The fiscal cliff

Getting down to brass tacks

Finding common ground on cutting spending

See article

Readers' comments



It's like GM Ford and GE and others, got together to put on a dog and pony show called an election between disparate political parties so the rest of us would go along with the preordained inevitable.

Good thing they have their own survival in mind or we'd be living on third world wages, as if the earth were flat where wages are concerned. Hey, wait a minute; didn't Thomas Friedman...?




Only if you accept America's debt and deficit is an emergent situation in need of an immediate fix. Kudos to you and yours for convincing the world it is despite the actual economy indicating otherwise (low borrowing costs and lack of inflation). Nearly impossible to quantify, but why don't you analogize the looming debt crisis with a looming poverty/inequality crisis-isn't it reasonable to posit that instability driven by such factors will have their costs as life expectancy and living standards continue to drastically diverge? In the last century in advanced countries, which of the two crisis scenarios have led to more economic chaos?


Instead of making the middle tax cuts permanent, the middle tax rates could at least temporarily go up if we go over the fiscal cliff; but as locked Equity is tax Revenue less Expenditures, cuts to Defense and Social programs wouold be less to meet fiscal cliff quotas. What the Republicans want to cut is the bells and wisles like 0%/15% dividend, interest, capital gain tax; instead of building by adding on engine power--like taxing those with over $250,000 adjusted gross income 35%/39.5% and adding a carbon excise tax. It was the babyBoomers in their prime paying FICA taxes that produced a surplus 12 years ago undur Clinton, and now 2012 the babyBoomers are starting to retire and are now collecting Social Security/Medicaid under Obama. Clinton was the best doctor of the 2nd Millenium, but this is the previous millenium technology which is lost in the don't swerve gambit as we go over the fiscal cliff along with the all the other garbage from Alice's Restuarant.


On the campaign trail, President Obama says that 1 dollar of tax increases in exchance for 2.5 dollars of spending cuts would be agreeable. His proposal yesterday? 1.6 trillion in immediate tax increases in exchange for 400 billion in spending cuts "to come later".

Republicans have said they are willing to compromise on tax increases, and what have we heard from Democrats willing to compromise on entitlements? Crickets.

Those darned Republicans - always unwilling to compromise!


Tom Cole says let's get the middle class tax cuts off the table in the spirit of bipartisanship since we all know we won't be raising taxes on the middle class. So, 3 weeks after the GOP was trounced in an election, what does Boehner and the GOP say? NO!!! Hmmmm, still playing politics, I see. John Boehner, your days are numbered.

the sovereign

It is most unfortunate that the contending parties ensnared by the "fiscal cliff" will not put aside ideology, to hammer out viable compromises. Undeniably, America is hobbled with untenable entitlements, huge loopholes for the rich, and a bloated military industrial complex. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid can be protected, but only if there is a ground-swell to help seniors live healthy lives and spared burdening the health care system. It is scandalous to me that, in this country, the rich are regarded as sacrosanct, simply because they help create wealth. True patriots, in the John F. Kennedy sense, ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them, which is the mantra of the mega-rich. I am all in favor of a powerful military, as our great nation is entitled to defend itself. But it is quite another story, when The Pentagon concocts meaningless foreign wars (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) that are wasteful, so as to line its pockets with useless & destructive expenditures. Ours is the greatest nation in History, but, just like the Roman Empire, we are self-destructing, through irresponsible policies that favor special interests, at the expense of the working class.




As long as one side continues to push the idea that the middle class "deserves" more entitlements than even increased taxation on the more wealthy can provide, there is no solution. The so called fiscal cliff is only a decrease in spending and an increase in taxes - which is exactly what is needed if the country is to survive. But we're told this is a potential catastrophe. Its not. Its only a small first step on what is needed.

timshel in reply to outsidethebox

Neither side - unfortunately - is pushing the idea that the middle class deserves more "entitlements".

Decreased spending and increased taxes is precisely opposite of what is needed right now, it will almost certainly push the economy back into recession, as has been shown with Britain, Spain, Greece, etc.


Reading the comments here, one is impressed by the number of ways that exist to skin this cat, both from the revenue and from the entitlement sides. It just takes the willingness to bargain and the courage to face down the "me first" voters (again, on both sides). I can't help but think that if Romney had run from this position as opposed to the one dictated by Grover Norquist, he might have done a heckuva lot better.

