage and demanded cuts or they wouldn’t raise the debt limit?
Seems to me the “game” is more 3/1 Republicans winning on “entitlement spending cuts” with the Dems/Pres. O only getting 1 instance of more revenue from the 1%.
Ronnie Raygun
January 7th, 2013
8:06 am
I also noticed that while Isakson claims we can’t afford such generous public pension benefits for all Americans, he doesn’t mention cutting the gold plated pensions ans healthcare for life that are gifted to Congressmen. Why is that Johnny?
At least the American public pays FICA taxes to fund their own Social Security and Medicare. You don’t pay anything for your taxpayer funded retirement.
BTW: While Social Security and Medicare haven’t contributed to the National Debt, Isakson’s fat pension benefits have definitely added to the debt. How about cutting the actual causes of the debt, like YOUR pension Johnny?
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 7th, 2013
8:07 am
One more comment, Isaakson expressed frustration? Why? Is it because they’re Number One Priority and ONLY priority was to make Obama a one term president and even THAT failed?
Perhaps if Isaakson, et al. would pledge allegiance to the United States Of America (instead of Grover Nordquist and the Republican Party), perhaps he’d feel like he was accomplishing something other than obstruction tactics.
Might be a start………..just saying……………..
carlosgvv
January 7th, 2013
8:24 am
“Now it’s time to tackle spending, especially Social Security and Medicare”.
Absolutely. Lets go after the poor and the middle class in every savage way we can.
But, we must NEVER really cut military spending, even though we spend more on this than any other nation on Earth.
After all, the Military-Industrial Complex is what keeps Republicans in campaign cash and Big Business cofers overflowing with profit.
curious
January 7th, 2013
8:24 am
Now that revenue has been settled (i doubt that), why not let the sequester cuts solve the spending problem?
After all, it was passed by both houses and signed by the President.
Thomas Heyward Jr
January 7th, 2013
8:25 am
Silly sheep,
Republocrats ALWAYS vow to reduce spending after raising taxes.
.
lol
Road Scholar
January 7th, 2013
8:30 am
“Raising the eligibility age gradually over time is one way. Two others are making benefits less generous for high earners or tying benefit increases to changes in prices rather than wages.”
No problem. People are living longer. I haven’t had a COLA “raise” from my retirement since 2006.
Medicare: Are the people abusing it or are the doctors???? Giving people tests when they are dying reaks of abuse. My mother had complained about her health, it was ignored until she went into the hospital for a minor surgery. They then found her gut eaten up with cancer and decided not to do the procedure. She died two days latter of a heart attack. Question: Why wasn’t she diagnosed earlier?
Spending cuts: Waste, military, and deductions need to be addressed immediately. What is the delay? Cut oil, food and other subsidies. Aren’t we suppose to be on the free market?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
January 7th, 2013
8:33 am
Not even a mention of defense spending? LOL
You Cons can’t get serious, can you?
Skip
January 7th, 2013
8:39 am
Educate me, how much does SS contribute to the debt or deficit?
Skip
January 7th, 2013
8:41 am
Do members of congress ever go on Medicare or do they remain on gov subsidized health care for life?
curious
January 7th, 2013
8:56 am
Why not take the spending cuts proposed by each party and meet halfway?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 7th, 2013
9:19 am
I am glad some one is optimistic. With a petulant President and a wishy washy Senate, not willing to take a firm stand, it is left to the House to block the foolishness legislation that will be crafted by the Senate, at Barry’s bidding. God save America, we sure can’t depend on Johnny and his Senate buddies. If he thought the previous bill was so terrible, why didn’t he vote against it. That is his job!!
JF McNamara
January 7th, 2013
9:28 am
Being an African American man, I’m for linking when social security begins with average life expectancy. That’s fair. I’m going to work all my life, pay social security, die early and all that money will go to white men and women. No one ever brings that up.
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
January 7th, 2013
9:32 am
I am in favor of tackling the spending side. But all spending. That must include defense, not just entitlements.
Just Saying..
January 7th, 2013
9:40 am
Coming out of the Congressional session that passed less legislation than the “Do Nothing Congress”, the solution is to “…let the legislative process work”?
That sounds promising…
political arsonist
January 7th, 2013
9:44 am
another meaningless declaration by a meaningless southern gop poitician
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
9:48 am
It might shock Mr. Isakson to learn that the Constitution is very clear in NOT authorizing the government to run either the Ponzi scheme that is called Social Security, or the wealth-transfer program that is Medicare (and the equally horrible Prescription Drug plan passed of course by republicans and signed by a republican president).
Don’t expect any principled stands from Mr. Isakson as these debates progress. That is not what the republican or democratic parties are about anymore. It is all about pacifying the citizens with lies and deception, keeping the ruling elites on Wall Street and the Banking/Housing industry happy, and lining the pockets of the military/industrial/surveillance/prison complex CEOs. In this role, Johnny and his partner in crime Mr. Chambliss have excelled and will continue to do as told.
The real cliff we will face will be a dollar crisis in which nobody wants to purchase our debt except the Federal Reserve, and the massive printing of dollars ultimately causes the value of the dollar to collapse. It has happened to every fiat currency in history and America, despite claims of our “exceptionalism” will not be immune. The citizens of GA are not being represented by this clown, but the special interests certainly are.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
9:59 am
HadIt @ 6:35 am
“Obama is guilty of that silliness and should apologize.”
He has apologized.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
10:04 am
Isakson : “I think the revenue issue has been dealt with,” he said. “I know the president probably thinks there is some more revenue somewhere, but we’ve had the revenue debate. No one can say that wasn’t a thorough analysis of the revenue situation.”
Isakson mistakes a debate for resolution of the issue. The fact that there has been a debate, and an analysis of the revenue situation, does not mean that more action is not required.
Jefferson
January 7th, 2013
10:08 am
People don’t retire at 62 or 65 because they are going to die, they can’t do jobs as fast or effective. Longer lives just means longer lives, no reason to think you should have to work longer. The answer to longer lifespans in higher rates, if you live longer you will need to pay in more. Fund the system, truth is business don’t want to pay to start with.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
10:18 am
Isakson “expressed great frustration with President Barack Obama, who commissioned the plan but whose own proposals, especially for taxes, contradict its methods.”
Apart from the already mentioned opposition of Republicans to the Simpson-Bowles proposal, Isakson again repeats to common but ridiculous criticism of the President for creating the commission but not adopting all it’s recommendations. Does Isakson believe that the President must adopt whatever any commission he created had recommended? Why would we need a President – we could be governed by commissions.
Kyle Wingfield
January 7th, 2013
10:19 am
We will be having limited moderation — you might call it modified moderation — during most daytime hours. Most of you will have no problems, as long as you don’t try to get cute and post with multiple personalities. And then we’ll have full moderation the rest of the time. This should help with our little troll problem as well as with some of the worst commenting excesses by others.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
“The real cliff we will face will be a dollar crisis in which nobody wants to purchase our debt except the Federal Reserve, and the massive printing of dollars ultimately causes the value of the dollar to collapse.”
Haven’t we heard this too many times already? The US was even “downgraded,” and what was the result: More money from lenders pouring in even at almost zero (an even negative considering inflation) interests, and inflation remaining low.
breckenridge
January 7th, 2013
10:24 am
Social security and Medicare reform do need to happen. Yet Johnny conveniently neglected to mention the bloated pig that is defense spending. Not surprising, since there are still millions of intellectually challenged Americans who subscribe to the “better to fight them there than here” mantra. And a member of Congress simply can’t be seen as being soft on defense.
