Quick summary of the deficit reduction panel report

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/deficit-panel-s-plan-would-seek-to-cut-social-security-mortgage-deduction.html

A presidential commission’s leaders proposed a $3.8 trillion deficit-cutting plan that would cut Social Security and Medicare, reduce income-tax rates and eliminate tax breaks including the mortgage-interest deduction.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020.

“This country’s out of money and we better start thinking,” said co-chairman Erskine Bowles. Without “tough choices,” he said, “we’re on the most predictable path toward an economic crisis that I can imagine.”

Bowles, former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and Republican former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming announced the proposal in Washington today, stressing that it was intended as a starting point for discussion.

None of the proposals would take effect next year to avoid disrupting the economic recovery. Bowles said income-tax rates would be reduced to three levels: 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent.

Wiping out all tax breaks, including the home mortgage deduction, while lowering rates would save $100 billion a year, Bowles said. Members of the panel could decide to keep some tax breaks by offering offsetting cuts, he said.

Bowles said about three-fourths of the savings would come from spending cuts with the remainder from tax increases.

‘Harpooned Every Whale’

“We have harpooned every whale in the ocean and some of the minnows,” Simpson said. “No one has done this before.”

The proposal would attempt to slow health-care costs by paying doctors participating in Medicare less, and it calls for “comprehensive” legislation to reduce medical malpractice costs.

Discretionary spending cuts in the plan include reducing congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent, freezing federal salaries and cutting the federal workforce by 10 percent. The discretionary reductions of $1.4 trillion would be split equally between defense and domestic programs, Bowles said.

“The cuts really will happen on both sides of that firewall,” he said.

The plan would cut the deficit to 2.2 percent of gross domestic product by 2015, from the current 9 percent, exceeding Obama’s goal. It would also reduce debt to 60 percent of GDP by 2024.

“This is Al’s and my proposal, nobody else’s,” Bowles said. “The president hasn’t seen this proposal.” Some members of Obama’s financial team have seen the plan and they liked some things and not others, he said.

[coyotes_geek]

A proposal destined to upset every single American citizen and politician. In other words, a sound plan that gives us exactly what we need, but isn't what we want.

[CosmicCowboy]

The timing of the release is interesting.

It originally wasn't supposed to be released until right at Christmas.

[boutons_deux]

"The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020."

This is totally unnecessary bullshit, and totally expected by the composition of the commission, eg, Pete Peterson.

There are other EASY ways to fix/replace the pilfering of Soc Sec funds.

[jack sommerset]

A proposal destined to upset every single American citizen and politician. In other words, a sound plan that gives us exactly what we need, but isn't what we want.

But is he counting Obamacare making us money. BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[CosmicCowboy]

"The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020."

This is totally unnecessary bullshit, and totally expected by the composition of the commission, eg, Pete Peterson.

There are other EASY ways to fix/replace the pilfering of Soc Sec funds.

Boutons, I don't think grinding up Repugs and selling them as soylent green is gonna work.

[Winehole23]

Wiping out "all" income tax breaks could be a political stumbling block.

[coyotes_geek]

There are other EASY ways to fix/replace the pilfering of Soc Sec funds.

Do tell.

[SnakeBoy]

The proposal would attempt to slow health-care costs by paying doctors participating in Medicare less,

That one made me chuckle.

[Spurminator]

How much is saved by raising the retirement age a year?

[coyotes_geek]

That one made me chuckle.

I guess the theory goes like this. Pay doctors less for medicare patients. Doctors reduce the number of medicare patients they're willing to see. Less medicare patients being seen by doctors equals less incentive for doctors to overcharge non-medicare patients to make up for losses from seeing medicare patients. Growth in medical costs slow as a result. At least that's all I can come up with.

Certainly sucks if you're one of those medicare patients. But there's no way to get out of the financial shithole we find ourselves in without every American getting kicked in the balls in some form or fashion.

[CubanMustGo]

I wonder where the 8 / 14 / 23 breaks would be.

And yes, the full SS retirement age should continue to rise; no reason it should stop at 67 given the expected increases in life expectancy.

