Ryan has carefully nurtured his deficit hawk image by expressing his Randian ideology in the high-minded language of the establishment. His favorite attacks on President Obama have revolved around failure to lead and a refusal to openly embrace the fiscal commission report (a report Ryan voted against, but never mind). Now, the work of that fiscal commission has passed into the hands of the Gang of Six, which has commanded strong Senate support and might have a chance in the House if its deficit-cutting recommendations were embraced by a figure with the right-wing fiscal credentials of Ryan. Instead Ryan “dropped what one Republican Senate adviser called a ‘bomb’ on the Gang of Six,” snuffing out any chance of success.
And it’s not just the mere fact of Ryan’s opposition that’s telling, it’s the basis of it. Ryan’s budget plan always relied upon a strategy of obscuring his priorities — Ryan wants to cut entitlement spending in order to preserve low tax rates on the rich, while the public overwhelmingly prefers the exact opposite. And so he has carefully obscured his choices. Does Ryan’s plan cut taxes for the rich? No, no, he says — he simply “reforms” the tax code, just like the fiscal commission does:
[….]So here comes the Gang of Six with a plan that does everything Ryan proclaims to love. It reduces tax rates. It removes loopholes.
I don’t expect this will make much of an impact on the fanbois, but it’s clear now, Ryan doesn’t give a fuck about anything except lower taxes on the rich. He never even put that much lipstick on the pig to begin with, but it was enough to win the hearts of the Village, and once smitten, they’ll never fall out of love.
Steve M.
I think Ryan and the other Randians do care about cutting government spending that isn’t dedicated to war, social control via right-wing religion, or enriching plutocrats, but it’s because they want government to be merciless to those who haven’t won on their own (i.e., the old, the poor, the halt, the lame…). It’s not out of disgust at spending per se. They just think a state that’s in any way compassionate is a monstrosity.
beltane
One thing I can say about the Villagers is that they have truly awful taste in men.
arguingwithsignposts
@ODDJ – You’re wrong. He also cares about $350 bottles of wine.
Also, I noticed this when the GOPers were holding one of their press conferences outside the white house. He sure does roll his eyes to the ceiling a lot when he’s answering questions or speaking extemporaneously. Not drawing conclusions there, but it sure is a weird tick to observe.
Paul in KY
Well, most all of the ‘Villagers’ are rich. Quite a coincidence their love of him, no?
tomvox1
Awesome allusion in your title, DougJ. Though Paul Ryan ain’t no Buffalo Bill…
AAA Bonds
Some relevant quotes from the Breivik manifesto:
. . . pretty frightening stuff!
Nick L
I’m reading Infinite Jest now and just got to the part where Tiny Ewell describes the tattoos of various Ennet House residents (p. 208):
So it was weird to finish that chapter and hop on BJ to see this title. Not so often you see the same E.E. Cummings reference twice in an hour.
beltane
WATB syndrome strikes again. Why is it that wingnuts everywhere, since the beginning of time, always claim that they are the real victims as they engage in murder and genocide?
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Coddling the rich and hanging on to 1st Place in the Eddie Munster Look Alike contest.
Alex S.
@AAA Bonds:
Fascinating. ‘Tyranny of the status quo’ reminds me of Ted Kaczyinski’s hate of society. Is it justified to claim that the primal motivation of Conservatives (capital C) is to escape reality and, if escape is not possible, to destroy it or to create their own? That would explain why they think that everything is controlled by the left. Because ‘left’ means ‘reality as is’.
Quiddity
David Brooks say the Paul Ryan plan introduced earlier this year was “the standard of seriousness” on that issue. I expect Brooks to defend Mr. Ryan, for whatever he happens to do or not do, in the coming months.
WereBear
Day um. That sums them up so well.
And why is their reality so freaking bad?
alwhite
To be fair (and there really is no reason to be since it is a kindness they do not afford others) There is a theory with some decent thought behind it that you would have better tax code if you removed the loopholes and extraneous deductions that would allow for lower rates.
Now, I would not trust Mr. Ryan and his buddies to actually close the loopholes or eliminate the tax gravy train for wealthy corps but at least the theory is there.
This is an issue the Dems should take away from the Republicans by calling for lower rates & then slamming the escape hatches the wealthy take advantage of.
Elliecat
Could we start asking this question constantly?
I understand a certain segment that turns to conservatism having complaints that they could conceivably tie to “liberal” policies and the like (CONCEIVABLY, I said. Not saying they truly can)—I can see how someone with no job or a shit job may eagerly buy into the “we’d love to hire you/pay you more, but regulations!” and that kind of thing.
But for most others. What the hell is so awful for the millionaires and billionaires? That they can’t have slaves or totally shit on the environment or do things that might kill people?
I suppose many of them and a lot of “average” people are like certain of my family members. They are doing fine. They have nice enough shelter, they eat what they want without worrying about where their next meal is coming from. They have cars that work and jobs that pay decent wages and aren’t horrible, they are fairly healthy and while medical bills or insurance is a bit of a burden it’s not an undue one. They have decent clothes and vacations and recreation and so on and so forth—yet they will wail about how HARD their lives are, how tough everything is, etc., etc.