Public Dude

It's disturbing that Obama is taking his case to the people with his planned trip instead of staying in Washington and negotiating earnestly with the Republicans. Obama is often quick to point out that the elections are over to the Republicans when they invoke voters. So, why is he going to the voters now? Voters, in general, have said compromise on both cuts and tax increases. Obama should honor his end of the bargain instead of going back just because he won the election.

Oldwhiteguy in reply to Public Dude

He's going to the voters primarily to win over the small business community and to convince the unions that they will have to face some entitlement losses. But mainly he's going to the voters because the Republicans have gone only to Grover Norquist. And they don't have to leave town to do that.


Tax hikes on the rich are a red herring. They amount to less than 8% of the deficit. Republicans should enact Obama's tax hikes, then turn around and demand meaningful entitlement reform. Problem is, Obama's constituency that just voted him back into power are primarily entitlement recipients. This president will get his tax hike and falsely claim victory while America's debt continues to pile up towards our looming day of reckoning.

timshel in reply to Michigander74

That's some wonderful fact-free analysis you have there friend. The Economist actually did a wonderful graphic awhile ago showing that out of the 24 states that voted for Romney, 20 of these are fiscal deficit states, taking more in government funds than they collect in taxes. By contrast, only 7 of the 27 "Obama states" are fiscal deficit states.

Omricon in reply to USCIS

Very true. When broken down within each state, the richest parts of red states are pockets of blue. This highlights further how much of a monetary drain red is.

VeritasVosLiberates in reply to timshel

Some fun facts for you, Timshel:

Four of the five states with the highest total state debt are solid "blue" states - NY, NJ, CA, IL. All of these states voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Four of the five states with the lowest total state debt are solid "red" states - NE, WY, SD, ND. All of these states voted Republican in 2008 and 2012.

Of the five worst debt-per-capita states, four are solid blue states - CT, HI, NJ, NM. These states all voted for Obama in 2012.

Of the ten worst debt-per-capita states, nine voted for Obama in 2012.

Three solid "blue" states, that consistently vote Democrat every year (and are widely regarded as the most politically corrupt as well) - CA, IL, and NY - have more total debt than all the traditional "red" states combined.

timshel in reply to VeritasVosLiberates

Well gee whiz Veritas! CA, IL, and NY have the largest debt totals.. why might that be? Because they have the biggest economies! I'd imagine Texas and Florida are up in that list too. That's like saying the US is a larger debtor nation than Greece because they have a higher dollar amount of debt. There is no use to that point unless we have something to compare it to.

VeritasVosLiberates in reply to timshel

Well gee whiz, Timshel! I thought that putting debt-per-capita facts in there as well would help illustrate my point to know, since debt-per-capita ignores total size. Apparently that went right over your head. Are you sure you are posting on the right forums? I can give you the link to the USA Today website if you'd like. Perhaps you'd find that newspaper more "intellectually agreeable" than TE.

timshel in reply to VeritasVosLiberates

These are both measuring nominal debt only, it doesn't matter how you slice it - there is no context for the numbers. From that standpoint Germany would be in worse fiscal shape than Greece. This is why Debt-to-GDP is often used to measure a nation's debt burden. The Economist illustration I'm referring to used each states surplus/deficit as a % of GDP over several years.

If I live in Liberia with a GDP-per-capita of 500 dollars, does it really tell us anything to note that their debt-per-capita is also lower than the US?







The chart included in the article which shows a "10 year budget deficit" of $9,974b if current policies continue is a bit misleading in that this is the increase in the deficit over 10 years, not the total deficit at the end of 10 years?

Raising the Medicare age to 67 probably won't save the $113b in that it will lead to more people taking the subsidized private insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Certainly there are more cuts possible to entitlements than President Obama has so far indicated a willingness to accept. For traditional Medicare, require referrals, mandatory co-pays (co-pays are usually 0 with secondary coverage) and the big fix is to consider cost when determining covered services. For Medicaid, move to HMO's and remove covered services such as optical and dental which are not covered under most large insurance plans. Cut VA benefits for vets who were never in a war zone and who were never hurt while in the service (low income vets get VA medical care even if they were only in the service for 90 days and never sustained an injury and were never in a war zone) as a start.

The fact is that the majority of seniors receive up to 3 times what they paid in and therefore most didn't earn everything that they are getting. I'm a senior and would urge the others in my demographic to be reasonable and stop railing against any cut proposed. We seniors are noted for being an active voting block and could sway the balance toward a balanced mix of expenditure cuts and tax increases.

