Catfood Commissioner: 'Fiscal Cancer' Consuming The Economy. Here's A Crying Towel, Erskine!
As I keep saying, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program which funds itself. All Social Security needs to stay 100% funded through the next 50 years is to remove the cap on earnings placed there under Ronald Reagan as a perk for the well-to-do, and raise the rate by one percent.
To say that Social Security is part of a "cancer" as Erskine Bowles does, is the same as saying that the United States cannot meet its own bond obligations -- which is decidedly not true. But the Very Serious People, contrary to the facts spelled out by economists like James Galbraith and Paul Krugman, have decided that the best way to deal with their own gnawing sense of economic uneasiness is to grind the boot heel into the backs of the lower classes -- just to show us who's boss!
BOSTON -- The co-chairmen of President Obama's debt and deficit commission offered an ominous assessment of the nation's fiscal future here Sunday, calling current budgetary trends a cancer "that will destroy the country from within" unless checked by tough action in Washington.
The two leaders -- former Republican senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton -- sought to build support for the work of the commission, whose recommendations due later this year are likely to spark a fierce debate in Congress.
"There are many who hope we fail," Simpson said at the closing session of the National Governors Association annual meeting. He called the 18-member commission "good people with deep, deep differences" who know the odds of success "are rather harrowing."
Bowles said that unlike the current economic crisis, which was largely unforeseen before it hit in fall 2008, the coming fiscal calamity is staring the country in the face. "This one is as clear as a bell," he said. "This debt is like a cancer."
The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenues are fully consumed by just three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.
"We can't grow our way out of this," Bowles said. "We could have decades of double-digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem. We can't tax our way out. . . . The reality is we've got to do exactly what you all do every day as governors. We've got to cut spending or increase revenues or do some combination of that."
Kevin Drum wrote about this a few months ago:
Back in 1983, we made a deal. The deal was this: for 30 years poor people would overpay their taxes, building up the trust fund and helping lower the taxes of the rich. For the next 30 years, rich people would overpay their taxes, drawing down the trust fund and helping lower the taxes of the poor.
Well, the first 30 years are about up. And now the rich are complaining about the deal that Alan Greenspan cut back in 1983. As it happens, I agree that it was a bad deal. If it were up to me, I'd fund Social Security out of current taxes and leave it at that. But it doesn't matter. Once the deal is made, you can't stop halfway through and toss it out. The rich got their subsidy for 30 years, and soon it's going to be time to raise their taxes and use it to subsidize the poor. Any other option would be an unconscionable fraud.
For a slightly more detailed version of this explanation, see here. Note that "poor" is actually shorthand for both the poor and the middle class, while "rich" actually means both the rich and the upper middle class. This distinction comes into play because payroll taxes, which have built up the trust fund for the past 30 years, are primarily paid by the poor and the middle class, while income taxes, which were kept artificially low over that same period and will soon need to raised in order to pay off the trust fund debt, are primarily paid by the rich and the upper middle class.
So here, Erskine. Here's a crying towel. Because I notice you're not talking about letting the massive Bush tax cuts ($1.8 trillion) for the wealthy expire, nor are you suggesting that the Medicare Part D benefits ($1.2 trillion) that Big Pharma loves so much be renegotiated. You're definitely not talking about single-payer health care.
Nor are you suggesting that maybe, just maybe, we could cut back on spending for that "policeman to the world" thing.
Nope. It's only Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that has you in a tizzy. You know how we see that, Erskine? It's a declaration of class war.
I already know which side I'm on. It's not yours.
Mademoiselle Guillotine, you are needed at Headquarters.
Paging Mademoiselle Guillotine…
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
while i agree with Bowles assessment of our current budgetary path, i definitely do not agree with the medicine he proposes. Kevin Drum is absolutely correct, the proper way to fund Social Security is out of general funds, that is what they are doing anyway; dumping receipts into the budget, and dumping empty promises somewhere else, let's just get rid of the legerdemain.
what is really so stupid about even thinking about cutting bennies is that most of the money disbursed goes right back into the economy, kind of a constant keynesian stimulus.
now that it is time to pay the piper after 30 years of supply side bullshit, the aristocracy are wetting their pants at the prospect of there being even one small slice of the pie for poor people.
"There are many who hope we fail," Simpson said."
Not me. I hope you all die from large festering boils
which burn like acid and eat at your skin until there's
nothing left but a grimacing skull.
Oh, and slowly. VERY SLOWLY...
And to think I voted for Oilsack Bones for Senator in NC twice. Well, in fairness, it was either him or Libby Dole, and then Burr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JuVHCJVYf4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So, lemme get this straight. We should trust the guys who didn't see the housing crash because NOW they see a problem with Social Security?