I personally see it as a spiritual deficit (as opposed to religious, although my family members who are like this follow no religion) and/or a lacking of community—hey, I’m a strong, independent American, I don’t need no stinking “community!”— something like that. They are dissatisfied and filled with free-floating anxiety and instead of searching for something inside themselves or truly outside themselves, they blame government, political correctness, etc.
Emerald
@alwhite
Obama proposed exactly that in his SOTU. Lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 26% (if memory serves me) but close all the loopholes. We’d wind up collecting more revenue.
One o’ those devious trickery ideas that Republicans hate.
Zifnab
The tax code is designed to incentivize or disincentivize certain behavior. Removing all the loopholes and deductions would certainly make the tax code easier. I can’t say whether it would make the code better. Certainly, anyone currently receiving a deduction would feel the code has been made worse for having lost said write-off or credit.
arguingwithsignposts
@Zifnab: The National Realtors Association already has come out fighting against any closing of the mortgage interest deduction. Expect similar lobbying for every single loophole/deduction that currently exists.
tbogg
He’s drunk on power and $500 bottles of wine.
danimal
Looking at recent events through the prism of the 2012 election, the GOP is in full rout. They have sacrificed policy for politics over the past decade or two and now they are being smoked out. GOP policy is very, very unpopular; for example, the words ‘Ryan plan’ will be an albatross for the GOP in 2012.
If you look through this prism during the debt ceiling crisis, you see Obama attempting to meet the stated GOP policy demands, which they don’t really want, instead of meeting the GOP’s (mostly unstated) political demands, which is all they ever really want. The GOP hasn’t adapted well to this new dynamic. Without the Dems to stop them from themselves, they really don’t know how to proceed. And they are looking really, really bad to independents and Beltway power-brokers.
MattR
@arguingwithsignposts: Without commenting on the general principle, I think it is a horrific idea to mess with the mortgage interest deduction as the housing market is still trying to recover.
arguingwithsignposts
Since this seems to be the most recent debt ceiling discussion, here’s my question: How long until we see calls to primary Harry Reid?
arguingwithsignposts
@MattR: I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with the whole concept, just mentioning something I heard on NPR already.
danimal
Forgot to link to this Yglesias piece. I think he’s nailed the dynamics.
someguy
We should get rid of the mortgage interest deduction and the state & local tax deductions. Those bennies from Uncle Sam are just tax expenditures, and because getting rid of those expenditures would raise a couple hundred billion that could be spent elsewhere. Combine that with the expiring Bush tax cuts and you’re looking at fresh marginal income revenue sources that could be taxed at anywhere from the 26%-39% rate. On a $300k mortgage, for instance, you might pull in 31% of $8k. The government could pull in similar amounts by taxing the full rate of income – for a lot of people that would put $10 or $15k back into the taxable amount column. Taxing that at the margina rate would sure help with the deficit.
ed drone
Out of the “Ryan Plan” and into the fire, eh?
Or maybe, “Out of the Ryan Plan and into the pyre” is more accurate.
Ed
Comrade Javamanphil
@beltane
I suspect this is backward. They have murderous and genocidal impulses and desperately need a reason to justify them. The victim card gives them personal moral cover for being evil.
Senyordave
One would hope that the independents see the GOP for what they are. They care only about power, and they would gladly take down teh country if it helped them politically. I still fear that the David Brooks of the world will have a significant impact. I consider Brooks to be a new form of a quisling.
WereBear
I agree. It’s pain; and they haven’t a clue where it’s coming from or what to do about it.
The odd part is that so many of them are religious…
cmorenc
There are TWO objectives the Ryan/Cantor faction have gone “all-in” for in the debt ceiling standoff, only one of which is to set in stone that nothing will be done that effectively increase taxes on upper-income folks.
THE OTHER equally important objective to them is to fundamentally undermine the support structure for the core pieces of New Deal/Great Society social insurance, social security, medicare, and medicaid, such as to produce their unrecoverable collapse within a decade or two, if not sooner. Ryan and Cantor recognize that there is no way to immediately or even quickly accomplish this that would be acceptable to a sufficient portion of the American public or particularly the electorate. So what they’re after is to implant harshly corrosive fiscal and political substances into its structure, such that within a decade or so, the only portion of these programs that will remain viable will be a skeleton shadow of their former selves, and this remaining portion will increasingly have the appearance to the electorate of unearned welfare rather than earned social insurance.
The latter is REALLY the sticking point to any deal, even more than taxes. The hard-core wingers believe they have a realistic chance to slay what they long feared were immortal ideological dragons.
Jay B.
It’d be nice to be able to run against Ryan, his insanity and the plan the GOP embraced. Of course, the Democratic President has been screaming about entitlements, cuts and raising the eligibility aid for the same problem.
Shorter Ryan: Medicare is in trouble, let’s “strengthen it” by turning it into a voucher program.
Shorter Obama: Medicare is in trouble, let’s “strengthen it” by raising the eligibility age, cut benefits and means test.
Shorter Voter: Fuck! Medicare is in trouble! Democrats and Republicans agree!