WT Economist in reply to Mark235

Unfortunately, folks with your point of view have lost out for 30 years, along with your children. It's a simple formula. I only want what future generations can have, not something taken at their expense.

A Reasoned Voice

Right now, my understanding is that 12.4% of a person's salary goes toward Social Security. And that over a certain cap ($110,000), a person no longer pays toward social security.

So, while I understand that one method of keeping SS solvent is to raise the retirement age or means test it, wouldn't another approach simply be to raise the cap and/or increase the percentage paid to SSN.

Political ideology aside (please!), from an economic perspective, am I correct? How much would be raised by eliminating the cap: or would we still have to raise rates? Or vice-versa, how much would we have to raise percentages?

Thanks in advance to anyone who has researched this.

WT Economist in reply to A Reasoned Voice

Replace the payroll tax, all if it, with a VAT.

Instead of just taxing work income alone up to $110K, a VAT would tax all spending without a cap, regardless of the source of income. Including retirement income and capital gains.

It is hard to say how much of the current payroll tax really falls on employees or employers -- my guess is that most of the employer share is shifted to employees in lower wages. And it is hard to say how a VAT would be apportioned among consumers, workers, and profits.

But one thing is for sure. Work done in the U.S. for export, now taxed under the payroll tax, would not be taxed under a VAT. And imports, which do not include a U.S. payroll tax, would be taxed.

Nom Deplume in reply to WT Economist

I don't think a simple 'replacement' method will work. Instead of either/or why not both? How about a frozen payroll tax with the cap set more like $250k and then a 'sliding scale' VAT (pricier products = higher rate), thus to some extent getting two bites at the apple? Also what about a flat income tax rate for ALL people above the poverty line at 10% of income and then a 2.5% federal sales tax? For the states give them back the 'Internet' tax setting it at 5% (slightly lower than nearly all local sales tax to discourage driving to the mall vs. ordering 'online') and then paying into the state where the purchaser resides?

WT Economist in reply to Nom Deplume

In government, anything that isn't simple is a ripoff.

We aren't in the room where the complicated deals are cut. And they always work to the benefit of those who are at the expense of the common future and the less well off.

That's why the dealers don't like Social Security. It's simple. And the only security in old age that the serfs get.

Nige_2 in reply to WT Economist

I'm not so sure. VAT makes everything more expensive and that affects inflation in a far bigger way than a payroll tax. Also VAT hits the poorest the hardest and is always, in that respect, a more unfair tax. Also the United States has state sales taxes, and the states provide many services, so by implementing a further VAT on top of a state sales tax, good become more expensive, less gets bought, the economy depresses (slightly) and state revenues go down. In short, states dislike VAT.

timshel in reply to A Reasoned Voice

Strange that no one seems to have addressed your question. Raising the cap is absolutely a valid approach to the "problem"; I don't have any exact numbers for you, but removing it ENTIRELY would certainly fund the program indefinitely and then some, considering the top 10% of income earners take in nearly half of all income.

The real travesty here of course, is that there is no "problem" with social security. The government can pay out whatever it feels like in benefits. Taxes are not needed to fund spending. I would support suspending FICA taxes entirely right now as we have 8% unemployment, underutilized capacity, enormous private sector debt, etc.

With Medicare/Medicaid, the same applies, although the cost curve is obviously rising at a much higher clip for those programs largely due to the cartel system of private insurance/big pharma that exists in the US today.



Leon Haller

We need MASSIVE defense increases. China is now the world's superpower, even in military affairs. The US has fallen way behind in the development of strategic weapons systems - the core of the core of American power (including American economic power). Yes, the US spends more money on defense than most other countries (we DO NOT KNOW the REAL CHINESE DEFENSE BUDGET, though we know it is much larger than officially reported). But we also waste a huge amount on veterans' benefits, healthcare, PR, etc. Actual US funding for weapons modernization and replenishment is abysmally low -lower indeed than that of many of our enemies or potential enemies.