Um, no. How about we listen to the people that DID see the crash?
What happens when you (seemingly arbitrarily) apply those same funds to the "defense" budget? Does it even reach the top? Or is it some percentage? This spin is just patently absurd.
The spin only seems absurd until you consider the real purpose of many on the commission - to privatize social programs and further line the pockets of the wealthy.
President Obama's debt and deficit commission. He owns this commision and all proposals coming out of it. His HOPES for the eldery are that they can beg on the streets for CHANGE.
Cue the Kabuki....
but let's not forget our (currently) democratic congress, they are the ones voting on this stuff. i really don't think our peace prize president will be able to fool people for much longer, he is going to have to decide which side he is really on, i think i already know.
the dems as a whole are also on the chopping block, lucky for them people have not yet found out how crappy health care "reform" is going to be; another issue they are trying to keep under the radar is the faux financial "reform" bill working its way through the system.
Your second sentence is weak in its assumption. Your last sentence is downright ridiculous on its face.
....."A very informative/interesting "letter" submitted by economist James K. Galbraith to the Deficit Reduction Commission....which I recommend:"
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/58695
I recommend you re-read it!
form your link: "there is a danger that the Commission will take a path — "stimulate now but austerity later" — that will lead to unnecessary, economically-damaging and socially destructive cuts in Social Security and Medicare. And there is a danger that such cuts will be stampeded through Congress in the months immediately following the 2010 elections..."
OK, so maybe obama does not HOPE our eldery eat cat food, but the CHANGE I voted for was NOT the gop plan to change/attack Social Security!
Cue the Kabuki....
I was impressed as to how such a very large amount of information was packed into one place. My favorite part is where Galbraith states that reforming Medicare and SS are not even in the commission's mandate. They should only be discussed as a point of order.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
what i find to be ridiculous is that "synthetic financial instruments" are not made illegal by the pending legislation.
perhaps you can explain to me why wall street firms are allowed to basically counterfeit money, because that is what they have done, and will still do.
as far as health care "reform" goes, when rates continue to rise, and insurcos totally ignore the governments "recommendations", but it is deducted from your check anyway, or you are audited by the IRS, get back to me then.
for the financial "reform" package, it is not enough for the exalted one to spout vague generalities, and never address the causes of the crash.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_he...
We should have taken that "lock box" Gore offered us way back when. He told us then that bush's tax cuts would eat up social security money. Al was right yet again.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUtdKm6lERQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Why does anyone who makes a retirement income of over, say, $100,000 get any money from SS? It's not a retirement account, never was intended to be. SS was designed to be a safety net for those whose retirement planning somehow failed.
Stop giving it to wealthy retirees who don't need it. And tell them to cry me river.
Also cut the "benefits for life" crap that all US Congress people have.
If our medical Insurance is so great they can try to buy some.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
And means-testing only makes the program easier to cut. It's so popular BECAUSE everyone gets it.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
There must be no means test. High income earners have their SS clawed back through progressive taxation in any event and using a means test will reduce SS to a sort of welfare program. We know how those fare in tough economic times.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Yes. Don't let SS be put on the welfare hit-list.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
For DECADES I have been saying there MUST be means testing!!! Sick of welfare for the rich !!!!!!!!
The problem is that they don't put enough in the system to begin with. If they would just lift the cap so millionaires and billionaires pay into Social Security the same % of income as the rest of us, the system will be solvent forever.
Cue the Kabuki....
the deficit commission seems to be testing the waters for the neoliberal backhand that is coming our way. where, once again, the bulk of the population will be used to prop up the uber-wealthy.
much like crushing aspirin in applesauce, although they are trying to mask their true intentions prepare for some bitter medicine
Erick Erickson is on cnn right now talking about this very subject and he's asking why should we tax the rich? When did he become an expert on anything and especially this?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
i seem to recall he fashions himself something of an expert on goat fucking child molesters....
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904300048
and, yes, he was hired by cnn.
cnn: always shitty
Use WAR POWERS to raise taxes on those making over 250k to 80%.
Hear the Reich Wing screaming?
Who's the American patriot now?
Traitors.
Erskine Bowles is one of those tall skinny bald guys with a big head. I don't like to generalize, but men with this body type can be quite cold and nasty. Add to this inherited wealth, status and political influence and you get quite a toxic mixture. He is also another Blue-Dog type southerner left over from the Clinton administration.
Plus: Never trust a man who has a last name for a first name (or starts his name with an initial).
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2
Bowles said that unlike the current economic crisis, which was largely unforeseen before it hit in fall 2008...