Yutsano
@MattR:
Two points:
A) Canada does not have a mortgage interest deduction and they sell houses at a similar pace to the US. This suggests there is more motivation for buying a house than the tax benefit.
B) You can deduct interest on any home mortgage you have, regardless of number of residences or the purpose of said residence. Eliminating the deduction for all but the primary residence wold basically be losing a tax loophole the rich exploit early and often.
dpcap
Yutsano @ 31:
So damn true.
Mnemosyne
They are, but most modern American religion is itself very constricted (especially for you wacky Protestants ;^). Once you decide that there is no mystery of the universe that’s beyond your comprehension and the “seven days” in Genesis literally means 7 days of 24 hours each, you’ve shrunk God down to just another everyday phenomenon like TV or the internet. There’s no longer something bigger than yourself to think about.
For most Americans, “religion” is a way to confirm their prejudices, not something to give their lives meaning beyond the everyday events they experience. And I say that as someone who is not an atheist.
MattR
@Yutsano: Assume you excerpted the wrong quote. I agree that eliminating the deduction on non-primary residences is a good idea, but even that will have an effect on the housing market (though it will be smaller). I also agree that we don’t need a mortgage interest deduction in order to have a vibrant housing market. But the transition from having that deduction to not having it will not be painless and IMO we should wait for that market to stabilize before we start to mess with it.
Mnemosyne
@ Jay B.
So we’re supposed to ignore the massive problems of Medicare because the Republicans are trying to use those problems as an excuse to kill it? Just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that Medicare is not bleeding money because oh noes the Republicans might try to exploit that?
But, hey, ignoring a genuine problem for ideological reasons always works out so well for everyone, so clearly yours is the best advice possible.
Frankensteinbeck
Jay B:
Man, does anyone listen to what Obama actually says instead of hearing ‘strengthen it’ and hearing someone else say ‘hey, I heard that means cuts!’ and leaping to a conclusion? No, Obama does not say that. He says the exact opposite. A lot.
EDIT – To be more clear and specific, he says ‘Medicare’s costs are skyrocketing because medical costs are skyrocketing. We need to regulate the medical industry until that stops and raise taxes on the rich to pay for what we already have.’ I doubt you object to either of those things. He did happen to use the word ‘strengthening’. Also ‘shared sacrifice’, which he explained meant the rich weren’t paying enough taxes.
Martin
I agree, but it should be offset with a higher standard deduction. Right now the standard deduction for an individual is $5800, $11600 for married/joint, and $8500 for HOH. Add dependent credits on there as appropriate.
I’d like to see that replaced with standard deductions that match poverty levels (or some higher fraction of poverty, 125%, etc.) Basically, all income that gets you above the poverty line is tax free – full stop. Poverty is defined for households of various sizes, so it scales. Since many government services back to individuals (Medicaid, etc.) is based on being below the poverty line, it makes sense to do this – we’re better off if people keep sub-poverty income rather than send some as taxes only to be replaced later under a service that takes manpower to process.
Right now, a 1 person household is $10,890, higher in alaska/hawaii. 2 person is $14,700. 4 person is $22,350.
For a family of 4 filing jointly, they’d get $11,600 + $1000 per kid, or $13,600 now as a standard deduction. On top of that there’s all kinds of other deductions for child care, etc. Wipe all that shit out and just give them a $22,350 standard deduction. If they have a mortgage, they’re probably getting close to that as a deduction anyway or more, where renters are getting less, and that’s a problem worth evening out.
I’d phase it in over a few years, though, because that could be a big change in taxes for some folks at or below median income.
AAA Bonds
The more I read of this Breivik manifesto, the more convinced I am that its merger of cultural xenophobia and “shock doctrine” crisis capitalism that is reflected by the Republican Congress.
How many of them are guided by that Friedman quote that Breivik reproduces? How many of them truly believe that we need a palingenetic Armageddon to “fix” America?
The full manifesto, all 1,518 pages of it in Adobe PDF, is here. These are mad ideas, but they are not the ravings of a madman. I suggest that anyone who wants to put the Oslo attacks in proper context of the contemporary right wing give it a skim, at the very least.
Seriously: between this and the Pam Geller Tea Party, I can’t see much sunlight.
Yutsano
@MattR: Yes, I haz blockquote fail.
Honestly the elimination of the secondary residence deduction would have fairly little effect on the market. Those sales aren’t accounting for most sales right now anyway. And it would get house flippers to act more cautiously in doing their deeds. And yes house flippers drive me batty.
MattR
@Yutsano: Yeah. You are probably right about secondary residences.
Bender
NO FREAKING WAY! You don’t like what Paul Ryan has to say?? Excuse me whilst my monocle falls into my champagne glass!
Of course, it is no surprise that Chait is lying about Rep. Ryan’s very clear dispatches. Look, I can’t make Chait smart enough to comprehend professional-level writing, but I know that when I want to know what Ryan thinks, the last person I’ll read is a New Republic hack. Jon simply has has no interest in being honest.
Ryan’s response to the horrible Gang of 6 non-plan was clear enough even for a journalist’s C+ intellect. Yes, he wants the full Bush tax cuts (which saw the deficit shrink to 1% of GDP in 2007) extended, but he is equally clear on necessary spending cuts which the Gang didn’t address. In fact, he writes twice as much on spending caps and cuts as he does on taxes.