And who are the “them” they’re really talking about? Not Iraq. Not Iran. No, all the terrorist and money for terrorism come from our good “friend” Saudi Arabia. So if we’re serious about taking “them” on it follows that we should hear the pounding of drums to wipe out the bunch of thieves that are Saudi royal family. Except it’s much more convenient to find scapegoats.
Pizzaman
January 7th, 2013
10:24 am
MrLiberty @ 9:48: Just because Rush and Neil call SS a Ponzi doesn’t mean it is. Ponzi means the people at the bottom loose everything. Not SS. IF you live long enough you stand a good chance of getting all your money back. Not Ponzi.
Kyle,
With different titles you and Jay are on the same subject: budget cutting. My take on it is none of the elected 535 really wants to cut the budget no matter what they say. The 535 get re-elected by bringing Federal funds “home”. So why would they really want to cut their own livelihood.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:29 am
Most of you will have no problems, as long as you don’t try to get cute and post with multiple personalities.
Ruh, roh.
That’s gonna put a damper on at least one of your regulars.
Reality
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
The republicans are again, totally insane.
The “debt ceiling” is money to pay current bills. It is not something that allows new spending – that is the budget they passed previously. Yet, the idiot republicans want to proclaim that they are fighting ’spending’ by not raising the debt ceiling?
The SPENDING is in the BUDGET. They should not pass the BUDGET if they don’t want to pay the BILLS!!!!
Even an idiot republican should know the difference.
td
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
Kyle Wingfield
January 7th, 2013
10:19 am
So instead of punishing the trolls you instead punish everyone. Kind of sounds like a Democrat idea around gun control debate to me. Very disappointed my friend.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
10:43 am
MarkV – first of all, foreigners are no longer purchasing our debt anywhere near the levels they used to. Now most is purchased by the Federal Reserve (with money printed out of thin air). Yes, we have been hearing these warnings for some time now and we are seeing the effects in all of the much higher prices (though still way below the levels they will rise to). Government manipulation of the CPI is hiding the truth from everyone, but we see the numbers when we go to buy stuff.
Pizzaman – Rush and Neil are idiots, but that doesn’t make SS anything other than a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is just a system in which the money taken in from newcomers is required to pay the people at the top. SS has been like that since its inception. When the system started there were 16 people paying the costs of 1 retiree. Now it is less than 2. Ultimately the people at the bottom will not get what they paid in. In fact, statistically black men get the least from the system while white women get the most. The money is spent by government as soon as it is received and all that remains are IOUs and a guarantee that the next generation will be taxed more and more to pay the bills of those who are retired.
You were lied to by the federal government. I am sorry for that. Plenty of people have been trying to tell the truth about SS but far too many actually want to believe that because they were stolen from all these years (and their employers) that there is actually money saved somewhere for their retirement. That’s what a system based on freedom, rather than force would have looked like, but unfortunately this system has all been based on force, lies, and hollow promises. The bill is finally coming due.
Kyle Wingfield
January 7th, 2013
10:43 am
td @ 10:39: I’m doing the best I can with what I have to work with. I know it isn’t ideal for a lot of people, but it is what it is. And, as you can see, you should have no problem posting.
td
January 7th, 2013
10:44 am
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
“Haven’t we heard this too many times already? The US was even “downgraded,” and what was the result: More money from lenders pouring in even at almost zero (an even negative considering inflation) interests, and inflation remaining low.”
And the more an individual falls into debt the more credit card application are sent to them. One day the piper will have to be paid. We can either start paying for it now on a beans and rice diet and everyone hurting a little or we can pay for at all at once where the poor and middle class will get hurt dearly.
clem
January 7th, 2013
10:44 am
the senator needs to look at too big to fail also; matt taibbi of rolling stones points out more fraud at the top
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
10:53 am
I, for one, have no issues at all with registering this screen name for use by me and only me, should the AJC decide to put such as system in place. This would prevent name jackers and would considerably slow down the multiple personalities as it would require one working email address for each screen name. No one has to give up any personal information either, the email address can be shielded.
It should be a pretty simple thing to do.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
10:55 am
Reality – “The SPENDING is in the BUDGET. They should not pass the BUDGET if they don’t want to pay the BILLS!!!!”
Well said. Just look at how many congressmen have voted NO on unbalanced budgets. The numbers are incredibly LOW. One I know for sure, Ron Paul, is now no longer there in congress to champion such principled stands.
But then again, how many americans demand that their elected representatives live within their means and only vote for balanced budgets? I know I do, but my voice certainly doesn’t matter to them.
MANGLER
January 7th, 2013
10:56 am
I see so much complaining about how much medicare and medicaid costs. I don’t see anyone complaining about all the companies who advertise for scooters, walkers, pills, and “ask your Doctor if this is right for you” and the fleet of “it won’t cost you a thing, delivered right to your door” spiels, which is entirely based on getting that Government money by taking advantage of those systems. Couldn’t those 2 systems simply say no to anything like that which is advertised?
But interfering with a private company would go against your free market argument. So the Gov’t is fighting back the only way it can (besides dismantling the 2 programs), and that’s by dictating how much they will pay for certain items and procedures. A Doctor wants to charge $5,000 for something? Uncle Sam will pay $1,000 of that. If you really want it, you foot the rest of the bill. Oh, I guess you didn’t need it that bad after all. Who else does that? Oh yeah, every single insurance company does that and they always have. It’s OK for them to operate within budgets and limits but not for the Govt?
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
11:04 am
td @ 10:44 am
“And the more an individual falls into debt the more credit card application are sent to them.”
Do you really believe that this is a rational argument?”
“…or we can pay for at all at once…”
Do you really believe that we would have to pay “at once?”
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
11:08 am
MrLiberty @ 10:43 am
“Government manipulation of the CPI is hiding the truth from everyone, but we see the numbers when we go to buy stuff.”
The old, ridiculous claim: If I do not like the numbers, I will say there have been manipulated. We have seen it with the unemployment figures, and here we go again.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
11:09 am
http://www.shadowstats.com. You are either willing to face the facts of what the government has done to manipulate the statistics or you are going to sit in the dark.
Centrist
January 7th, 2013
11:10 am
There is absolutely no chance of a macro deal by March. Maybe a macro deal including tax reform next Fall.
We are going to be inundated in more partisan gamesmanship and grandstanding in February with a micro deal – probably after a few hours or days of sequestration and government furloughs in March.
southpaw
January 7th, 2013
11:13 am
“The answer to longer lifespans in higher rates, if you live longer you will need to pay in more.”
OK, Jefferson, help me figure out how much I should pay in. How long am I going to live? Perhaps more to the point, how long will I live after I retire?
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
11:17 am
Revised old, ridiculous claim: If I do not like the numbers, I will say there have been manipulated, and believe anybody, who says that.
Centrist
January 7th, 2013
11:31 am
@ MarkV – Greece is an example of having to “pay for it all at once”. Other countries are refusing to loan them money to cover their huge deficits and rising debt. The result is serious erosion in the standards of living for the poor and middle class.
Our poor are the richest in the world with all of the programs and breaks given to them mostly via government transfers backed by increased debt. The middle class has been squeezed and is shrinking. If/when the dollar is no longer trusted, inflation jumps, and other countries slow/stop buying our bonds – it will be the poor and further shrinking middle class whose standards of living will drop precipitously.
markie mark
January 7th, 2013
11:36 am
“The best source of spending cuts is the military. We should not continue to fund cold war technology since we have no potential technologically-advanced enemies. The billion dollar aircraft carriers and half-billion dollar combat aircraft we are now funding will end up on the scrap heap without ever being deployed.”
