Obama Commission

[Rascal]

Since everybody seems to hate the proposal recently sent out for different reasons I'd like to see what are some honest ideas to balance the budget.

http://documents.nytimes.com/draft-proposal-from-the-national-commission-on-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform?ref=politics#p=1

[Rohirrim]

Close the majority of our foreign bases, bring our troops home, stop paying to defend other countries, let them learn to defend themselves, realize that the best defense America has going for it are the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. That ought to knock off about a trillion right there.

[DenverBrit]

Close the majority of our foreign bases, bring our troops home, stop paying to defend other countries, let them learn to defend themselves, realize that the best defense America has going for it are the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. That ought to knock off about a trillion right there.

An excellent start.

[Rigs11]

Let the Dumbya tax cuts expire
end the wars
legalize marijuana

[Rascal]

Close the majority of our foreign bases, bring our troops home, stop paying to defend other countries, let them learn to defend themselves, realize that the best defense America has going for it are the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. That ought to knock off about a trillion right there.

I have no problem cutting the DoD budget (10% to start), even though I work for it, but IMO you also have to address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[Rascal]

Cutting the entire DoD would only reduce our deficit to 631 billion (2009 numbers per wikipedia).

[Rohirrim]

Look at it this way, in the 80s the Reaganites raised the SS tax rate on the boomers to pay for their trip through social security. It was sold as the "rabbit through the python" idea. Unfortunately, the Reaganites took that extra revenue and used it to plug holes caused by the massive (50%+) tax reduction they gave to the wealthy. The wealthy used that extra dough to go on a junk bond binge that busted the economy. It would only be fair to raise that rate back up to where it was to, in a sense, pay restitution for the crime. Means testing is a great idea as well. If you're retired and pull in more than, say $150,000 per year, no SS or Medicare for you.

[TonyR]

" It's true that I think we need to rein in spending on both Medicare and healthcare spending in general. Be amazed, conservatives! But there's a flip side to this: the American population is aging and medical care is getting more expensive. This is simply a fact, and it means that even if we slow the rate of healthcare inflation we're going to need more money for healthcare. You want Hard Truths? That's a hard truth. We need to rein in healthcare spending and we need to raise taxes to pay for the higher healthcare costs of an aging population. Anybody who's serious about addressing the long-term deficit needs to deal with this instead of indulging in fantasies. "

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/hard-truths-0

[TonyR]

Andrew Sullivan posted a very interesting reader email on this topic today:

As a long-time reader who staffs one of the 18 commissioners (and who therefore has been in the room for many of the private meetings), I would say that right now, 17 of the 18 commissioners are still sitting at the table trying to work constructively -- even after seeing the frightening choices in the co-chairs' first marker. (A certain left-wing congresswoman made it clear months ago that she had no interest in a solution.)

Liberals are focused on their dislike of the 75/25 split between spending cuts and tax increases, but this is deceptive.

It really breaks down like this: 25% taxes, 25% entitlement savings, 25% defense discretionary, and 25% non-defense discretionary. Fully half comes from taxes and defense. The problem, however, is that in the long run, half of the claimed deficit reduction is discretionary spending (both defense and non-defense). This is a budget gimmick. Discretionary spending is determined on an annual basis by regular appropriations bills; Bowles and Simpson are merely assuming that future Congresses will hold to their proposed line, despite an annual opportunity to revisit.

Past precedent is not promising: discretionary spending caps can hold for a few years (perhaps helping the commission achieve its 2015 goal), but after that the pressures cause Congress to abandon those caps. Simply asserting that discretionary spending will grow more slowly than GDP for decades is not a credible "plan". That means that only half the long-term deficit reduction is real, and this half is split evenly between tax increases and entitlement reductions - which is a much less attractive ratio to conservatives (although at least the taxes come from broadening the base rather than raising rates).

Having said this, all but one commissioner is still willing to work on this as a starting point (which is all Bowles and Simpson intended). And from a political perspective, that is promising in and of itself.

Given the long-term fiscal calamity we face, I would never advise anyone to get up and walk away. But there's still a gulf that has to be spanned - not just on ideology but on the very perception of what this proposal is actually doing. And that gulf cannot be spanned if President Obama doesn't take ownership at some point and actually lead these commissioners to a deal. They won't sign on the dotted line without him. The commissioners need to keep tweaking the details among themselves, but at the end of the day nothing gets done without presidential leadership. He can stay silent for a few more weeks, but at some point it might be his bluff that gets called.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/the-simpson-bowles-breakthrough-ctd-2.html

[Rohirrim]

" It's true that I think we need to rein in spending on both Medicare and healthcare spending in general. Be amazed, conservatives! But there's a flip side to this: the American population is aging and medical care is getting more expensive. This is simply a fact, and it means that even if we slow the rate of healthcare inflation we're going to need more money for healthcare. You want Hard Truths? That's a hard truth. We need to rein in healthcare spending and we need to raise taxes to pay for the higher healthcare costs of an aging population. Anybody who's serious about addressing the long-term deficit needs to deal with this instead of indulging in fantasies. "

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/hard-truths-0

There is a very individual side to this that is not being addressed. I work in a hospital. I tell you right now that the majority of cases I see are caused by individual abuse and neglect of the body. The overwhelming majority of cases we see are alcohol involved. I couldn't really believe it until I worked here a couple of years. It's amazing how many cases are alcohol abuse related. If you eat crap, drink to excess, smoke, and don't exercise, you should pay higher premiums and be provided with more limited services. If you want to kill yourself, don't make others pay for it.