Chait didn’t (or couldn’t) read Ryan. You didn’t read Ryan. But what more can we expect from the guys who think that bringing the deficit from $1.5T to $1.43T by a tax increase on the “rich” is somehow the solution.
AAA Bonds
It’s awfully cute that we’re talking about taxes here when the politicians have given up already.
:(
AAA Bonds
@Bender:
Burn it all the fuck down man
Mnemosyne
@ Bender
You owe me a keyboard. Try 65% percent of GDP in 2007.
Martin
@Yutsano:
And the deduction significantly distorts certain housing markets. Anywhere that housing prices can increase/decrease rapidly (mainly places that have reached their development limit, or places where a limited number of properties have geographic benefits – ocean views, etc.) will move even more rapidly when people know that they can offset the cost of entering the market through those deductions, and then keep the profits gained from that rapidly moving market. That’s a HUGE part of the problem here in CA, where people will buy as much house as they can afford because the deduction can discount the cost of the property by as much as 30% (via tax reduction), or they will refinance properties and turn that into a revenue stream. As the property increases in value, they cash out up to $100K of their principal (which likely increased by a huge % as the market price went up) and due to now having reset the mortgage, get to take the full interest deduction again. Had I done that since I bought my house 8 years ago, I would have made more income from refis than I do in my median income job – and paid less in taxes. In fact, if I was diligent about it, I could probably be paying $0 in taxes simply by using the principal cashed out to supplement my income to make the mortgage payments.
And there are TONS of people here that do exactly that. Done right, it doesn’t even matter if it blows up at the end because you might go into foreclosure, but you’ll do it with half a million in the bank, and who fucking cares what your credit rating looks like for the next decade if you can buy your next house in Indiana cash up-front. I know quite a few people that did that too.
Ash Can
Does anyone have any idea WTF Bender is raving about?
AAA Bonds
@Ash Can:
He’s trying a center-right troll on a center-left site and in the interests of the profession I am really curious to see how well it works
Martin
He said deficit, not debt.
Since the last budget Bush signed was the 2009 budget, Bush also left office with a deficit of 8% of GDP, unless Bender wants to deny that Bush signed TARP.
Ash Can
@Martin:
Was that with or without the wars on the books?
FlipYrWhig
@ Frankensteinbeck:
Too few. Way, way too few.
someguy
Martin
Okay, fine, but folks at or above median start paying the extra amount they owe immediately. On a household of say $100k with a $300k mortgage and maybe $10k in state & local taxes, that should result in maybe $6k more in tax revenues immediately.
Martin
Hmm, not sure. It was $190B in supplemental spending, or about 1.5% of GDP. It was relatively tiny compared to TARP and the huge drop in GDP that took place by the end of 2008. TARP was $700B in spending and we lost about $1T in GDP. That $700B was about 5% of GDP at peak GDP, and losing $1T in GDP drove the deficit up by about a percentage point.
Bender is saying 1% of GDP only because he’s counting in off-budget revenue – SS basically. So, he gets 1% by stealing from SS (which the right loves to denounce anyone from doing), which is typical. It was actually 2.5% on-budget. From CBO.
dollared
The deduction for state taxes should be preserved. We want state income taxes, not hidden user fees that are invariably regressive. And we don’t want to undermine state governments that have the courage to build the infrastructure for the 21st century.
And the mortgage interest deduction can be dramatically limited without undermining the entire real estate market, but if it is eliminated, every house in the country would be worth at least 15% less tomorrow. I thought we were trying to avoid a depression???
Finally, reducing marginal rates any lower is madness. Please remember what happened with Reagan. Rates got cut in exchange for elimination of reductions for capital gains, dividends, and deductions. Year by year, all the tax bennies grew back, because that is what feeds WAshington.
Bottom line is that the best solution is to let the Bush Tax cuts die. Stand up, point out they didn’t work, chart it, take Bobo to lunch 12 times, kiss Bill Gross’ ring and talk endlessly about fiscal responsiblity, and let them die.
Cain
@Ash Can:
he raves likes that when a raccoon is burrowing up his ass. He really should stop shoving food up his ass to attract the pests. But then again, it does give him the ability to make killer rants.
dollared
Flip, frank,
Nobody believes Obama really means ‘strengthen it” because when every sully and bobo says he means to cut SS, he just nods his head.
And chained CPI is a 10% cut, and he says he supports the Gang of six plan that includes chained CPI.
And Simpson -Bowles. Every inch and minute of that exercise in political suicide
So you’re telling us that we should just read this as a massive head fake? Why shouldn’t we just take the most reasonable reading of the available facts?
Ash Can
@Martin: Got it. Thanks for the info.
FlipYrWhig
@ dollared : I’m not that concerned about the effects of chained CPI, frankly, because I don’t think that benefits should just keep going up regardless of circumstances, but rather go up commensurate with accurate determinations of increased costs of living. An accurate measurement is crucial. If that saves money, great; if that costs money, fine. But that’s the goal, guaranteeing income, not guaranteeing an always-rising income that exceeds the pace of inflation. (ETA: It should track the pace of inflation, not exceed it; otherwise we’re getting into the case of the fabled perpetual motion machine that continually accelerates.)