Aynie Sue, are you really that deluded? Ask China, S Korea and the Phillipines about the daily incursions into their territorial waters and the sabre rattling China does daily claiming huge areas of the South China Sea…..you need to do some serious study and focus on world events outside of Europe before you make pronouncements that make no sense. You may not like us acting as “world police” in these situations, but you would like it even less if Korea, Japan, et al invoked their treaties with us for assistance against the Chinese…..and they DO have the technology to compete with us, and in case you haven’t noticed or paid attention to the news reports, our government and major businesses are under cyber attack by them almost every week……
Centrist
January 7th, 2013
11:40 am
Someone please help me out – I get moderating the excesses in some posts, and posting under multiple screen names. But what are “trolls”?
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
11:48 am
Would everybody here please read what Kyle wrote? Then read what Isakson wrote. The answers to almost all the questions asked and suggestions made here are answered in those columns.
The Legislators ARE working hard to solve these problems. So you should know what they have done, why they did it, and what conclusions they come to.
If you show some support or interest in what is really going on in Wasington without the hysterics so commonly exhibited, perhaps our representatives might feel more confident.
How well do you work under someone who treats you like dirt?
getalife
January 7th, 2013
11:49 am
Free the blog.
Cuts should be triggered when we hit full employment and our economy can handle the cuts without going back to a recession.
In other words, the right are focused on the wrong thing as usual.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
11:51 am
Dusty,
How dare them criticize the gop instead of our President.
I am outraged.
Not.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
11:59 am
getalife
How dare you misinterpret so much so many times?
I am outraged.
NOt. Just wondering why you fiddle & diddle so much.
southpaw
January 7th, 2013
12:00 pm
Centrist @11:40
Trolls are people who are looking to cause trouble instead of contributing anything to the blog. A lot of times they’ll impersonate another blogger (you may already be familiar with name-jacking).and post complete nonsense, trying to make the real blogger look like a fool. Fortunately, Kyle’s good about taking down posts from name-jackers and other trolls.
Get Real
January 7th, 2013
12:03 pm
The early morning liberal bloggers are hilarious, not one reasonable solution to the massive spending problem this country faces other than essentially eliminating the military. I guess every progressive simply wants to be Greece and financially ruin the country. Obama has absolutely no intention of ever reducing the debt, that has never been his plan. Talks a good game but never, ever delivers…..what an absolutely waste
Thulsa Doom
January 7th, 2013
12:09 pm
“The old, ridiculous claim: If I do not like the numbers, I will say there have been manipulated. We have seen it with the unemployment figures, and here we go again”
There’s a pretty good PBS special on our fiat currency that also touches on inflation. One of the main themes of the documentary was that the govt has manipulated the CPI to hide the truth from people. The documentary stated that if we used today the same CPI basket of goods that we used under Carter that inflation would be in the 10-12% range.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:11 pm
” fiddle & diddle so much.”
Is that what the kids call it these days?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
12:12 pm
Ronnie Raygun: Once again another GOPer courageously proposes to “fix the debt” by cutting the two public pension programs that have their own independent funding sources and haven’t added anything to the national debt.
———
Demonstrably false. SS and Medicare are now spending more than they take in, and the deficit accelerates in future years.
carlosgvv
January 7th, 2013
12:12 pm
markie mark – 11:36
Read this and think again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
12:15 pm
not one reasonable solution to the massive spending problem this country faces
————-
Progs, including their messiah, don’t believe there’s a spending problem. It’s not easy compromising with folks who haven’t the slightest grasp of reality.
iBS Aplenty
January 7th, 2013
12:16 pm
“Most everyone [in the Senate] understands Social Security is the easiest to fix without harming current beneficiaries or beneficiaries in the reasonable future,” he said. Raising the eligibility age gradually over time is one way. Two others are making benefits less generous for high earners or tying benefit increases to changes in prices rather than wages.
Point well made, Mr. Wingfiled. You clearly omitted the suggestion to raise the limit on wages subject to SSA tax wich would only further transform Social Security into another bloated welfare program. It is a quasi-pension program designed to pay benefits to all who meet the eligiblity requirements and, call it a Ponzi scheme or not, it’s unlikely to go away. No one wants to hear about an elderly person living off dog food. Importantly to me also is those who pay in to the system deserve benefits. Tax the benefits as you may at least this way the SS system remains a safety net/retirement plan and not TANF.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:18 pm
You are way late to the spending problem.
Dusty knows the real Americans who stood up against w blowing out our deficit and it was not the cons.
You cons are better late than never.
A day late and a dollar short with no credibility if you will.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
12:23 pm
Obozo’s deficits are five times the size of Our President Bush’s.
And yet Obozo claims he doesn’t have a spending problem.
Progs aren’t just late to the party. They’re plotting terrorist attacks against the party.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
12:24 pm
When the dollar becomes worthless, all the teeth gnashing over SS, Medicare, etc. will be for naught. The budget cuts we absolutely need will all come rushing forth whether we like them or not.
All the $1800 checks in the world still won’t buy a darn thing if a loaf of bread costs $500 or the annual inflation rate reaches 2000%. Check out the book “When money died”. It is about the rampant inflationary policies under the Weimar republic after WW1 and the consequences for the people. In more recent times the same thing happened in Argentina (twice), Israel, and most famously in Zimbawe where their 100Trillion note was worth about $3 USD when the system finally collapsed.
Towncrier
January 7th, 2013
12:25 pm
“So instead of punishing the trolls you instead punish everyone. Kind of sounds like a Democrat idea around gun control debate to me. Very disappointed my friend.”
I agree, td. Aesop’s suggestion @10:53 is probably the best short term solution. A custom coded solution is probably the best way to go, however. Name jacking is truly wrong, but I say that satiric personae should not be against the rules – else Jonathan Swift would never have been able to post here.
Jefferson
January 7th, 2013
12:26 pm
South, .5% increase in withholding tax and remove the cap. SS will be solvent for 100 more years easy. This is not painful at all.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
12:27 pm
Centrist @11:31 am
‘Greece is an example of having to “pay for it all at once”.’
The US is not Greece.
JDW
January 7th, 2013
12:27 pm
We shall see how this debate plays out. Personally as I have said for a very long time the place to start should be the benchmarks laid down in the late 90’s. Lets look at how that model worked then and now using % of GDP as the guide.
We operated under a balanced environment from 1997 to 2001. If you look at the Federal Budget you have Revenue collections and spending in several categories which for this purpose I am going to consolidate into Defense, SSI, Medicare, Unemployment and Other.
In 2012 we ran a deficit of about $1.3 trillion. When you compare it to the 1997 to 2001 timeframe this is what you find.
Revenue…then averaged 19.81%…In 2012 it was 15.82%…a reduction of 3.99% which results in lost revenue of $597 billion or 46% of the problem.
Defense…then averaged 3.07%…In 2012 it was 4.59%…a increase of 1.52% which results in additional spending of $228 billion or 18% of the problem.
SSI…then averaged 4.29%…In 2012 it was 4.99%…a increase of .7% which results in additional spending of $105 billion or 8% of the problem.
Medicare…then averaged 2.15%…In 2012 it was 3.11%…a increase of .96% which results in additional spending of $144 billion or 11% of the problem.