This will cost us a boatload, because we write off home interest and charitable deductions (a lot more in the former than the latter). But the home interest is going down since we're on a 15-year note so it would just end up a little faster than we expected.

No chance in hell our gutless representatives would ever vote for something so progressive.

[CubanMustGo]

Update with a few more details:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/deficit-reduction-panel-s-plan-would-seek-to-cut-social-security-medicare.html

A presidential commission’s leaders proposed a $3.8 trillion deficit (http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf)-cutting plan that would trim Social Security and Medicare, reduce income-tax rates and eliminate tax breaks including the mortgage-interest deduction.

The plan would overhaul the federal budget by throwing out hundreds of tax breaks for items such as capital gains and child care. It would raise the gas tax, slash defense spending and bring down health-care costs by clamping down on medical malpractice suits. The Social Security retirement age would be raised to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075.

“This country’s out of money and we better start thinking,” said Erskine Bowles (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Erskine%20Bowles&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), co-chairman of the panel created by President Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack%20Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja). Without “tough choices,” Bowles said, “we’re on the most predictable path toward an economic crisis that I can imagine.”

Bowles, former President Bill Clinton (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bill%20Clinton&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja)’s chief of staff, and Republican former Senator Alan Simpson (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Alan%20Simpson&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) of Wyoming announced the proposal in Washington today, stressing that it was intended as a starting point for discussion.

The savings would come between 2012 and 2020. The result would be a deficit totaling about $400 billion or about 2.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product in 2015. That would exceed Obama’s goal for the panel of a reduction to 3 percent, from the current 9 percent of GDP.

White House spokesman Bill Burton (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bill%20Burton&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said in an e-mail the proposals “are only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations.” He said Obama wants to give the panel “space to work on it” and wouldn’t comment on the plan.


Lawmakers Balking

The chairmen’s plan is already causing some Democrats and Republicans on the 18-member commission to balk. While most economists say some combination of spending cuts and tax increases is necessary, Republicans are wary of tax hikes and Democrats are reluctant to reduce U.S. government benefits.

“This is not a package that I could support,” Representative Jan Schakowsky (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jan%20Schakowsky&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), an Illinois Democrat, said during a break in a private meeting by the commission before the chairmen released details of their plan. She said any package able to win the necessary 14 votes on the panel would have to look “very different” from the options under discussion.

None of the proposals would take effect next year to avoid disrupting the economic recovery. Bowles said income-tax rates would be reduced to three levels: 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent.


Mortgage Deduction

Wiping out all tax breaks, including the home mortgage deduction, while lowering rates would save $100 billion a year, Bowles said. Members of the panel could decide to keep some tax breaks by offering offsetting cuts, he said.

Bowles said about three-quarters of the savings would come from spending cuts with the remainder from tax increases.

“We have harpooned every whale in the ocean and some of the minnows,” Simpson said. “No one has done this before.”

The proposal calls for discretionary spending to be cut by $1.4 trillion over 10 years, while mandatory spending -- including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- would be reduced by $733 billion. Taxes would be raised by $751 billion, including a 15-cent increase in the gas tax starting in 2013.

Tax increases would begin in 2012, when they would total $69 billion. They would ramp up to $372 billion in 2015, $588 billion in 2018 and $761 billion in 2020.

Farm subsidies would be cut by $3 billion a year. The proposal would also attempt to slow the growth of health-care costs by paying doctors participating in the Medicare health program for the elderly less and calling for “comprehensive” legislation to reduce medical malpractice costs.


Freezing Federal Salaries

Discretionary spending cuts in the plan include reducing congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent, freezing federal salaries and cutting the federal workforce by 10 percent. The discretionary reductions would be split equally between defense and domestic programs, Bowles said.

The plan calls for $100 billion in defense cuts, including freezing federal salaries and noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years and reducing spending on research and development and on facilities maintenance.

The government is projected to run $8 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, which would push the national debt up to more than $20 trillion.

The panel’s goals drew praise from Maya MacGuineas (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Maya%20MacGuineas&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (http://crfb.org/), a Washington-based group that advocates balanced budgets. The plan “would fix our fiscal problems and truly reflects a balanced compromise across party lines,” she said.