If he needs to act open to “cutting/reforming/strengthening entitlements” to get the Republicans to play ball, that’s fine with me. Where the rubber hits the road is when doing something with entitlements — and I hate that term — risks messing with the lives of ordinary people. He says consistently that he won’t do that. That, too, is a most reasonable reading of the available facts: Republicans use “strengthen” as a euphemism for “cut,” Obama uses “strengthen” in a Schrodinger’s-cat way to make everyone wonder whether he’s echoing Republicans or doing something different. IMHO he’s doing something different, and speaks about it consistently, and borrows Republican rhetorical devices to outflank Republicans.
I have made a similar argument about the nation-household analogy, which raises the hackles of the liberal blogosphere, but IMHO there’s nothing wrong with borrowing that analogy and bending it to another purpose. Complaining that he uses the analogy is getting it all backwards.
So is complaining that he uses words like “strengthen” and “adjust.” Just listen to how he sketches out how said strengthening and adjusting ought to transpire. It’s usually the next sentence.
Martin
Be careful there. Median is about $50K. There’s a ton of folks in CA, NY, CT, FL, etc. that could see an immediate increase in AGI of $10K simply because they have to dedicate much more of their income to housing in high real estate markets. That’s a big tax bill to absorb in one year. I’m $10K over national median (at CA median) and my AGI would go up by probably $15K. That’s all be in the 15% bracket, so a YOY tax increase of $2250. I could swing that (and wouldn’t be opposed to doing so), but I bet there’s a lot of folks that would really get fucked – and with a weak housing market, people underwater, etc. it could hit a lot of the wrong people in the worst places. That’d be 4% of my income, just in increased taxes, with no corresponding increase in income. I think that’d prove fatal to many household budgets.
Even folks with higher incomes would be caught off-guard. If you’ve got a $10K/mo mortgage+property tax combo (not uncommon where I live), you’d be facing an increased AGI of probably $110K, and you’re probably paying 25% on that – or an increased tax bill of $27,500 (it might be less than that when AMT comes in, but I’m not going to bother with that math). That’s probably 10% of gross income. I suspect a lot of folks, because they were relying so much on that interest deduction to make expenses work would need to sell their home. It’s not that the taxation is too high, it’s that it’s too much coming unexpectedly, when the resolution to the tax bill is something as costly and disruptive as selling the house. I imagine it’d be so disruptive that the market for those properties would immediately collapse, property values would plummet, and those folks wouldn’t be able to get out of their predicament. That’s punitive and unfair. People made long-term decisions (not saying they were necessarily good decisions) based around a policy that they had a reasonable expectation wouldn’t instantly get yanked out from under them. And they made those decisions because a shitty tax policy encouraged them to. Well, the tax policy shouldn’t then punish them unduly for having made that decision, so I think a phase-in is reasonable all around.
Since the elimination of the deductions has been presented in conjunction with a flattening of rates, maybe the phase-in would be a combo deal, so you don’t have to lose the deduction all at once, but you also don’t get the lower rate all at once. There should be a reasonable balance in there somewhere.
Martin
Bullshit. Where’s the math on that?
dollared
OK, so you want to cut SS benefits 10%, you just think that’s a fair method of doing it. I still will get 10% less than *was promised to me* in 2030, and that cut is to help fund tax cuts for the rich. I find that outrageous, YMMV.
And you don’t like it when he concedes all the rhetorical ground to the Republicans on the term “entitlements” (has NO ONE ever heard of the term “insurance?”), but it’s OK when he does the exact same thing on the household analogy, even though that’s absolutely central to him not losing hte next election because of unemployment and associated misery.
You are acting not on hope, but faith. I just don’t have enough faith.
rikryah
Ryan is a straight up WATB.
period.
dollared
Martin: Peter DeFazio explains it to you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996725/-DeFazio-explains-why-the-chained-CPI-cut-to-Social-Security-is-such-a-bad-idea
And you’re right about elimination of deductions. We really have to be careful – people have organized their lives around them, and slamming the bottom half of the upper middle class (Family income $80k-$150k) is acceptable to Republicans, but should not be acceptable to Democrat.
Martin
Stop fucking lying.
Nothing was promised to you in 2030. Fuck, nothing is even promised to existing SS beneficiaries in 2012 other than what they’re getting right now. There’s no law preventing COLAs for the next 20 years from being 0%.
You’re just making shit up.
cleek
@Jay B.:
sadly, Medicare actually is in trouble, and it does need some changes to maintain solvency. and it needs them pretty soon.
dollared
Martin, are you kidding me? You don’t get the statements from Social Security? It tells me what my number will be at current course and speed. It’s a dollar figure; chained CPI will make that dollar figure lower than the last letter I got.
What does “trust fund” mean to you?
Do you know what “accounting identities” are?
I know that these things can change, but those are “promises.” Go get yourself a dictionary.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t like the word “entitlements” because of how it describes social programs as something you receive in a spirit of ingratitude: you act like you’re “entitled.” That’s not innocent. IIRC Frank Luntz came up with it.