Income security(unemployment)…then averaged 2.69%…In 2012 it was 3.71%…a increase of 1.02% which results in additional spending of $153 billion or 12% of the problem.
Everything Else accounts for increased spending of $72 billion or about 5% of the problem.
Clearly saying that SSI and Medicare are the problem is not correct. Our top three problems are in order of importance Revenue collections, Defense spending and Unemployment costs. Fix them and you have fixed 76% of the issue that separate us from a balanced budget. Add in a couple of Medicare and SSI tweaks and you are done.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
12:28 pm
For a more informative look at what SS, Medicare, and the prescription drug benefit are really costing, and their current UNFUNDED liabilities (promises made and their costs if they are kept) go to:
http://www.usdebtclock.org
and Kyle, thanks for allowing links to sound sources of data.
MrLiberty
January 7th, 2013
12:30 pm
GDP calculations include all government spending (again, another way to “manipulate” statistics). Using GDP as a foundational number has its inherent issues and truly can underestimate the impact of government programs on the overall health of the economy.
iBS Aplenty
January 7th, 2013
12:32 pm
The US is not Greece. – yet.
There, now it’s right.
Thulsa Doom
January 7th, 2013
12:34 pm
getalife,
You may not have noticed but W is not president. Obama is. Has been for 4 years now. And under his watch we’ve accumulated 6 trillion in new debt and that number will surely rise. Pay attention getalife.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:35 pm
President Obama cut a trillion in 11.
How much did the gop cut?
0
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:37 pm
I know w is gone (Thank God) but just stating the facts .
You will continue to ignore the facts and will continue to lose.
When facts don’t matter, you need a doctor to get a grip on reality.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
12:37 pm
getalife
Actually, I believe all of us are real Americans with various opinions. If we can keep it on an even keel, we learn a lot.
I think George W. Bush was a fine president who did what he thought was best for this country. You disagree.
You support President Obama without the slightest hesitation no matter how many difficulties he seems to increase. (ObamaCare, budgets, debt,economy)
So it goes.
LIke the old question oft repeated: “Can’t we just get along?”
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
12:40 pm
To debate the Greece comparison is quite useless. It has been debunked so many times, and it still keeps appearing. Some people just refuse to learn.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:41 pm
Dusty,
The consensus is w was a disaster that destroyed our country. We were right.
You cons talk about President Obama destroying our country after cleaning up his disasters. You are dead wrong.
Facts do matter so start using them.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
12:45 pm
obozo cut a trillion in 11? Who told you that, kookman?
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:47 pm
“Who told you that, kookman?”
Google.
iBS Aplenty
January 7th, 2013
12:51 pm
MarkV, clearly the U.S. is not Greece, but the statement begs the question: can the increasing U.S. budget deficits, if unchecked, cause this country to default on its debt (or risk hyper-inflation). Please tell me your scenario includes the rising interest rates necessary to combat inflation.
Your truly,
iBS Aplenty.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
12:52 pm
(CNSNews.com) – Appearing on NBCs “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Barack Obama said that he cut spending by more than $1 trillion in 2011. However, the White House Office of Management and Budget says that federal spending increased by $147 billion from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011.
Okay, now it’s your turn.
carlosgvv
January 7th, 2013
12:54 pm
Doom – 12:34
Bush got us involved in two huge credit card wars and left Obama holding the debt.
Or did you just conveniently forget that?
getalife
January 7th, 2013
12:54 pm
Our President campaigned on addressing the deficit and he will.
His cuts have triggers because you don’t cut after a collapse or you go back to a recession.
The IMF finally admitted it was a mistake so it is Kyle’s turn to admit I was right.
SB Atl
January 7th, 2013
12:54 pm
If they want tax code reform, then taxes cannot and should not stay the same. Also, there were $4T cut in 2011 without any tax increases.
Republicans show themselves up time and time again with their ‘reasoning’ (or lack thereof). I think the first thing that should be done is the following:
1. Cut pensions for Congress
2. Cut pay of Congress (they do nothing, they should get nothing
3. Get rid of all these corporate subsidies that increase a corporations bottom line out of the pockets of taxpayers (can you say Big Oil?)
4. Allow negotitation of medicine prices for Medicare part B – just like for Veterans!
5. Look at overlap of departments and consolidate regardless of these whiny politicians who look at what committees they sit on what power they would lose.
6. Take an honest look at military contracts and bases and get rid of what’s not necessary
7. Really look at investing in what matters for the future – roads, education, etc.
8. Do away with all these non-profit political organizations that should not be exempt from taxes! They are not legitimate. If they want to tell people how to vote, then make them accountable and make they pay taxes.
9. Last but certainly not least, establish term limits and do not allow states to gerrymander so that people get elected who actually care nothing about this country (can you say Tom Price?) but only about power and ideology.
I’m sure there are other things but if you could accomplish those, you’d definitely have a good start.
td
January 7th, 2013
12:56 pm
Jefferson
January 7th, 2013
12:26 pm
South, .5% increase in withholding tax and remove the cap. SS will be solvent for 100 more years easy. This is not painful at all.
When you remove the cap then SS goes from and insurance program for retirement security to the biggest redistributive program ever conceived in the US or maybe the world.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
1:01 pm
Our President campaigned on addressing the deficit and he will.
Yeah, a lot of addicts say the same thing, right before they load their pipes up for the next hit.
obozo is a debthead in need of an intervention and the Repugs are fixing to administer one.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
1:02 pm
The gop had a rubber stamp congress, full employment and a market at 14,000.
They cut nothing and spent worse than the dems.
That was the time for cuts and smaller government.
They are talking about cuts 10 years from now.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
1:09 pm
iBS Aplenty @ 12:51 pm
“MarkV, clearly the U.S. is not Greece, but the statement begs the question: can the increasing U.S. budget deficits, if unchecked, cause this country to default on its debt (or risk hyper-inflation). Please tell me your scenario includes the rising interest rates necessary to combat inflation.”
iBS Aplenty,
Let’s make things clear. The US deficits are large, and the national debt is troubling. But they are
not “sky is falling” high.
This country cannot default, unless the politicians force her to default. We can always pay our debts. Yes, by printing money, and yes if devalues the dollar. But that is one of the two main ways how our debts always have been “paid off.” The only rational measure of the deficit and national debt is in comparison with GDP. If the dollar is devalued, so is the debt. (And as the economy grows and GDP grows, the debt/GDP ratio decreases.)
La'Trice
January 7th, 2013
1:10 pm
On the radio this morning I heard that Obama (allegedly) said in a recent interview that ‘we don’t have a spending problem’.
If he believes that and is unwilling to compromise on spending we are in trouble because I don’t believe the Republicans have the backbone to stand up to him.
Centrist
January 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
@ MarkV – http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/01/06/the-trajectory-of-debtdeficit-interest-of-the-u-s-matches-portugalireland-italy-spain/
Reality
January 7th, 2013
1:22 pm
The fact that the republicans will make a ’stand’ on the debt ceiling is so insane.
The debt ceiling is moved to pay for CURRENT bills. These are bills already incurred. It would be as if you refused to pay your credit card bill. Guess what happens to you then? Your credit rating drops (just as the US credit rating dropped the last time the republicans played games with this).
The republicans need to stop this game playing and politics and simply work to have a realistic and balanced budget. The budget is where the decisions are made to spend how much money and where. It is crazy that the republicans vote ‘yes’ on the budget and then want to vote ‘no’ to pay the bill!!!!!
getalife
January 7th, 2013
1:23 pm
Now that the facts are established, let me be clear.