Some of the plan would be painful, she said, “but we must be mindful of the consequences if we fail to act.”

Simpson said the plan was designed to give members of the panel something to “chew on” for further discussions.


‘Witness Protection’

“This is Al’s and my proposal, nobody else’s,” Bowles said. “The president hasn’t seen this proposal.”

Some members of Obama’s financial team have seen the plan and they liked some things and not others, he said. Asked how interest groups would react, Bowles joked, “we’re going to be in the witness protection program.”

Senator Dick Durbin (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dick%20Durbin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), an Illinois Democrat, called the plan a “starting point for the conversation.”

“We’re not going to have an up-or-down vote on this,” said Durbin. “There are proposals in there that are painful. I told them I said there are things in here which inspire me and other things which I hate like the devil hates holy water. I’m not going to vote for those things.”

Some Republicans also expressed skepticism that the report would survive in its current form. New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Judd%20Gregg&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=en10_wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) called the plan a “starting point.”

Representative Jeb Hensarling (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jeb%20Hensarling&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) of Texas said “some of it I like, some of it
disturbs me.”



To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Heidi%20Przybyla&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) in Washington at [email protected]; Brian Faler (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Brian%20Faler&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) in Washington at [email protected];

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at [email protected]

[DarrinS]

In France, when they announced they were raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, the frogs went into full riot mode. (that's why we don't want to become like them)


It makes sense to raise the retirement age, since we are living so long now (even with our so-called poor health care system).



I don't agree with taking away the home mortgage deduction. WTF?

[Spurminator]

It may make sense to raise the retirement age but I'm still curious about how much real savings that creates, and whether that couldn't just be offset with a slight adjustment of the income tax cuts or SS payments.

68 year-olds may have a longer life expectancy today than they used to but are they really that much more capable of working? What's to stop voters/lawmakers from repealing the change in 2048?

Longer life expectancy is a fundamental benefit of living in a great country. If that means enjoying the fruits of retirement a few years longer than we will or than our parents did... well, good!

[coyotes_geek]

We need to do something.

I don't want to give up my goodies.


Congrats Darrin, you've captured the entire issue and all the complications associated therewith in one post.

[boutons_deux]

In France, when they announced they were raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, the frogs went into full riot mode. (that's why we don't want to become like them)


yep, the French have some balls, enough to scream when they're getting buggered by the wealthy.

The dumbed-down American sheeple have large anal openings from being reamed, taking it passively.

[coyotes_geek]

yep, the French have some balls, enough to scream when they're getting buggered by the wealthy.

The dumbed-down American sheeple have large anal openings from being reamed, taking it passively.

Ah yes. The french riot at the audacity of someone trying to cut back their freebies. How noble.

[coyotes_geek]

It may make sense to raise the retirement age but I'm still curious about how much real savings that creates, and whether that couldn't just be offset with a slight adjustment of the income tax cuts or SS payments.

Cuban's article mentioned $733B worth of cuts over 10 years to SS&M. Not sure what the split between SS and medicare/medicaid is, but it's got to be significant. Certainly in the hundreds of billions.

Could that $ be offset from some other source? Sure, but that kinda defeats the purpose of the exercise here.


68 year-olds may have a longer life expectancy today than they used to but are they really that much more capable of working?

We're only talking about 1 or 2 years. Depends on the job I guess. Even then, there's a difference between age you retire and age you start collecting SS money. If you want to retire before you can collect SS, save enough money to sustain yourself for that in between period. You should be saving anyways because the odds of you being able to live 100% off SS in retirement are damn slim.


What's to stop voters/lawmakers from repealing the change in 2048?

Nothing. Doesn't mean we shouldn't go ahead and make the change now though.


Longer life expectancy is a fundamental benefit of living in a great country. If that means enjoying the fruits of retirement a few years longer than we will or than our parents did... well, good!

Sure it's good, but that doesn't make it the obligation of the taxpayers to fund those extra years. Especially considering the current situation where there's simply not enough cake for everyone to get the piece that they'd like.

[coyotes_geek]

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf

[Yonivore]

If we're to regain fiscal sanity in this country, entitlements have to be cut. Period.