By contrast, the nation-household analogy is innocent. It’s a way to understand something complicated by way of something familiar. Like a virus, it’s a vehicle that can be filled with toxic ideas or with healthful ones. Objecting to the analogy itself is asinine, and it’s something the Legions of the Faux Savvy came up with. They decided there was a list of objectionable meaning-particles that true progressives ought never to say, and whoever uses them has revealed himself as a wrong-thinking outsider. See also: shibboleth. It’s highly stupid, and all the more so for thinking it’s so smart.
Jay B.
And what better way to address it than during a debt ceiling debate? Brilliant strategy coach! When you take advantage of crisises to address the social safety net — as both Obama and the GOP are doing — you risk losing important aspects of said nets. Medicare isn’t a RIGHT NOW kind of crisis unless you make it one. And Obama has made it one.
You know how you eliminate the dread fiscal problems of Medicare and skyrocketing health care costs? Single-payer.
It’s truly amazing that we live under a system that popular things are politically impossible (like Medicare for all) and politically unpopular reforms (like massive Medicare reforms) are the baseline for governance by crisis.
Nice work, guys!
JGabriel
@cleek:
But that doesn’t have to mean cutting services, means testing, or raising the age of eligibility.
Instituting more efficient practices like effectiveness testing for procedures — to cut payments for the ones that don’t work — and and allowing Medicare to bargain with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices would create huge savings.
.
FlipYrWhig
@ cleek : And ideally that would happen by cutting _something other than benefits_. But if we react with shock and horror every time the word “cut” is used, or every time the word “strengthen” is used because OMG THATS CODE FOR CUT CUTZ 4 ALL CATFOOD ICEFLOE!, we’ll keep delaying fixing it intelligently, which only makes it harder and more jolting to fix.
FlipYrWhig
True, for a benevolent wonk dictator. But not for the politics we actually have right now. So why not have a grassroots advocacy campaign for single-payer that works the long game, and while that builds momentum, working on technofixes that move in the right direction — for instance, and this is just a blue-sky left-field kind of fantasy, taking advantage of one party’s chest-beating about the need to cut the federal budget to begin to alleviate the problems of funding the current flawed delivery system? Crazy, I know. Easier to pine for big ideas that not even the majority of the center-left party’s own officials support.
Martin
There’s two problems I have in his reasoning:
That’s not how substitution works. It’s just not. Substitution applies for things that are substitutable. A hernia and a bypass are not that. A generic and a prescription drug are (yes, I know not always, but in general they are). And health care expenses for anyone on SS should be dealt with on the Medicare side anyway – including dealing with out-of-pocket costs. If you don’t do that, then you end up giving seniors more money each year to pay for health care, and they simply turn around and dump it into what we’ve already recognized are overpriced health care costs. It’s laundering money from SS into health care profits by way of seniors. Just fix it on the health care side, save everyone money, and eliminate the need to pay out. That’s why cost reduction in Medicare should not be confused with benefit reductions. By shifting the failure to reduce costs to SS, you’re actually making the problem worse, not better.
But that’s a fairness argument, and because the tax code is based on brackets to accomodate filers in a pre-calculator world, it’s inherently unfair to start with, so it’s a stupid argument. Sure, folks making half a million would only pay .3% more, but far more folks making 1/3 of a million would jump into that top bracket, and vastly more folks than that earning $200K would jump into the 33% bracket and humongously more folks earning $130K would jump into the 28% bracket.
But DeFazio is playing a little fast and loose here because it appears he’s assuming the brackets would go up but not the standard deductions. So why not glue the standard deductions and child credit, etc. to C-CPI as well, and most of that distortion effect goes away. Easy.
But if we play this game of ‘I’m not going to pay full price for this box of Cheerios because the guy in front of me has a coupon’ then you can’t possibly accept any policy, because *every* policy is going to have cases that favor specific individuals disproportionately – and anyone can nutpick a policy to death. The right would simply nutpick the policy to show that the rich are the big losers here. That’s just part of policy making. Your goal is to put forward policies that work in aggregate, and minimize those outliers. But you can never, ever eliminate them. Ever. And the only way to even get at that outcome is to eliminate all of the ‘fairness’ arguments, because I assure you, they’re pretty much all bullshit.
dollared
JayB is basically right, but he needs a stronger political theory.
We need to bring things to a simple choice that truly is inevitable: Single payer or much higher tax rates for the rich.
We need a national movement that puts the cost of health care on the upper class. Suddenly, single payer with private insurance supplements would become the first priority of the chattering classes. Funny how that works.
gwangung
I’m not convinced the majority of liberals want to do this in one step. I’m more convinced that they’d be willing to do it in incremental steps.
dollared
Martin, can you point us all the the Center-Left Party? I keep opening my mail-in ballot and looking for “Christian Democrat,” but my dyslexia seems to keep me from finding it.