Playing with a default when the global economy depends on our economy is ignorant and will cause enemies.
It is reckless, irresponsible and dangerous.
I call on you cons to stand up against your failed party to tell them to stand down on this ignorance.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
Centrist @ 1:15 pm
An irrational, unsupported claim by Alan Simpson is your argument and evidence?
td
January 7th, 2013
1:32 pm
You all need to remember the important fact that if spending cuts are not made then our credit rating is going to be lowered.
Centrist
January 7th, 2013
1:36 pm
@ MarkV – Simpson was just half of the top of the Simpson – Bowles Commission which President Obama instituted. Erskin Bowles is also on board with their bi-partisan results have been often referenced by the President, but largely ignored when it has been time to apply.
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Hey congressman! leave that social security alone! Cause all in all, your just another brick in the wall
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Centrist @1:36 pm
Why do you think I did not know that about Simpson? While I have a quite good respect for Alan Simpson, I am also aware of his propensity to make rash statements without adequate support.
As for the President “ignoring” the result of the commission, which, among others, Rep. Ryan voted against, I have already commented that earlier.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
1:47 pm
td,
Our credit rating was downgraded because of the gop debt debacle I.
Now you want another debt debacle II.
We need fiscal sanity and not insanity playing with a default.
HDB
January 7th, 2013
1:48 pm
If the cap were lifted COMPLETELY off of FICA taxes, Social Security would be solvent.
A lot of the spending problem lies in redundancy in the government; All three major branches (the Marines are under the Department of the Navy) have their own procurement arms….consolidate those and many of the cost overruns could be reduced. Eliminate no-bid contracts save in cases of national emergencies….and that would reduce outlays to contractors. There are methodologies that could be invoked by the Defense Department to cut spending…like all savings can be rolled over into the next year’s budget…..so the outlay for that next fiscal year would be reduced by the amount rolled over………….
td
January 7th, 2013
1:51 pm
getalife
January 7th, 2013
1:47 pm
td,
Our credit rating was downgraded because of the gop debt debacle I.
Now you want another debt debacle II.
We need fiscal sanity and not insanity playing with a default.
Our credit rating was reduced because we did not reduce any debt. It had absolutely nothing to do with taking the raising of our debt limit to the brink. The ratings agencies just said last week that they will lower our rating again if we do not actually reduce debt. Those are the facts my friend.
breckenridge
January 7th, 2013
1:54 pm
Centrist you are correct that Obama has ignored the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowls commission, in much the same manner that Boy George Bush ignored the commission that made recommendations on Iraq strategy. Actually Bush ignored all but one recommendation -send more troops. So apparently the presidential strategy for the 21st century is appoint a panel to stall, buy time, do nothing, kick the can, and then ignore recommendations of those who actually have a clue.
Lil’ Barry you stated that the national debt has increased under Obama at 4 times the rate it did under Boy George Bush. You a bit on the high side there. The debt increased $4.8 trillion in 8 years under Bush, $6 trillion in 4 years under Obama. That’s actually 2.5 times faster than the Bush rate.
The obvious conclusion is that they all suck.
td
January 7th, 2013
1:55 pm
Why is it that the majority of states have been about to actually cut spending (not just the expected rise in future spending) by 10 to 30% since 2008 and yet the Federal government can not cut not one red cent?
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
1:55 pm
MarkV
I am wondering what you consider “sky is falling high” for the national debt?
Do you work for the USA space program? Your conclusions. are certainly “spacious”, not to mention nebulous. .
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
1:56 pm
The credit-ratings agency Moody’s said this weeks’ deficit reduction deal did not produce “meaningful improvement” to the issue at hand. That issue: the debt burden and economic output. Moody’s warned that if improvements were not made, the agency could downgrade the U.S. credit rating. – NPR
And, of course, they are talking about obozo’s tax hike on the poor and middle class.
joe
January 7th, 2013
1:56 pm
Start with a 15% across the board cut for all departments…that way, there are no favorites being played, no slight of hand crap. Then, cut our all waste and consolidate or eliminate some of the government agencies that we no longer need.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
2:02 pm
BOY BRECKENRIDGE,
Anything new in your life besides bashing Bush for Obama’s short comings? Doesn’t look like it.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
2:07 pm
Dusty @1:55 pm
“Your conclusions. are certainly “spacious”, not to mention nebulous.”
Dusty,
And which “conclusion” are those? Why don’t you, for once, write specifically what in my writing you disagree with, and your arguments to support your viewpoint, rather than making truly nebulous accusations?
Just trying to make you understand: If someone with an annual income of $100,000 took a mortgage of $100,000 at an extremely low interest rate (roughly equivalent to the national debt/GDP ratio of the US now), would you think that it was a ”sky is falling” obligation?
I
Reality
January 7th, 2013
2:10 pm
The debt ceiling games need to end. Can’t we all agree on that part?
Yes, we need a balanced and reasonable budget. Can’t we all agree on this much? The issue is HOW to do this, right?
In my opinion, the first place to look is military spending. It is very bloated and with the withdrawls from the wars in the middle east, why not cut here first?
The next place to look is for improved federal government efficiencies. Certainly there are redundant offices/efforts in many places.
I feel that these two things alone will go a long way to cut spending. In my opinion, social security and medicare should be last on the list to cut (note that this is different from reform). There does need to be some sort of reform in these programs to reduce cost, espcially long term.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
2:14 pm
The debt ceiling games need to end. Can’t we all agree on that part?
———
Not as long as Obozo denies he has a spending problem. The debt ceiling is one of the few points of leverage Real Americans have to get Democrats to put country ahead of party.
Reality
January 7th, 2013
2:15 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories….
You really need to stop. President Obama is our standing President. He is a two term President. You may disagree with his policies but that does not give you an excuse to disrespect him.
Honor the office at least. Honor the Country at least. Stop being a child.
Reality
January 7th, 2013
2:17 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
What I said to Aesop’s Fables also applies to you (if you are not the same person —–> likely).
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:20 pm
td,
Your speaker cut and ran from a 4 trillion cut and still cowers from our President. They do not have the guts to work with our President.
gop.
Blame them.
Kyle Wingfield
January 7th, 2013
2:21 pm
iBS @ 12:16: Isakson didn’t mention that option. In this column, I was reporting his thoughts rather than my own.
breckenridge
January 7th, 2013
2:21 pm
Dusty my boy I’m afraid you’re nothing but a partisan hack. You hate Obama and democrats so much you just don’t have the ability to be objective. On the other hand I call a spade a spade, regardless of party affiliation.
George W. Bush was a terrible president, in the bottom 5 of all-time, right there with Jimmy Carter. Obama has been a poor president to date, and very poor on domestic policy. But he has one term left so there is no way to close the book yet. And after he is out of office it will take a few years for presidential historians to come up with a final tally.
The last good president we’ve had, in my opinion, was George H. W. Bush. His handling of Desert Storm was a master stroke of diplomacy. He then tried to do the right thing, raise taxes to take on the deficit, and it got him sacked after one term.
If I were to make a recommendation, however, it would be that we amend the Constitution to prohibit evangelicals (Carter, Boy George Bush) from holding the office of president. And if we kicked the evangelicals out of Congress as well………hey all the better.
td
January 7th, 2013
2:25 pm
Reality
January 7th, 2013
2:10 pm
Our defense budget is about $800 billion per year. Of that we spend about $300 billion on salaries and benefits of our troops and another $300 billion on the equipment our military needs (ships, planes, guns, ammo). How much do we cut?