On the other hand, thanks to Obama, we have the worst deficits and national debt ever, and thanks to Keynesian inflationist Bernanke, the worst pent-up inflation ever. We have no choice except to pursue the following:

1) total deregulation of the American economy through repeal of millions of antibusiness laws, esp in the energy sector

2) tax simplification and business development tax cuts (eg, eliminate all business and investment taxation to make the USA again the most tax-favorable country on Earth to invest in)

3) privatization (asset sales) of govt property used to pay down the national debt only (not to cover the deficit, which is wholly the product of excessive social(ist) spending)

4) abolish the Federal Reserve Board and fractional reserve private banking, and return to a 100% gold-backed dollar

5) eliminate most Federal Cabinet departments: Energy, Education, Commerce, Transportation, Housing and Urban Destruction, Interior, Labor, Agriculture

6) abolish most govt social spending, including the spectacularly misnamed "Earned" Income Tax Credit, as well as welfare, food stamps, public housing, college loan guarantees, FANNIE MAE / FREDDIE MAC, etc

7) End the immigration invasion, deport all 30 million illegal aliens, and militarize the border with Mexico.


Dr. Frost in reply to Leon Haller

Mr. Haller, I think you are so out of touch with reality that there is not even any point in asking you the check it.

I don't mean to be flippant, I just see no way to seriously argue with somebody who honestly believes all of the above.

binkis1 in reply to Dr. Frost

Out of touch on the whole! We are, as a military, bigger than the next 9 countries combined...We need defense cuts...

The repubs are just re-framing the same old rhetoric..they have put NOTHING ON THE TABLE.... When and if they do ..we will see..until be ignored as old news repeated to hear their heads rattle!

'Entitlements' are repub framing of the problems they caused! ..thru privitizing and exempting HMO's and the followers exemption!

You do not argue with the self-deluded!

A Reasoned Voice in reply to Leon Haller

As others have pointed out, this is so far out, there's no point in even trying to argue here.

But I couldn't help but be blown away by this one:

The author wants more defense spending and then says: "But we also waste a huge amount on veterans' benefits...".

Wow, just wow. I guess the author believes we should pay the going rate for those who develop weapons, but not pay those who put their lives on the line to deploy them? Wow. (Insert many more wow's here).

Oldwhiteguy in reply to Leon Haller

Wow. That was fun. Sort of turn down Delusional Lane. Are we expecting the Chinese to invade Seattle? This is really going to be expensive, you know, what with all those pillboxes we'll need to build along the Rio Grande. Do we really want to turn BP loose to drill in our front yards? And a gold standard, too? Ow, baby. Please write some more!

What about Bob in reply to binkis1

As a devil's advocate I must reply:

United States military spending is relatively on par as a percent of GDP since the end of World War II. When you factor in inflation as well, the DOD budget is not excessively larger than historical defense budgets for the past 60 years.

The portions of the budget that have ballooned are things like Social security and medicare have dramatically increased in size in regards to the budget. And the long-term liabilities by these programs will continue to grow to eventually make the defense budget look tiny in comparison (currently about equal, equal to social security and equal to medicare not medicare and social security combined)

Cutting US military spending that really has not excessively grown in scale does nothing to address the real portions of the budget that are set to consume the entire budget about two to three decades down the future.

Of course the defense budget needs to be cut, just due to the situation of the debt. However, please send a letter to your Congressman to tell them to quit telling the military how to spend its money via LAW on many wasteful and pork barrel items that benefit their districts and states. This would save billions and make the military be able to reduce smartly instead of taking a hatchet to it.

But anyway to continue the devil's advocate:

Let me apply a bit of your logic in a different manner:
I guess we should cut back on our economic productivity since the US economy is roughly the the size of the next 4 largest economies in the world?

The American economy is so large. This is why the Chinese are confused about why people are getting upset about their military expansion and upgrades. It is only natural that countries with large economies have large militaries.

What about Bob in reply to binkis1


Leon Haller in reply to Leon Haller

The replies to me illustrate just how stupid TE readers are, or, let us say, sadly brainwashed/conventional in their thought processes. I was PERFECTLY serious. Unlike my critics here, I actually understand these issues.

Immigration (OK, "diversity") is the greatest disaster in the history of the US (as plainly also with Europe); it elected Obama, who alone has done more long term damage to the US economy than the entire spending of the Cold War did. You people obviously don't understand capitalism (aka "economics").

Note how no one has actually shown why we need any of these Cabinet Depts - we didn't have them during the periods of the greatest US economic growth, and correct economic theory demands they be terminated.

No one has demonstrated what benefits "Civil Rights" + Legal immigration-generated "diversity" has brought to whites, except multiculturalism, crime and more welfare socialism.