I would say that comment should disqualify Mr. Bowles from any serious discussing involving the state of the National Economy.
Christ, Thousands of people were predicting doom & gloom specifically relating to the housing market dating back nearly a decade.
Why are we trying to fix a year 2037 problem right now. Let's leave it for next year. And concentrate on jobs right now. The funny thing is that fixing jobs noe will fix social security since there would be more people paying into it.
1) Raise the top rate to 75%
2) Remove the lower rate for capital gains - same rate as income
3) Cap the mortgage deduction to 72K a year
4) Stop the two wars and cut the military budget in half
5) Change Corporate tax code so that corporation that do business here and make a profit have to pay some tax.
6) Tax excessive executive compensation.
7) Treat stock options as they are given and tax them when they are exercised.
Employee wages have been flat the last 30 years - unless you're part of the corporate aristocracy, which isn't the majority of us. And pensions have gone the way of the dodo. And because wages have been flat, people 1) supplemented flat wages by borrowing on easy credit; and 2) did not earn enough to put any of their wages aside for retirement to supplement their SS benefit.
Well, we've already seen the fallout of #1. As for #2, this commission is going to propose cutting SS benefits for people who haven't earned enough to save anything?
Is anyone in Washington intelligent enough to realize that the reason we have retirees for whom SS benefits don't supplement other retirement income is because there is no other income because Washington won't do a damn thing to aggressively manage employment laws so that workers have pensions and decent wages that make savings accounts possible?
And now we're going to propose cutting the SS benefit for a whole generation of future retirees who put up with 30 years of flat wages. Does Washington think the average American is really that financially illiterate? Man oh man, there's a storm a-brewing.
Exactly. It's only in the last few years I have actually made enough to have anything left over to save. I'm 50. Most of my life has just been just making ends meet, but I paid my own way.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
"All Social Security needs to stay 100% funded through the next 50 years is to remove the cap on earnings placed there under Ronald Reagan as a perk for the well-to-do, and raise the rate by one percent." That's exactly right , the solution is simple and is obvious , but you will not hear any of the Prostitutes in DC even mentioning it , you'll only hear about raising the age once again at which you can get your hard earned social security , now up to 70 years of age . Take more from the lowest on the ladder , God forbid that the well to do are asked to shell out one extra peso ( which would not affect them in the least ) ! It's not OK to kill Grandma outright but perfectly fine to put her out on the streets and starve her to death . This country , specifically the politicians and the wealthy are sick with selfishness and greed to the point that it's madness , you would think that they take it with them when they die or that they are eternal , they can never ever have enough . I've said it before and I'll say it again , Marx was dead on in regards to Capitalism , he was 100 % right ,Capitalism is a license for the haves to capitalize on the working class , on their powerlessness , to keep them down , use them and make them servants and slaves , economically it is a dead end which inevitably ends up in disaster , you can not expand and grow endlessly and make more and more $ endlessly ... which is what the capitalist ( the market )demands , sooner or later it all they hit a dead end and the bottom falls out at that point .
is that we, as a country, are the aristocracy of the world, why else are we so disliked? our european cousins are of the same sort, and one fine day it may all come crashing down around our ears.
what global capital has done is make workers in low wage countries fill the role of proletariat to the world. so what we have is class conflict on a variety of levels.
Agreed.
Beyond being disliked for being "the aristocrats of the world" I can think of a number of other good reasons why America is disliked, but you probably know what those are as you are a regular here. Think about Empire, war, army bases worldwide, torture and exceptionalism with a dash of arrogance (USA USA USA) and we'll be on the same page.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
"The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.:
The WaPo then links to a chart which shows this to be totally false.
Why let them lie?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Don't wait for the better one that comes along.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
According to the CBO, defense is the largest single item. It is also the most wasteful, corrupt, and pork laden component in the budget. We spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. If we slashed it by 2/3 it would still be more than twice as much as our nearest contender.
There is indeed a fiscal cancer afflicting this country and it is tax cuts for the rich. There are no fiscal problems in this country that cannot be solved by removing the income cap on payroll taxes, treating all income (including capital gains and inheritances) the same, and restoring the tax rates (adjusted for inflation) in effect during the American Golden Age of the 1950s (that would have a top marginal rate of 90% on income over $250,000, which I understand is about $2 million in today's dollars).
Ummm, Big Pharma loves MediCare Part D, Part B pays for hospital visits among other things.
Income over some limit should be taxed at 75% as it was from the 1950's until 1980.
Thanks, fixed now.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
the war on profits, which are almost always got at the expense of social justice, is far more important than a war on 'terror', or the stupid old opiate called the American Dream , for that matter. [sighs]
Comments are closed on this entry