[TonyR]

If you want to kill yourself, don't make others pay for it.

I'd expect that obesity presents an even larger (no pun intended) problem than alcohol, no?

[TailgateNut]

There is a very individual side to this that is not being addressed. I work in a hospital. I tell you right now that the majority of cases I see are caused by individual abuse and neglect of the body. The overwhelming majority of cases we see are alcohol involved. I couldn't really believe it until I worked here a couple of years. It's amazing how many cases are alcohol abuse related. If you eat crap, drink to excess, smoke, and don't exercise, you should pay higher premiums and be provided with more limited services. If you want to kill yourself, don't make others pay for it.


If the police are notified that you are a danger to yourself (Threaten suicide), they'll pick you up and drop you in a rubber room, but if you are doing it SLOWLY, no one intervenes.:wiggle:

[Rohirrim]

I'd expect that obesity presents an even larger (no pun intended) problem than alcohol, no?

Nope. Alcohol cases far outweigh anything else, so to speak. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

Those bases enforce peace and ensure trade. Now if we aren't getting anything in return for our investment...that's different. Those bases are a part of national defense. It's an actual role defined for the Federal Government in the contract. Where as say healthcare is not.

[Pony Boy]

It's amazing how many cases are alcohol abuse related. If you eat crap, drink to excess, smoke, and don't exercise, you should pay higher premiums and be provided with more limited services. If you want to kill yourself, don't make others pay for it.

Here we go another division of the Obama Gestapo, the self-abuse police . So who would be making the decisions on which people "should pay higher premiums and be provided with more limited services"? Would that be a private sector job or a Federal job? Can we form death panels and just go ahead and just kill these fat drunk bastards.... can we go ahead and include ugly women also?

[Rohirrim]

Here we go another division of the Obama Gestapo, the self-abuse police . So who would be making the decisions on which people "should pay higher premiums and be provided with more limited services"? Would that be a private sector job or a Federal job? Can we form death panels and just go ahead and just kill these fat drunk bastards.... can we go ahead and include ugly women also?

What does my opinion have to do with Obama, bonehead? And Gestapo? Nothing like just panic jumping to the hyperbole, eh?

[Rascal]

Those bases enforce peace and ensure trade. Now if we aren't getting anything in return for our investment...that's different. Those bases are a part of national defense. It's an actual role defined for the Federal Government in the contract. Where as say healthcare is not.

They are a power projection, similar to an aircraft carrier, and nothing more than that. Man made obstacles are monuments to man's stupidity.

Please show me in the constitution where it states that we must have military bases in foreign countries. Nowhere does it state that we are the world's police.

That is nothing but rhetorical chicken-hawk BS. I could understand the argument for bases in Middle-East and East Asia, but that is it. And we should be using the money spent on those locations to find alternative fuels and developing our internal capabilities such that we can get the hell out of there.

[Rohirrim]

Those bases enforce peace and ensure trade. Now if we aren't getting anything in return for our investment...that's different. Those bases are a part of national defense. It's an actual role defined for the Federal Government in the contract. Where as say healthcare is not.

Oh, bull****. Those bases just prop up a bloated military industrial complex. Ever hear of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? How many ships full of invaders could make it to our shores? The Constitution maps out a defense plan for the U.S., not for the entire ****ing world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Poll: Voters Would Rather Tax The Wealthy Than Cut Social Security by Wide Margin (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-voters-would-rather-tax-the-wealthy-than-cut-social-security.php)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh, bull****. Those bases just prop up a bloated military industrial complex. Ever hear of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? How many ships full of invaders could make it to our shores? The Constitution maps out a defense plan for the U.S., not for the entire ****ing world.

Its not just the US that wants those bases there. The international power brokers have to have them there. The march toward globalism demands it.

Its why we went into Kuwait to save the Saudi interests, why Clinton went into Yugoslavia, and why Bush went back to finish what his dad started.

We have the power as a people to regain control of our own interests. Its what the constitution is for...to provide a means to do that within the law every couple of years. These issues will only become issues if we make them issues. That doesnt mean rioting in the streets, it means carefully planning ways to approach the problem by using the vote as the weapon.

Its already happening. Look at what happened over the past two election cycles. The middle class kicked the repubs out, and then kicked the dems out for not getting the message. I imagine that the next election will be similar. Take care of our business at home first. Take care of our people who are struggling first. Thats the message.

[Drek]

Those bases enforce peace and ensure trade. Now if we aren't getting anything in return for our investment...that's different. Those bases are a part of national defense. It's an actual role defined for the Federal Government in the contract. Where as say healthcare is not.