Remember our Deficit spending was 1.3% trillion so if you cut the entire military out then you still have to find another $500 billion just to balance the budget. After you do that then you can start dealing with the $16.4 trillion in debt. How much should we spend per year to pay off the debt?
clem
January 7th, 2013
2:26 pm
and dusty thinks business leaders are ethical….he needs to read taibbi rolling stones….nothing but corruption from our banking industry. rampant thruout most businesses too. i doubt they even teach business ethics in college anymore.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
2:26 pm
You may disagree with [Obozo's] policies but that does not give you an excuse to disrespect him.
———
I don’t disrespect Obozo because of his policies. I disrespect him because he’s an America-hating dirtbag. I hope that clarifies things for you.
td
January 7th, 2013
2:27 pm
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:20 pm
td,
Your speaker cut and ran from a 4 trillion cut
Can you please send me a link that covers those actual cuts? I did not think so because all those cuts were nothing more the smoke your President was blowing up your rear.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:29 pm
td,
I will not do your research for you.
Facts matter.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:31 pm
Dusty is female and she is trying to be good.
” I disrespect him because he’s an America-hating dirtbag. I hope that clarifies things for you.”
It does not.
How does he hate America?
mike
January 7th, 2013
2:34 pm
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/Federal%20Tax%20Revenues%20vs.%20Government%20Spending.png
Take a look at this chart. Notice that if we simply reduced federal spending to approximately 2007-8 levels, we would have no deficit.
Surely, we can find a way to do that. But, since Social Security and Medicare do not add to the deficit, I don’t see why we can’t reduce defense spending.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
2:34 pm
I do disrespect obozo because of his policies and quite a few other things.
See, me and Lil Barry are two different people.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
2:36 pm
Damn, krugman finally got something, yeesh, I sure hope the world doesn’t end today -
“Yes, I’ve heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I’m flattered, but it really is a bad idea,” writes Krugman.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:37 pm
Who are you to disrespect our President?
What have you done to compare?
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
2:38 pm
lil barry
Your projection is showing-
Beyond the Middle of the Road
January 7th, 2013
2:38 pm
I was very disappointed with the so-called Fiscal Cliff deal. No spending cuts, really? That said, revenue still can’t be ignored, and waste, pork and excess spending everywhere, including and especially the military, must be cut. As for actually slashing or excising programs and projects, that needs to reviewed, if possible, in a nonpartisan way. For example, Public Broadcasting is such a tiny outlay it’s silly how much attention it’s given. And by the way, cyberwarfare is primarily handled by the Department of Homeland Security.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
2:43 pm
Relax, Beyond, the sequester was merely delayed two months. Obozo’s tax increase leverage is gone. Do nothing and spending is automatically cut. Taxpayers win.
Reality
January 7th, 2013
2:45 pm
td -
According to the follow article…
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/10/12/us-budget-deficit-narrows-in-2012/
The deficit DECREASED under President Obama in 2012. According to this FOX news article, President Obama increased revenue and also decreased spending!!! Please give credit where credit is due.
Now, it states that the budget gap is $1.089 trillion from 2012. This is far from the $1.3 trillion that you mentioned.
Now, according to the following for 2012….
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html
The military accounts for 25% of our spending, which is the largest chunk. Note that this “evil” welfare accounts for all of 12%. The second largest chunk is healthcare at 23% (wonder why President Obama needed to pass healthcare reform?). And, the third largest chunk at 22% is for federal pensions – and this includes miliatry pensions.
Anyone can see that most of our money is going towards the general catagory of ‘military spending.’ If you cannot see this, then I am sad for you.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
2:46 pm
BOY BRECKENRIDGE (like you try to demean Bush by calling him “BOY”)
You got just about everything wrong. That takes talent of a sort.
1-I’m not a boy.
2-I’m not a partisan hack (like you?)
3-I don’t hate Obama.
4-G.W. Bush and his father were good presidents.
5-After 4 years, Obama’s record still looks dismal.
6-We do not need to change our long standing Constitution just because you do not like people of faith such as those who wrote our Constitution.
Aloha…..
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:46 pm
“Do nothing and spending is automatically cut.”
How much?
Jefferson
January 7th, 2013
2:47 pm
Revenue is in round 1, more to come. I guess you missed the election, Johnny.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
2:49 pm
How much?
I will not do your research for you.
getalife
January 7th, 2013
2:50 pm
A few billion.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
2:51 pm
The threat of higher taxes on the middle class is gone.
Round 2 is all about the “balance” your dirtbag is so fond of talking about–spending cuts.
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
2:56 pm
Regarding the hagel appointment, can I get an amen that sen lindsay graham is a major league a-hole?
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
2:59 pm
Lil barry is all upset about the mythical obamaphone but looks the other way when big oil gets close to 40 billion in subsudies, welcome to the theatre of the absurd.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
3:01 pm
getalife
I appreciate your keen observation that i am a do-gooder girl. I hope that is complimentary.
Then you ask another “why do you disrespect our president?”
Have you asked yourself that question when you have “disrespected” Bush as long as I can remember?.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 7th, 2013
3:04 pm
6-We do not need to change our long standing Constitution just because you do not like people of faith such as those who wrote our Constitution.
People of faith didn’t write our Constitution.
In fact most of the founding fathers weren’t very religious men.
Thomas Jefferson certainly wasn’t and George Washington rarely attended church.
They founded the country more on the idea of a modern Roman republic far more than getting any inspiration from the bible.
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
3:08 pm
cheesy
They were more influenced by enlightenment thinkers than the bible. After the renaissance, religions took a big hit, always talking about paradise but ignorant of the life here on earth.
“It’s good to be the king”, sayeth mel brooks and he was damn right!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
3:08 pm
sailfish: Lil barry…looks the other way when big oil gets close to 40 billion in subsudies
—–
Do I? Link please.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
3:12 pm
Sailfish
May I ask why you hate Sen. Graham when he is one smart fellow? I haven’t heard the latest… errr. “dirt” on him.
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
3:14 pm
lil
Google is your friend-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/house-democrats-target-40-billion-in-big-oil-tax-breaks.html
sailfish
January 7th, 2013
3:18 pm
dusty
I don’t hate him, but his remarks about obama picking chuck hagel for defense, a man with similar views to bob gates, is idiotic and not the least symptomatic of someone who is “smart”.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 7th, 2013
3:28 pm
sailfish, I’m aware of the so-called subsidies. I was asking you to back up your assertion that I favor them.
Didn’t think so.
Reality
January 7th, 2013
3:36 pm
I think that President Obama’s selection of Chuck Hagel shows a lot about Obama the man. He really is trying to be inclusive. Sure, he could have selected someone from the far left, but he did not.
As he said, himself, he simply looked for the person that would do the best job.
Now, republicans will say that President Obama was not “smart” in this decision. This doesn’t shock me. The reason is because republicans have a General Sherman approach to politics – burn everything and anything that doesn’t agree 100%.
This is not President Obama and it is not the Democratic Party. The ideology is about doing the best thing possible for the Country and her people. If this looks stupid to republicans, then so be it.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
3:41 pm
pmsNBC political director Chuck Todd said Monday there is a “soft count” of 10 Senate Democrats who might oppose Chuck Hagel’s nomination to head the Department of Defense.