No one argues why a Nation of Laws somehow should not enforce its laws against illegal trespass (Obama's suspension of such enforcement is treasonable, not to mention impeachable).

Ultimately, the issue is whether we are going to remain a white-majority, Christian derived, Constitutional capitalist country or not. I LIKE the REAL America; I HATE Obama's America; my America was the greatest country in history (maybe not the greatest culturally or intellectually - Britain, France, the German lands, and Italy would take precedence - but the greatest overall); liberal America is an ungovernable, crime ridden, sexually degenerate, alien infested craphole.

And yes, there are lots of people who think just as I do, who are better educated than you liberals (I have an Ivy League BA, a reasonably prestigious JD/MBA, and have now left business and returned to a well ranked doctoral program), and who know that the Old (white, Christian, Constitutional) America (1776-1989 RIP) was a far better country than the filthy pesthole we are turning into today, a 'cuntry' which combines alien diversity with sexual perversity and greedy, crony socialism.

America is dead. What you liberal parasites will be hearing a lot of over the rest of your lives is calls for conservative secession. We do not need you and your welfare diversity - YOU NEED US TO PERPETUATE THE ECONOMY AND COUNTRY.

We conservatives are tired of being taken advantage of, and just want to segregate ourselves from you. And we will. Just watch as time unfolds.

Ryan Thomas in reply to Leon Haller

Your wrong. You'll never accept the arguments that I give to you but your wrong. America has not been weakened by minorities- minorities are what makes us strong. The diversity of our nation, our open-mindedness with accepting such diversity, our freedom and liberty in which such diversity can flourish turned America from a small backwater state barely noticed by the powers of Europe to the greatest nation the world has ever known. People from Mexico have produced a net positive income for our economy, and our early economy was built horribly on the back of slaves laboring the fields. Chinese in the west, in my home state of California built much of the railroads that enabled our economic boom. Even today millions of Mexicans across the United States struggle daily for acceptance in our society, because people like you believe that the only solution to their presence is to crush our economy, and commit brutal human rights abuses in deporting them from the nation- a nation that many of them have lived in since their childhood, and are just as American as you. If another nation did that the rest of the world would invade, attack and kill them. The Republican Party would probably be the first in line if they had valuable natural resources. Yet here at home, the great solution to America's problem is to exile poor, different people who are evil for the simple crime of not voting Conservative because for some reason they care about their rights and decency as human beings.

We don't have a minority problem in America. We have the problem of bigots and intolerant people unable to accept people different from them into our nation as equals. Hispanics have higher work participation rates than the general American populace, yet are constantly attacked as destroying us. Of course we need to enforce illegal immigrant policies, but we also need to reform our immigration policies, enable people who do have skills and want work to enter from Mexico. Immigrants throughout history have made America only stronger, and the most recent group is no different.

And neither does the nation depend on the Republicans for our bread and butter. The poorest regions in the nation, the Southern areas- those are Republican run. Democrat majority states are richer, contribute money to the nation rather than take money from it as a whole, and are just as profitable and oriented towards the market as your states- just with more in the way of liberal, or centrist policies.

The Right Wing is not evil. We need them to balance out our politics, to prevent America from radicalizing. But what we don't need is the unthinking right you represent, unable to compromise and work with the rest of the political ideologies that are in our nation.

VeritasVosLiberates in reply to binkis1




Noumoe Nouzeg in reply to Leon Haller

"Immigration ... is the greatest disaster in the history of the US ..."

OUCH - please, no more, stop it, this is too funny, you're killing me...

(But my sincere apologies in case you actually are a Native American, mr. Haller.)

True_North in reply to Leon Haller

Immigration elected Obama? Seriously?




WT Economist

One more point. The federal government enacted major increases in the regressive payroll tax, and an increase in the Social Security retirement age, to "save Social Security."

Those my age have paid that higher tax their entire careers. And paid more than was needed to fund the program. But older generations spent that money on themselves, and used it to offset the taxes they did not wish to pay.

As part of any deal to repeat what was done in 1983, we need a financial "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." I want those 55 and over to pay enough of a psychic price that they will stop demanding more, and more, and more, and more.

WT Economist

I don't mind having the retirement age for Social Security increase, because people can keep working. But having the age for Medicare increase is something else entirely, because as long as health insurance is employer tied, those over 50 and under 65 are virtually unemployable in smaller companies due to the effect on premium.