FlipYrWhig
@ JGabriel :
Agreed. I think the much more productive debate is around the question of, “Given that we need to fix the long-term funding picture of Medicare, how best should we do that so as to avoid causing pain?” But instead we’re told that even that conversation is conceding too much ground to Republicans, so we shouldn’t talk about that at all. I don’t see the point of that. Think of the Iraq War. Once it becomes clear that some kind of war is going to happen, doesn’t the purpose of the politician who doesn’t want that war shift from decrying it to placing some kind of checks and regulations upon it? Once it’s happening, make it happen less badly. Same goes for budget cuts.
And it’s not like there’s a consensus among the leftmost edge of the party that we don’t need to do anything soon about deficits and debts. Some fairly prominent progressive voices have embraced the idea. The thing that made the biggest impact on me was reading Michael Capuano’s statements that deficits were a huge problem. He’s D-MA and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
FlipYrWhig
@ dollared : All statements beginning “we need” are just masturbation unless there’s a way to _get_ what “we need.” Sure, “we need” universal health care, a kickass climate-change policy, alternative fuels, infrastructure, an unapologetic public sector, a reduction of the dire influence of investment banking, and full equity for race, sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and religion. But we’ve got something else right now. Bridging that gap between what we’ve got and what we need is a _formidable_ proposition. And different rhetoric or negotiating strategy from the president isn’t what’s going to do it.
Bender
@ Mnemosyne – July 25, 2011 | 1:56 pm · Link
Really, Mnem? Really?
Your lack of reading comprehension owes you a keyboard. Try again.
FlipYrWhig
@ Martin:
Well said. And that, by the way, is how we ended up with billionaire fraudster Rick Scott. Bob Somerby can be tedious, but it stuck with me when during the HCR debate he kept bringing up that if the US spends such a crazy amount per capita on healthcare but doesn’t get better outcomes from it, we should really be thinking of all that wasted money as being _looted_. “Medicare cuts” that cut _the loot_ ought to be a progressive’s wet dream. Unless I’m mixing up wonks and wanks.
Martin
But what does that number mean? It has no context. What if we have 1980s level double digit inflation from now to 2030. Then your SS check is going to be pathetically small. If we have no inflation, as we do now, then you have no expectation to get such a large increase over inflation.
Because the number has no context, you can’t plan around it except for things now that have fixed costs into the future (like a mortgage), but that’s it. So if it goes up or down based on inflation, then you aren’t gaining or losing anything. It’s a safety net, not a primary retirement vehicle. It’s sole job is to keep you out of poverty. That’s it. That’s what it’s always been.
But that number is based on expected rates of return from the trust fund and colas for earlier retirees. In the end, it’s pretty much a wash. If earlier retirees take less from the trust fund because their colas are bit less, then it’s more likely that SS is going to be able to hit that projection, especially since they expect that they’ll have to start dialing back those benefits before 2030. IOW, you’re more likely to get that sum with the lower COLAs than you are with higher COLAs, given where things stand now.
Bender
None of that goes to the point that with the Bush tax cuts fully in play, deficits were under 5% of GDP for every year but the TARP year. Therefore, the tax cuts cannot be the cause, obviously, of huge deficits.
Martin
Yes, that is exactly how it should be viewed. And agreed, Dems should be all over fixing that problem, yet as soon as the word ‘cut’ comes out from someone like Obama, half of them freak out.
dollared
Hi Flip,
I mostly agree, except for this:
When Obama tries it and fails, then I’ll be convinced. He since the day after his inauguration, he’s attempted to be GHWB without the speech impediment. So, yes, I spend time trying to figure out what it would be like to have a Democratic President.
Martin
@Bender:
Um, it was a 0.9% surplus before the first tax cut went into effect. And because you’ll play the 9/11 card, the war in Afghanistan cost less than $20B for each of the first 3 years, so Afghanistan didn’t materially contribute to the deficit either. So we jumped from 0.9% surplus pre-Bush tax cuts to a 3.1% deficit after the first tax cut, and then because a 3.1% deficit wasn’t good enough, we did a 2nd tax cut (and a debt ceiling increase on the same day, because the GOP is all about fiscal discipline and balancing the budget) and that rose to a 5% deficit. Then we clawed some of that back by encouraging Americans to themselves go into deficit spending by reducing the individual income surplus from 4% in 2003 all the way down to a 1.2% deficit in 2007 as people cashed out equity in their homes so they could instead dump money they didn’t have into boosting GDP, and lo and behold, we simply ran out of manufactured money to dump into the economy in 2008.
So Bush’s effect on the deficit/GDP: a net 9% increase. Obama’s effect on the deficit/GDP: an actual 0% increase so far.
That’s some stellar economic policy right there by Bush. Too bad it was an 8 year economic plan that blew up 6 months early. Bush almost managed to dump the whole shit pile on the next guy, but with some wingnut handwaving, you’re almost managing to make it stick in spite of that.
Almost.
Martin
Yeah, those increased Medicare benefits and reduced costs are exactly what Bush would have done. But Bush would have repealed DADT faster, and had that shoe been thrown at Obama, he would have ducked slower and let it hit him a little, because that’d be a compromise.
Bender
Which is the same way Obama calculates his deficits of 11%. Regardless, it doesn’t change the facts that with the Bush tax cuts in full effect, deficits were remarkably low.
Martin
And with the Bush tax cuts not in full effect, deficits were remarkably nonexistent.