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
3:58 pm
Cheesy, @3:04
You are correct that there is no reference to God in our Constitution, Just in mottoes and allegiances such as “IN GOD WE TRUST”. The framers of the Constitution put it together to show that the new government should not involve itself in religion.. The insisted that all should have freedom.
That doesn’t mean none of them had faith. That is where you are wrong. They could not have established a country like ours without faith. Washington labeled religion and morality “a necessary spring of popular government.”
By the way, have you noticed that presidents take their oath of office with their hand on a Bible? Ever wonder why?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
4:08 pm
Dear Urinal – You may want to go downstairs and check on the old Commodore blog server cause it seems to have checked out for the day.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
4:36 pm
What are you guys running at the AJC, Windows 95?
Dixie
January 7th, 2013
4:47 pm
Ben Franklin was a member of the “Hell Fire Club”.
BW
January 7th, 2013
4:53 pm
Wait he advocates the Simpson Bowles approach and yet the revenue generated in the fiscal cliff negotiations come nowhere that level and he’s done with revenue? And which Democrat has advocated for privitizating Medicare which is what premium support is? What has prevented the House from using the normal order of business of passing bills out of committee? If the issue is about privitizating Medicare vs adjusting benefits within the current structure, then won’t be a deal in three months. I’ve seen no evidence of the leading Republican voices not trying to completely do away with the Great Society programs. Privitization is doing away with the program no matter which buzzword is used. Unless the Republican senators filibuster everything bill after it is passed through normal procedure, there will be a Democratic Senate bill and a House Republican bill that will need to be reconciled. I simply don’t think that the sides will not relitigate the election on this matter.
Rick in Grayson
January 7th, 2013
5:56 pm
“while those talks went on behind closed doors, the Senate engaged in a now-rare regular order of business, with debate on the floor and the opportunity for all senators to offer amendments.”
=====
Is this where the Senate Democrat filled the bill with PORK that they haven’t been able to get passed (as earmarks) for their constituents (Hollywood, NASCAR…)?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
6:34 pm
It is about the acceptability of the worst expression of anti-Semitism, the accusation of disloyalty. There is no other meaning to Hagel’s phrase “Jewish lobby.” The declaration from Hagel that he is not “the senator from Israel” (Who said he should be?) is again a direct attack on Jews’ fidelity to the United States.
Senate Democrats, especially those up for re-election in 2014 will face a vote that can’t be fudged. It is a binary choice: Do they approve Hagel’s rhetoric and extremist views or not? He is far out of the mainstream of both parties on everything from Russian anti-Semitism (his 99 colleagues implored Russia to cease anti-Semitic conduct, but not he!) to Hamas to Iran sanctions. In addition, potential Democratic candidates will come under tremendous heat to stand up to the president on this one. – Washington Post
Excellent pick, obozo, excellent pick.
MarkV
January 7th, 2013
6:42 pm
Hagel is, indeed, an excellent pick. The presumed anti-semitism is a slander.
Attack Dog
January 7th, 2013
6:45 pm
The trillion dollars in spending cuts were made last year (We know Dixiecans keep forgetting) and $600 billion in revenue last week is not balanced. My calculations says that Republicans should come up with an additional trillion dollars in closing tax deductions and loopholes and the Democrats must come up with an additional $600 billion in revenues. Dang, I didn’t realize an elephant could squeal that loud!
Attack Dog
January 7th, 2013
6:49 pm
On Hagel. Neo-cons are anti-semetic but are pro-Israel. On the other hand old school conservatives are pro-Jews but anti-Israel. Either way, it is clear that conservatives love the military industrial complex.
Attack Dog
January 7th, 2013
6:55 pm
Dear Dixiecans. I guess Johnny or Clarence would be better than Chuck? ROTFLMAO! Tell us again how much we will save since we killed Bin Laden and by not trying to find 30-year old WMD in the North, South, East, and West? Or what about the knowns and unknowns, and has Rumsfeld figured out the known-unknowns yet? SMHACMAR
Attack Dog
January 7th, 2013
6:56 pm
OK, it means “Slap My Head And Call Me A Republican.”
Hillbilly D
January 7th, 2013
6:57 pm
In March, the so-called sequester budget cuts stand to kick in; appropriations for federal operations will dry up; and the Treasury will run out of ways to pay the bills without raising the debt ceiling.
And we’ll go through the same silly games again and with a little bluster and some creative accounting, they’ll kick the can a little farther down the road.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 7th, 2013
6:58 pm
In 2008, Al Jazeera threw an on-air party for Samir Kuntar when he was released from an Israeli prison. Kuntar led a Palestine Liberation Front terrorist team that kidnapped an Israeli family in 1979. He shot the father and killed the 4-year-old daughter by smashing her head against rocks along the beach. In footage available on YouTube, Al Jazeera’s Beirut bureau chief hands Kuntar a scimitar to cut the celebratory cake and says: “This is the sword of the Arabs, Samir.”
In 2009, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, host of the network’s most popular Arabic-language show, “Shariah and Life,” said on air (also available on YouTube): “Oh, Allah, take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one.” Perhaps Mr. Gore doesn’t have access to YouTube.
What would you call this one, Mark?
Kyle Wingfield
January 7th, 2013
7:00 pm
As per the new usual, all comments will be going through moderation until tomorrow morning.
Attack Dog
January 7th, 2013
7:01 pm
Back to spending Republicans. Why do you keep saying that the President doesn’t have a plan, when some know that all spending bills come from the House? On the other hand, Boehner keeps being opposed to the President’s plan that he says he hasn’t made. Strange and Good night…Time for O-BAMA to beat up on Bo-Shorty!
Archibald Leach
January 7th, 2013
7:02 pm
Why do I never hear these so called fiscal conservatives talk about cutting defense spending? They always want to talk about cutting medicare and social security, the safety net for the old and poor
Dusty
January 7th, 2013
7:16 pm
Well, Hillbilly, we have a few months to get ready to jump, dive, or drive on. Then the Fiscal Fun & Folly show will be upon us. The chickens will come home to roost or somethng like that.
By the way, how are your feathered friends? Do they vacation during the cold months or snuggle up with their downy sides .and cluck away?
Would you believe I thought we had been “moderately” closed this afternoon. But everybody in Opinion seemed to be out too . So I decided that EVERYBODY can’t be “bad” at one time. So we are back in business I suppose. I went back to reading James Herriott’s Dog Book which is fun to read. Picked it up at a book sale. An oldie but a goodie..
carlosgvv
January 7th, 2013
8:20 pm
Barry, Aesop
One of the few things we can count on in this world is that you two always have been, and always will be, clueless.
Get Real
January 7th, 2013
8:26 pm
getalife….you would not know a fact if it hit you right between the eyes….here’s hoping
breckenridge
January 7th, 2013
9:26 pm
Dusty let’s examine the faith of our most important Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. James Madison was not a Christian. John Adams was not a Christian. Ben Franklin was not a Christian. Washington cared nothing about religion, nor did Hamilton until his son died in 1800. John Jay of New York was the only “core” Founding Father that was a devout Christian.
The subject of religion was raised just once at the Constitutional Convention. One morning, after particularly difficult session the previous day, Ben Franklin suggested starting with a prayer. Roger Sherman of Connecticut seconded the motion. It was then met with a flurry of objections and the motion was defeated.
And no, Boy George Bush, who deserves every bit of ridicule that can be thrown his way, was not a good president. In fact he was an awful president, one of the worst of all-time, and a fiscal disaster to boot.