The main issue is Generation Greed. What will they be asked to give back? They wanted the tax cuts, after all. Sticking it to younger generations while throwing tax cuts and increased benefits at older generations has been the bi-partisan game plan for 30 years. Will no one object to it?

How about holding Medicare spending to the overall rate of increase in GDP starting right now? Even that would hurt younger generations more, because the percentage of the population that is eligible will be larger in the future. But at least Generation Greed would not be allowed to keep grabbing without any limit.

GH1618 in reply to WT Economist

What do you mean by "Generation Greed"? People are individuals, not merely ciphers in a group of all those of similar age, and deserve to be judged as such. And there is no clean break between generations — people are born and die each day. Appealing to inter-generational conflict is not helpful.

WT Economist in reply to GH1618

Let's say there were proposals being floated to drastically reduce old age benefits for those currently 55 and over. While increasing promises of what younger generations would receive when they get old themselves.

And let's say someone age 55 or over questioned the fairness of this.

Would that questioning amount to "appealing to inter-generational conflict?"

People are indeed individuals, but Paul Ryan passed judgement on the majority of those 55 and over when he promised more for them, and less for those coming after. Democrats ratified the judgement when they did not dare to question the fairness of this, and instead sought to pretend those 55 and over would be affected as well.


After the election Mitt is reported to have commented that Obama/Democrats had "purchased" their votes. After reading this article I can see that Mitt was largely correct, although that does not explain all the votes.

Analysis after analysis shows that you can not raise the money from the rich alone to cover the balooning Greece-like costs of Federal spending. That is why, I suppose, the President and the other Democrats never actually post any numbers and explain how they will solve the problem. I believe that they have no intention of solving the problem because doing so will cost them Votes. What is more disappointing is that so many people, including so many posters in this forum ignore that fact. It is the willingness to believe an obviously defective narative that makes this kind of situation possible. The Republicans have also contributed to this situation but at least some of them are willing to discuss the 800lb gorilla in the room.

If the American people want to continue to sell their votes, they should get used to paying for the benefits through higher taxes for everyone. The bottom 40% of U.S. households pay NO Federal Income Tax and yet sell their votes in order to obtain direct and indirect benefits. That is a fact no amount of partisan bickering can explain away.

In the EU there is a 20% and higher VAT on most goods and services (I believe) and everyone, including the poor, pay that tax when they purchase goods and services. If the U.S. instituted a 20% VAT then the poor and middle class would automatically be paying higher taxes and in theory the Federal government could fund its unfunded commitments. Of course, that would also give them more money to promise more Federal spending and I suspect that when you read this that thought crossed your mind.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to MySetDancer

One thing that I think you are missing, that is different from countries like Greece is that the U.S. tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is at a historic low. Raising the top rate from 35% to 39% (where it had been for many years of strong economic growth) is hardly trying to soak the rich.

Nige_2 in reply to MySetDancer






Dr Lou

The 'fiscal cliff' was built more by Republican efforts to extort Democratic concessions in combination with their indifference to pragmatic economic theory. With this, McConnell's 'willingness' to consider revenue enhancement via entitlements or Boehner's insistence that health care reform be on the 'table' is borne far more from a position of failure than strength. Both politicians really and simply still don’t get it. And, Paul Ryan, whose supposed economic intellect has long confused the Economist, is little more than a self-impressed ideologue.

Despite their best efforts in the last Presidential election cycle, the GOP did not confuse the electorate as much as they had hoped and the Romney/Ryan/GOP economic delusion was taken down. So long as McConnell’s model of entitlement reform focuses in on voucher and block grant models or House Republicans think they can still bully on health care reform, the GOP will continue to have little to offer; or insist upon.

The GOP placed far too heavy a bet on a lost wager and now seems to believe they can recover some of their initial stake by returning to the same failed model using slightly different words. Together this makes identified demands by the core GOP Congressional leadership as well as Ryan's presumptive leadership role far less consequential than assumed by this newspaper.

As demonstrated on November 7, America was smarter than the GOP thought. And, as any professional gambler can attest, a lost stake can be recovered in part only by changing the terms of the game. Based on Bohener and McConnell’s continued delusion of relevance by repeating ‘demands’ already denied them by the American electorate, I agree that it will be up to Obama to be the game changer.

I also agree with this newspaper’s contention that Obama must now deal much more seriously with so called entitlement spending in the face of union and AARP intransigence. One important semantic change would be to recognize that both Medicare and Social Security are not exactly ‘entitlements’ but pay backs from the long term investments made every payday by a majority of Americans.