[ElNono]

To be honest, it's hard enough finding a competitive job when you're 50. I can't even fathom what it's like to be looking for a job at 65.
Plus the problem isn't that the people didn't put in enough money in the system to retire at 65, it's that said money was already spent. The average life expectancy in the US is somewhere between 75-80 years old.

[BlairForceDejuan]

69 yr old Social Security. :lol Dayum, have fun with that. Tax free roth withdraws at 59.5 is where it's at. :downspin:

Let us opt out!

[RandomGuy]

A proposal destined to upset every single American citizen and politician. In other words, a sound plan that gives us exactly what we need, but isn't what we want.

Yup.

Eliminate all tax breaks? :flypig

Right choice to simplify the code, but man will everybody scream bloody murder.

[RandomGuy]

To be honest, it's hard enough finding a competitive job when you're 50. I can't even fathom what it's like to be looking for a job at 65.
Plus the problem isn't that the people didn't put in enough money in the system to retire at 65, it's that said money was already spent. The average life expectancy in the US is somewhere between 75-80 years old.

My dad is 66 this year. He has almost no computer skills whatsoever. The job market was not kind to him.

[Winehole23]

<ouch>

[Drachen]

In France, when they announced they were raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, the frogs went into full riot mode. (that's why we don't want to become like them)


It makes sense to raise the retirement age, since we are living so long now (even with our so-called poor health care system).



I don't agree with taking away the home mortgage deduction. WTF?

why not?

Oh, and please submit your answer in youtube format.

[boutons_deux]

DarrrinS is typical.

Screw everybody else, but don't touch my tax breaks.

[Drachen]

Oh and the congressional reaction to this makes it seem all the more that it is the right thing to do. With all of them saying "I like some, don't like the other", it means that it is probably the perfect way of doing this.

[boutons_deux]

14 of 18 commissioners have to approve the report before it's sent to President, who is not required to do anything with it.

[coyotes_geek]

Oh and the congressional reaction to this makes it seem all the more that it is the right thing to do. With all of them saying "I like some, don't like the other", it means that it is probably the perfect way of doing this.

Agreed. Unfortunately the hard part is getting both sides to accept a good chunk of the parts that they don't like.

[boutons_deux]

A deficit commission that proposes to reduce deficits by cutting taxes is an absurd joke.

[spurster]

There is plenty to dislike, but it's the first coherent plan, and we are unlikely to see one from either party.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is plenty to dislike, but it's the first coherent plan, and we are unlikely to see one from either party.

I like it too. Unfortunately it has zero chance of getting even close to a vote in congress. They just described a "flat tax" without using the words. Congress gets it's power/money by allocating tax breaks, credits, and through discretionary spending (which gets cut). No WAY they give that power up.

[Bender]

I can't even fathom what it's like to be looking for a job at 65.
greeters at W-M ?

[TeyshaBlue]

A deficit commission that proposes to reduce deficits by cutting taxes is an absurd joke.

Is the analysis complete that this results in a net tax decrease?

[coyotes_geek]

I wonder where the 8 / 14 / 23 breaks would be.

Looking at the commissions presentation it looks like the 8/14/23 breaks are just a consolidation of the existing 6 brackets we have into 3.

Also important to note that those rates assume elimination of all tax expenditures. Those rates go up if things like the child tax credit and the EITC are kept.


And yes, the full SS retirement age should continue to rise; no reason it should stop at 67 given the expected increases in life expectancy.

This will cost us a boatload, because we write off home interest and charitable deductions (a lot more in the former than the latter). But the home interest is going down since we're on a 15-year note so it would just end up a little faster than we expected.

Whatever the commission does I hope charitable deductions remain.


No chance in hell our gutless representatives would ever vote for something so progressive.

Sad, but probably accurate.

[coyotes_geek]

Is the analysis complete that this results in a net tax decrease?

From the presentation it looks like the proposed tax reforms generate an additional $750 billion of tax revenue between 2012-2020. Only it's called $750B worth of "defecit reduction".

[Wild Cobra]

Wiping out "all" income tax breaks could be a political stumbling block.
But it would be the right thing to do.