1. we do not need 15,000 marines hanging out in Japan to ensure our trade relations with Japan remain in tact. Same goes for Germany. We have a large standing force in many countries that are world powers capable of defending themselves at this point. Its just WWII legacy spending. Time to cut the cord.

2. an aircraft carrier and a few battleships provide at least as much enforcement as any military base can and we can get them in position very quickly now.

3. the contract to which you refer is designed to be open for renegotiation. Healthcare is one thing that those put in charge of managing that contract elected to include.

[TonyR]

Take care of our business at home first. Take care of our people who are struggling first. Thats the message.

Really? You think that's what the GOP will focus on with its new found power? They're going to end the wars, bring the troops home, and help the people who are struggling? That's the GOP/tea party agenda? Let me guess, extending tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to a surge in charity and philanthropy? Please tell me you're looking for laughs with that quote above.

[Drek]

My problems with the budget laid out by the way:

1. Instead of large drops in the corporate and top 5% tax rates in exchange for deductions why not give modest drops and use that extra income to pay down the deficit faster? The U.S. government built up much of our existing debt working as an international arm of our wealthiest corporations and individuals. Until the books are balanced they should be the ones paying down the debt. Also, as the debt gets paid down we should give them the appropriate tax deductions to off-set their good work.

2. Am I the last person who believes in American Exceptionality? Everyone wants entitlement packages and/or tax cuts. Whatever happened to leading the world on infrastructure and science? We're falling behind and we need to aggressively resolve that, regardless of the tax burden it puts on the general populous. In my opinion the U.S. should aim for the following social and scientific goals:
2020
fully functional self sufficient deep sea research lab
economically viable shale oil recovery
lead the world in bio-fuel production
lead the world in renewable energy
a fully functional smart energy grid that provides electricity and high speed fiber to 90% or more of the citizenry
high speed mass transit linking the major cities and effective mass transit within all major cities

2030
clean nuclear energy
plasma drive technology making space travel significantly more viable
a self sufficient research lab on the moon
plans under way to reach Mars by 2035

[SoCalBronco]

I support the commission's proposals, even though they would be painful.

While I don't currently support the administration, one of the things I was HOPING they would do was stand up to our party on the Bush tax cuts issue. Obama's position SHOULD be no extension of the Bush tax cuts for ANYONE. Not the rich, not the middle class and not the poor. No one. That's another 3.7 trillion we could use for deficit reduction. I dont' care whether it results in a double dip recession. It's simply more important to work on deficit reduction than fret over the economy having more short term problems. I'd rather have another couple years like 2008-2009 than add another 3.7 trillion to the debt. Even extending the cuts for the poor and middle class alone will cost 3.0 trillion, so forget that. Obama should show some spine. There will be no extension WHATSOEVER. Just let it sunset. This is one of the areas where my GOP is being short sighted. This whole tax cut at any cost thing is flat out dumb. I like tax cuts, I prefer them to government spending as a way to get the economy going BUT ONLY WHEN your financial house is in order.

If you want moderates in either party to respect you, you gotta show some spine, Obama. Let the cuts expire.

[Drek]

I support the commission's proposals, even though they would be painful.

While I don't currently support the administration, one of the things I was HOPING they would do was stand up to our party on the Bush tax cuts issue. Obama's position SHOULD be no extension of the Bush tax cuts for ANYONE. Not the rich, not the middle class and not the poor. No one. That's another 3.7 trillion we could use for deficit reduction. I dont' care whether it results in a double dip recession. It's simply more important to work on deficit reduction than fret over the economy having more short term problems. I'd rather have another couple years like 2008-2009 than add another 3.7 trillion to the debt. Even extending the cuts for the poor and middle class alone will cost 3.0 trillion, so forget that. Obama should show some spine. There will be no extension WHATSOEVER. Just let it sunset. This is one of the areas where my GOP is being short sighted. This whole tax cut at any cost thing is flat out dumb. I like tax cuts, I prefer them to government spending as a way to get the economy going BUT ONLY WHEN your financial house is in order.

If you want moderates in either party to respect you, you gotta show some spine, Obama. Let the cuts expire.

I personally wonder if that isn't the game he's running already, knowing that the Republican house will now never let a tax cut through for the middle class if it doesn't have the cuts for the wealthy tailing along with it.

But from a political standpoint if he keeps playing it like he has been he can have his cake and eat it too. Greater federal revenue to balance the budget and direct the blame for tax increases towards the GOP.

People are going to see a very different two years from Obama going forward though. This past week shows that. He got something resembling the social policies he wanted (healthcare and DADT soon to receive a very damning military study arguing for its repeal) and now he's flipped his focus towards economics. The $600B in fed. bond purchases is less fuel for our economy and more a shot across the bow for competing nations that the U.S. is no longer going to let them play games with currency rates in order to win the import/export game. It came directly before his economic venture to Asia and the G20 summit where he knew he had one economic win (the India Boeing deal) already all but in his pocket. Its building up leverage to tell nations like South Korea and China that if they want free trade with the U.S. it has to be fair trade with the U.S.. No more of the U.S. market being open and willing to their products while U.S. products coming to their shores are subject to incredibly tight restrictions.