FlipYrWhig
@ dollared : I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that Obama’s rhetoric and tactics have been so damaging and demoralizing. I don’t buy it. I remember that when there was an attempt to pass the defense bill with DADT repeal, and it was looking dicey, and Reid refused to take DADT repeal out to make it a stand-alone vote, and the bill didn’t pass, _no one_ among the supposed lefty critics of Obama and the Democrats said, “You did it just right; you didn’t back down, and while you lost, we knew where you stood.” They all exploded in rage anyway. Even though the party leadership had done exactly what the critics always say they want. To me, that was extremely telling. It showed me that the talk of better rhetoric and tactics and going down swinging was almost entirely bullshit. What critics want is for Obama to use their tactics and win. When he doesn’t win, it’s because he didn’t use their tactics properly. The tactics themselves can never be failed. It’s a fucked-up way to view politics.
FlipYrWhig
@ Martin / 84 : To be fair, dollared invoked George Bush _pere_, not George Bush _fils_.
General Stuck
You mean like Bill Clinton? You’re about that stupid.
Martin
@FlipYrWhig:
Ah, point taken.
In that case, Obama would have vomited only partially on the Japanese Prime Minister, and partially on himself. However, if Obama was on his firebagger game, he’d have used the bully pulpit to force everyone else at the dinner to pass out, rather than shouldering the entire burden himself.
Chuck Butcher
@Stuck
Maybe he means what he said rather than what you say…
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin: Excellent summary, but wasn’t there a Medicare Part D or something in there somewhere as well?
Martin
I agree. I don’t see what’s to be gained by having two groups that act like House Republicans. One is more than we can bear.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bender:
Wait, aren’t the Bush tax cuts still in full effect?
General Stuck
Bender is a hoot, ain’t he?
Bender
That is a colorful and fanciful “history.” I await the motion picture!
Regardless, I’m not arguing that Bush was a deficit hawk. I’m just saying that Bush’s tax cuts have had at most a minimal effect on the deficit. From 2003-2008 tax receipts rose at a faster rate than GDP.
Bender
Yes. And?
les
@dollared:
You’re even more stupid than I thought, which I didn’t think possible. Your little letters projecting starting benefits are determined based on your contributions, and are indexed to wage growth–so your benefit tracks what you’re putting in, based on, you (should) know, wages. No one is talking about that. Once your benes start, they are to keep pace with cost of living; which is where COLA comes in, which they’re talking about adjusting. Jeebus, what a fucking idiot. Better trolls, please.
Ash Can
OK, let me get this straight — Bender comes in here, argues a point that gets smacked down, keeps arguing it, keeps getting smacked down, and keeps coming back for more.
Wow. I’m in awe.
Is it possible that Bender is just a spoof, who thinks it’d be a kick to illustrate how stubbornly idiotic right wingers are, at least when it comes to this issue? If that’s the case, then thanks, Bender, for giving Martin the chance to go all medieval on that particular right-wing fantasy. It really has been illuminating. But you can stop now — I’m afraid that if you keep this up your brain may stay twisted that way.
les
@Bender:
And check the chart for the effect of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit. You and completely ignarant teabaggers are about the last ones left trying to claim with a straight face that they don’t contribute to the deficit. They’re the single biggest contributor; and massively skewed to the wealthy. You’ve got what you apparently want, income/wealth disparities greater than most 3rd world countries; why lie about it?
arguingwithsignposts
@les:
Because then they wouldn’t be able to do it again, and again, and again.
Bender
I’m happy to see so many Juicer proponents of the Balanced Budget Amendment. That puts you in the 80% majority!
So at best, we can say that the tax cuts may have had a minimal effect on the massive deficit. CBO figures say there still would’ve been deficits every year save 2007 without the tax cuts, and that the tax cuts have contributed at most 14% of the deficit, and that is a “static” analysis, assuming that there was not even $1 of economic growth created by the cuts.
What is clear is that the Bush tax cuts aren’t a primary cause of the deficit, nor are they large enough to be a primary solution to the deficit.
twiffer
i find it interesting that, in discussing the latest plans, i see this on the bbc:
that quote is notably absent on cnn. i wonder why.
FlipYrWhig
@ twiffer : Note, too, that there isn’t a lot of caterwauling from the liberal blogosphere about cutting agriculture subsidies. Why isn’t that an anti-Keynesian cut that takes money out of the faltering economy and produces devastating austerity? Could it be that there really is such thing as a healthful, appropriate spending cut?
arguingwithsignposts
@Bender:
Shorter Bender: LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
les
@Bender:
Here’s Bender, no longer even trying; in one post–
and
Of course, at 14% the cuts are the single biggest contributor; the only close contestant is Iraq/Afghanistan. Bush stimulus plus Obama stimulus combined are smaller. FSM’s sake, Bender, give it the old teabagger try at least. You can look it up.
dollared
@Les: So Balloon Juice is now to the point that somebody who considers the Social Security benefit formula a commitment of the Federal Government is now a troll?
Wow. Just wow.
And Les, I don’t think you’re stupid. Just fucking rude for no good reason.
AAA Bonds
I recognize Bender as easily the winner of this thread