[boutons_deux]

Simpson/Bowles: A Predawn Raid on the Middle Class



Today the Presidential Deficit Commission's co-chairs released a radically right-wing budget proposal. They acted without any prior announcement, just three weeks before the entire Commission was scheduled to deliver its collective report. Consider it as a sneak attack on the middle class, a pre-dawn raid on the American dream.

Many things can and will be said about this draft proposal, but first and foremost it must be considered an admission of failure. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson were asked by the President to lead a commission that was to agree on a set of proposals most of its members could endorse. This proposal is their admission that they've failed, and it should be read with that failure of leadership in mind.

It's also important to remember that this is not an isolated act. The release of their proposal today was the culmination of a highly coordinated and extremely well-funded assault led by deficit hawks willing to harm our already-weak economy in order to cut government, and who would slash important programs like Social Security and Medicare to advance their agenda.

And the timing of this proposal was no accident. Simpson and Bowles know they don't have the 14 votes they need to issue a report. Releasing this proposal may be a desperate attempt to pressure some of their Commission own members. Or they may be trying to deliver some "shock and awe" by issuing a proposal so extreme that any subsequent package of cuts, no matter how unfair, will seem reasonable by comparison.

their agenda is a radical upward redistribution of national wealth and resources, with budget policy as the vehicle and "deficit reduction" as the rhetorical smokescreen.


the document they released today would send the economy right off a cliff. They're proposing major cuts to public spending that start in 2012, when most economists expect the economy will still be weak and fragile. Even if your only goal is a balanced budget, that's a bad idea. A smart deficit hawk would first work to create jobs, increase income, and expand business activity, all of which reduce deficits in the long run. These are not smart deficit hawks.


Co-Chairs Simpson and Bowles acknowledge that Social Security contributes nothing to the Federal deficit.

==========

The VRWC is relentless: fuck America, fuck citizens, fuck The American Dream, by fleecing the lower 98% and enriching the top 2%.

[Winehole23]

But what if my conjecture is proved incorrect and a roughly similar set of reforms is enacted in 2011? Remember that our fiscal problem is of a long-term nature. It is produced by an aging population; rapid health care cost growth; slower revenues from a flagging economy as a large cohort of experienced workers retires; slowing education and skill acquisition by younger workers; and slower capital formation as more resources are consumed by an aging population. The commission’s reforms have to be enacted and maintained for at least 30 years to deliver its “target” debt-to-GDP ratio of 40 percent. History tells us that such an outcome is quite unlikely. For example, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 — that helped President Clinton accumulate his now much touted laurel as a fiscal conservative — was maintained for just 12 years — until Congressional Budget Office projections revealed “budget surpluses as far as the eye could see” in 2002. With those projections in hand, lawmakers raced to the exits: the BEA was abandoned and federal spending shot through the roof. Even as conservative a policy maven as Alan Greenspan shone a green light to adopt budget busting tax cuts.


To improve the chances that history does not repeat itself, the commission’s proposals need to be combined with proposals to reform the budget process. The first thing to consider on that score is to use better budget measures to assess if reforms are achieving their goals. Stating those goals in terms of the national debt and annual cash flow deficits is unlikely to work – just as those measures have not worked for the European Union in the context of their now defunct Stability and Growth Pact.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/debt-commission-reform-proposals-%E2%80%93-what-are-their-chances/g

[boutons_deux]

Deficit commission plan would kill 4 million jobs

"Using the rule of thumb that a 1% increase in GDP increases payroll employment by 1 million jobs, we estimate that Co-Chairs’ Proposal would thus reduce payroll employment by roughly 723,000 jobs in 2012, 1.4 million jobs in 2013, and 1.9 million jobs in 2014,"

austerity policies and slow economic growth would create "more job losses and less deficit reduction."

"produce far less budgetary savings than they assume, as the cyclical effects of depressed economic activity on the budget will largely defray the savings from spending cuts and tax increases."

Critics of the (deficit commission) proposal have dubbed the group the "catfood commission" because seniors who see their benefits cut would have to reduce their expenses or find additional sources of income.