Among those who haven’t paid in at equal levels are the intergenerational and static poor for whom a baseline of opportunity, medical care and retirement funding still actively benefits the broader economy. Constant cuts on the back of those already victimized and economically isolated, as would the Ryan and larger GOP models do, continues not only nonproductive individual pain but undercuts real time economic stability and growth.

Means testing and a delayed but small increase in eligibility age are reasonable and should definitely be on the Democrat’s agenda. Drawing back long excessive pharmaceutical prices and medical equipment charges is a necessity even as the over emphasis on discretionary spending does need to be muted. Across the discretionary model, however, defense and foreign aide should very much remain targets; education should be smarter and transportation/infrastructure better prioritized.

The discredited Romney/Ryan and core the GOP model continues to demonstrate the on-going confusion by both the GOP and their (former) pantheon of everything business, Mitt Romney, between a pro-market versus pro-business agenda. Unfortunately, the GOP continues to focus on pro-business strategies with its emphasis on stockholders and subsequent sacrifice of long term gain and stability for short term markers and profit.

Instead, a smart blend that will draw in and make coherent and noticeable changes in the process of ‘entitlements’ while strengthening health care reforms combined with pairing thoughtful discretionary reductions with stable revenue generation, and especially from where it can be best afforded, will be the ticket.

MySetDancer in reply to Dr Lou

The partisan nature of your "analysis" and the absence of any numbers to show how the President/Democrats will actually solve the pending spending/revenue issue renders your post useless to an impartial curious reader. Save it for the next election.

Dr Lou in reply to MySetDancer

I certainly appreciate your deeply thoughtful but hardly 'impartial' response. And I couldn't help but notice that your own above longer post was particularly loose with facts and largely parroted the the agenda of the GOP and their corporate sponsors which wound up losing them the election on November 7.

Mimicking GOP press releases and right wing corporate think tank talking points about how the working class and working poor in America 'sell' their votes is beyond absurd. The poor in America pay in all kinds of ways ranging from sales and payroll taxes to dramatically underpaid and under/non-benefit based work often without livable wages even while corporate tax rates are at the lowest and corporate profits at their highest in years.

When restaurant owners cry crocodile tears about having to add a few cents to their products due to health care reform, for instance, their problem is that their own sometimes sleazy practices may come under review. Their problem is that many have been abusing their workers for years by way of demanding full time hours at part time status, paying less than minimum wage based on the premise of tips, not providing any benefits at all, firing hard working people for having to take off a few days to, perhaps, care for a sick son or daughter....and more.

Your speaking about how the American poor and working class 'sell' their votes only demonstrates a wholesale misunderstanding of the process of government and governing. But the GOP and Romney also clearly misunderstand the process of government as well...another reason why they lost November 7. Health care reform was the act of governing and the crafting of legislation that makes sense for many Americans...both poor and not so poor.

Romney/Ryan and the GOP core, on the other hand, were offering the best gifts donors and other sponsors could buy via more dramatic tax reductions for the wealthiest and additional corporate subsidies along with massive handouts to the health insurance, coal and oil industries. So when the GOP whines about gifts, all they are making is a cheap attempt to distract from their own practices.

The GOP is only willing to talk about that 800lb gorilla if it includes additional 'gifts' to their wealthiest sponsors. As Boehner and McConnell made clear once again, they only want to talk if it also includes further undermining both, disadvantaged and working class Americans. And such an approach doesn't even make sense if real time economic theory were applied since doing so also reduces spending power, financial liquidity and economic stability.

For the record, I certainly did offer a few ideas to include...well, I'll tell you what...take a look and see if you can find the specific positive thoughts I offered and/or supported. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll do my best.

But you are right if you thought that the the focus of my original comments were more on the combined McConnell/Boehner delusion of relevance because that ship, my friend, has already left the port.

chflamplighter in reply to Dr Lou

Dr. Lou is Dope, well said and very disturbing to see the obvious but obscured over arching concepts of the GOP. Neither party is ideal but Dr. Lou is dropping some serious science.

Here's to finding a way forward with an honest look at how our policies from the past have handed us this future. There are many problems to face but god dam, this reverse robin hood concept the GOP pushes, subsidize the rich at the expense of the poor seems to be an obvious societal problem and one that if changed would benefit everyone, all of us, the entire universe.

Preach on Dr. Lou, Preach on!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