“An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against……Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance……..religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.” Jame Madison, 1822
Old Timer
January 8th, 2013
12:15 am
Government spending. Wife went to doctor, waited two hours, did not see doctor and left. Later got a bill from doctor for the visit. Medicare paid doctor and he sent her a bill for the visit. Would you believe Emory? Now sending info to Medicare for this rip off.
luangtom
January 8th, 2013
12:17 am
It truly amazes me that the very people that robbed Social Security over the years are wondering why there is no money in the coffers for the future. Maybe if the Dept of Labor or some other agency could look into employers forcing capable workers into retirement the need to change age-limits would not be such a problem. I was forced to retire far earlier than I wished to. I had to make a choice of retiring early and maintaining my health-care insurance for a terminally-ill wife or to remain employed and not get a retirement medical-plan if I chose to work to 62 or 65. If I was forced out early, the employer could pay my replacement at a far lower rate and not pay for any health-care for their retirement years. So, out I went……….
Yes, Defense Department spending needs to be addressed. Why is this nation with personnel in over 100-countries world-wide? Why is our presence deemed necessary? If our personnel are needed in First World countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea, let them foot at least some of the bill for our presence. If we are not keeping the other countries from falling to some perceived enemy, then why are we there? Bring the troops home and put them on our own borders. Being state-side would certainly make more sense than being where we are not wanted. It would save money, for sure.
captguitarman
January 8th, 2013
1:45 am
Interesting Lou Dobb show tonight. Just a thought, but one worth considering. Pub/Cons, try to compromise on the debt ceiling with specific proposals regarding structural changes for social security and medicare and porky areas that can tolerate cuts. Even agree to some reasonable military cuts. The military cuts make up 50% of the sequester cuts, while taking up only 20% of the federal budget (all out of whack and why did the Pub/Cons agree to that, but it is done), so agree to a lower reasonable cuts numerber. And then when Obama and the Dem/Libs come back and play their fiscal cliff bait and switch card and say, no cuts without more tax increases . . . . just say OK. It’s all yours. We are done. No spending cuts, we won’t shut down the government over the debt ceiling, but let the sequester roll. You want these policies to remain in place without facing our biggest problem . . . out of control spending . . . then fine. You can own them. Spend all you want. Cut defense and lots of other things with the sequester, which was a fail safe action and not completely thought through. Go for it. It is all yours.
Pub/Cons. Stop playing this game. The cards are stacked against you. There is no way to come out looking good on what you want to do until the policies of the administration take us into another recession – or worse. Let Obama and the Dems have it and own it, and wait for the chickens to come home to roost, as they always do.
Paul
January 8th, 2013
10:40 am
““I know the president probably thinks there is some more revenue somewhere”
“making the tax code simpler and flatter to generate //more revenue’’.”
Looks like the President is correct. There is more revenue somewhere. Interesting Republicans are now on board with increasing taxes.
And has anyone on this blog ever shown how Social Security contributes to the current years deficit? Is this why Republicans focus on SS instead of on items covered by yearly appropriations?
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
10:56 am
Paul @ 10:40: The inconsistency you highlight is one reason why it’s tricky to talk about “raising revenue” when you mean “raising tax rates.” Revenues will rise without changes in tax laws if the economy grows faster. That’s what Isakson meant, and I probably should have made that clear by writing it as:
“…to generate more revenue” through economic growth.
As for your question about SS: It’s been contributing to annual deficits in recent years because payroll tax revenues haven’t kept up with benefit payments. You can argue the money is coming from the bonds in the “trust fund,” but who has to pay back those bonds? The taxpayers. Either that, or we pay for the bonds by borrowing more money from others — issuing more bonds. The taxpayers will eventually pay back those bonds.
And, in reality, there’s no distinction between SS payments and what you term “yearly appropriations.” Congress can change what it pays in SS benefits at any time; they are as much a “yearly appropriation” as anything else.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
10:58 am
@Kyle -
You are now interepting the words of the con politicans? Hummmm… You would think that they would ’say what they mean and mean what they say.’ However, these are republicans, so we certainly cannot count on that!
Paul
January 8th, 2013
11:13 am
Kyle
My memory is that Republicans over the last couple of years fought against anything that would mean an increase in revenue. I remember the health care debate and the fixation on the word ‘tax’ as applied to a penalty for those who refused to buy insurance. There was talk having a healthy economy, having more jobs, which necessarily leads to an increase in revenue. It does seem acceptance of the need for more revenue, whether from increasing marginal rates or eliminating deductions to make more income subject to tax, is a shift on the part of Republicans that they’d rather not highlight.
Thanks for your take on how SS contributes to yearly deficits. My initial reaction is to say those bond prices are already built into the system. Aren’t those investments in Treasury securities done with the excess funds not needed to fund current expenses? I know, it’s a chicken and egg kind of discussion and I don’t expect a response, as you’ve other duties to attend to. The shortages began just in 2010, after the current deficit rate accelerated.
Yes, I agree SS needs to be modified again. A slight adjustment to the CPI for retirees and one or two other relatively minor adjustments should suffice. Yes, some Democrats will hold fast against that, but it’s to be expected.
But my main point is, with somewhere around 40 cents of every dollar in the budget not supported by current revenue, SS should be given proportional attention and not what appears to be nearly exclusive attention by Republican leadership. Because, as you well know, ‘fixing’ SS so current benefits are supported by receipts will not have that big an impact on yearly deficits.
From the 2012 Annual Report: “Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow.”
Thanks again for the perspective.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
January 8th, 2013
11:41 am
I say let’s go back to the Clinton-era tax rates.
As long as you go back to the Clinton-era spending levels as well.
How about it, libbies?
Paul
January 8th, 2013
11:54 am
Tiberius
“Libbies”?
You think that’s where the problem is?
You really think Republicans would go along with a Defense budget reduction from this year’s @ $614 billion to a level of around $268 billion?!!?
Let me know when you’ve got Republicans on board with that.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
11:54 am
Reality @ 10:58: It’s more context than interpretation. That’s the entire reason people talk about tax reform of the kind envisioned in Simpson-Bowles.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
11:59 am
Paul @ 11:13: Yes, those “investments” were made with excess payroll-tax revenues. But because those “investments” — really, the price of spending payroll taxes on something other than the programs they’re supposed to fund — were made with the government rather than an outside entity, they really just represent borrowing against future tax revenues. Those future tax revenues, because of our aging population, will come from taxes other than the payroll levy. Hence, we’ll have to trim SS benefits (e.g. in the way you describe, which I support) and/or SS benefits will contribute to the deficit.
As for the GOP’s focus: I would say there’s a lot more focus on Medicare, which is the more rapidly growing problem. It’s just that there’s less consensus about what to do wrt Medicare, so you hear more about SS tweaks.
Paul
January 8th, 2013
12:03 pm
Kyle
I like the last paragraph. I agree – Medicare’s the big problem and that constituency will be quite a challenge.
JDW
January 8th, 2013
12:33 pm
@Tiberius…”As long as you go back to the Clinton-era spending levels as well.”
See my post of yesterday…you will find that most of that nut is in Defense.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
12:36 pm
Paul: Republicans are now on board with increasing taxes.
——–
Not intended to be a credible statement.
Paul
January 8th, 2013
6:37 pm
Lil’ Barry
What part of “making the tax code simpler and flatter to generate MORE REVENUE” don’t you understand?
Michael H. Smith
January 8th, 2013
8:27 pm
Onto the next round: The debt ceiling.
Think anyone will remind dear leader obuma what he said about raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator and Bush was President ?