"In the present economic environment, the near-term austerity measures proposed by the co-chairs would be fiscally counterproductive and crippling to states, communities, and families, delaying a robust economic recovery for years."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/deficit-commission-plan-kill-4-million-jobs-analysis-finds/

iow, any commission with SocialSecrurity-killing hyper-wealthy Pete Peterson and Americans-are-tit-suckers Simpson is just another VRWC battle in the war on the lower 98%, behind the smokescreen of "deficit reduction".

[coyotes_geek]

How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load?

How many more jobs could we have right now if we didn't have to spend $400 billion a year on interest?

[boutons_deux]

"How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load"

Fear-mongering, STFU, and scare us again about the threat Saddam and Iran's imagined nukes are.

How small would the deficit be without Repug tax cuts since 1980?

Without dubya's bogus and botched wars?

Without dubya tripling the national debt during his Reign of Error?

Bring better shit, next time, bitch.

[RandomGuy]

A proposal destined to upset every single American citizen and politician. In other words, a sound plan that gives us exactly what we need, but isn't what we want.

+1

You beat me to it.

There is stuff in there I hate, and stuff that I like. That is how I know it is probably the right thing to do.

Too bad there will not be any political will to do it. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load?

How many more jobs could we have right now if we didn't have to spend $400 billion a year on interest?

How do we know what an "unsustainable debt load" is?

The answer to your second question is that I doubt anyone could unravel things enough to tell.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second though:

What are the benefits of US government debt?

[TeyshaBlue]

"How many jobs do we lose when the government collapses from an unsustainable debt load"

Fear-mongering, STFU, and scare us again about the threat Saddam and Iran's imagined nukes are.

How small would the deficit be without Repug tax cuts since 1980?

Without dubya's bogus and botched wars?

Without dubya tripling the national debt during his Reign of Error?

Bring better shit, next time, bitch.

lol @ bouton's forum quality control.

lol @ everything = Repug, dubya, VRWC.


GFY.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

+1

You beat me to it.

There is stuff in there I hate, and stuff that I like. That is how I know it is probably the right thing to do.

Too bad there will not be any political will to do it. :depressed

^^^^^^This^^^^^^^ +10

[EVAY]

Well we all know that getting rid of the home-mortgage interest-rate deduction is a non-starter. I mean, can you imagine what would happen to the already listless housing market if that was actually implemented? Plus the bankers would never allow it.

All of you guys who have indicated that the proposal, taken as a comprehensive whole, is probably a good thing because it hurts everybody, are right.

Those who inidcated that, regardless of how good it is, it has no future in the land of gutless politicians, are not only correct but have obviously been paying attention for the last 20 years or more.

It strikes me as a bit sad that so many of us recognize this reality, and are powerless to change it.

[boutons_deux]

Exactly, the bankers plus the home construction industry make policy, not the govt.

"no future in the land of gutless politicians"

more accurately, in the land of bought politicians, they do as they are paid by the private sector to do.

"are powerless to change it."

Welcome aboard the America-Is-Fucked-And-Unfuckable train, bandwagonner.

[EVAY]

^^^You know, b-d, when I typed the line that said we are powerless to change it, I almost included a "But B-D, this doesn't mean I think you are right" line, but decided not to add irrelevant items in the post.

But, B-D, just because this aspect is truly sad to me, I'm still not quite as down on America's chances as you are.

[coyotes_geek]

Fear-mongering, STFU, and scare us again about the threat Saddam and Iran's imagined nukes are.

So defecits and the debt don't matter...............


How small would the deficit be without Repug tax cuts since 1980?

Without dubya's bogus and botched wars?

Without dubya tripling the national debt during his Reign of Error?

.........and then suddenly they do.


Bring better shit, next time, bitch.

:lol

boutons thread stage 5 is complete.

[coyotes_geek]

How do we know what an "unsustainable debt load" is?

Isn't that similar to asking a frat guy how much alcohol he can consume before he dies? He may not know the exact amount, but hopefully he also knows that it's not in his best interests to find out the answer.

Without knowing what the specific amount is, I do believe that there is an amount and that whatever that amount is we're heading towards it at an alarming pace.


The answer to your second question is that I doubt anyone could unravel things enough to tell.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second though:

What are the benefits of US government debt?

Providing a safe investment vehicle for banks and individuals is the one benefit I can think of off the top of my head. But is the amount that it costs us taxpayers to sustain that debt worth it? IMO, no.

[The Reckoning]

i still dont understand why there cant be a fixed income tax rate...

[Yonivore]

i still dont understand why there cant be a fixed income tax rate...
Because, then, Democrats couldn't buy votes by exempting their base while soaking their opposition.

[Winehole23]

The explanation for Simpson-Bowles’ giant whiff on the one true here-and-now-deficit reducer -- letting all the Bush tax cuts including the AMT patch expire at an immediate gain of $300 billion -- is thus straight-forward: The Wall Street propaganda machine has vaccinated nearly the entire beltway population -- include its few brave denizens like the co-chairmen -- with a politically convenient strain of ersatz Keynesianism. Unlike the real thing, the latter holds that consumption spending on anything -- even by people who already have everything -- is to be embraced without question. On that meretricious point, of course, the questions should start, not end.

In fact, the question of serious revenue raising is never really addressed by the Simpson-Bowles plan -- not even in the by-and-by a decade from now when the current macro-economic “fragility” has presumably passed. Thus, compared to current policy, the co-chairman’s plan would raise the grand sum of $100 billion by 2015 or just over one-half of 1% of GDP. Yet any honest plan to close the nation’s massive structural deficit needs five times that much new revenue -- $500 billion per year or upwards of 3% of GDP.http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/david-stockman-unemployment-bush-tax-cuts/12/2/2010/id/31457?page=2

[Winehole23]

improving economy plus sequestration equals the first sub-$1T deficit since 2008:

via AP


For the first time in five years, the U.S. government has run a budget deficit below $1 trillion.

The government said Wednesday that the deficit for the 2013 budget year totaled $680.3 billion, down from $1.09 trillion in 2012. That's the smallest imbalance since 2008, when the government ran a $458.6 billion deficit. It's still the fifth-largest deficit of all time.


The deficit is the gap between the government's tax revenue and its spending. It narrowed for the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 because revenue rose while spending fell. Revenue jumped 13.3 percent to $2.77 trillion. Government spending declined 2.4 percent to $3.45 trillion.


A stronger economy created more jobs and income over the past year, which generated greater tax revenue. At the same time, the Obama administration and Congress agreed in January to end a temporary cut in Social Security taxes and also to raise income taxes on the wealthy.


And spending fell in part because of across-the-board cuts that took effect in March.


Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/30/5291411/us-budget-deficit-down-to-680b.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/30/5291411/us-budget-deficit-down-to-680b.html

[boutons_deux]

but tea baggers believe the VRWC propaganda that spending is out of control, therefore cut spending on the 47% and cut taxes on the VRWC.

Ryan is pushing for hard-core austerity in order to stimulate the economy, proving yet again what a fraud he is a policy wonk/economist.

[boobie4three]

"The government said Wednesday that the deficit for the 2013 budget year totaled $680.3 billion

We need to get it down to zero and even try to run a surplus, and that means we're going to have to dissapoint a few people.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/krakee/obamaaaa_zps362f2ff6.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/krakee/media/obamaaaa_zps362f2ff6.jpg.html)

[boutons_deux]

"The government said Wednesday that the deficit for the 2013 budget year totaled $680.3 billion

We need to get it down to zero and even try to run a surplus, and that means we're going to have to dissapoint a few people.



ain't going to zero due to the huge Repug tax cuts, bogus Repug wars, unfunded Repug corporate welfare, so you'll be disappointed.

[Nbadan]

Were my fiscal conservatives brothers at? Obama and Clinton both may reduce spending by the end of their terms...Clinton ran a surplus, Obama may too...Dubya ran up 8-9 trillion dollars in debt with unfunded wars, expansion of Medicare D for the old voters, and a tax cut for the rich after his two terms, while Saint Ronny ran up 1.5 trillion in corporate tax cuts after his two terms...we don't live in a vacuum people, policy has costs...elections have consequences..

[boutons_deux]

dickhead said that St Ronnie proved that "deficits don't matter" (when they are Repug deficits)