The Cat Food Commission Weighs In
Posted: November 10, 2010 Filed under: Team Obama, U.S. Economy 51 Comments
I’m going to read more about this in the next few days and I’ll write what I can glean from it when I do. Both of my daughters are visiting today so I’m not able to sit down and look things over.
Just wanted to pass on some links and comments coming from the President’s Panel on Spending. It looks like a mixed bag on the surface. Here’s some details from the NYT. Surprise! Surprise! Social Security is ON the table and cuts are suggested.
The plan would reduce projected Social Security benefits to most retirees in later decades — low-income people would get higher benefits — and slowly raise the retirement age for full benefits to 69 from 67, with a “hardship exemption” for people who physically cannot work past 62. And it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes, to ensure Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years.
The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees — low-income people would get a higher benefit — and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security’s solvency for at least the next 75 years.
But the plan would not count any savings from Social Security toward meeting the overall deficit-reduction goal set by Mr. Obama, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to balance the nation’s books.
Most appalling is the plan calls for taxes cuts. Here’s Krugman’s take on that.
OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.
I mean, what’s this about? There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.
The more I read, the more I can’t believe that this was a commission put together by a Democratic President. It’s horrid! Mankiw (Bush economist) thinks it’s great. DeLong joins Krugman with a big thumbs down. DeLong’s headline says it all: Yes, the Entitlement Commission Was an Unforced Error by the Obama Administration. Here’s some random comments as he kept reading the abomination.
At the time I asked why you would take a budget arsonist like Alan Simpson and give him a Fire Chief hat. I never got a good answer.
…
Oh my God! Ration city, here we come!
What clowns vetted this thing?
…
A 23% top marginal tax rate?
Hoo boy!
TPM-DC calls their presser “eye popping”.
Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending. They also encompass a range of tax system reforms that have been floated by many in Washington for years to little effect, including funding tax rates reductions by eliminating many beloved credits and deductions.
We don’t have a two party system any more. We have Republicans and Theocratic Republicans.
Who can come along and save us from people like these?
I’ve got some more updates from the currency wars and this thing to plow through. I’ll start more things tomorrow!!! Promise!!!
——————————————————————————————
Boston Boomer here with some more reactions to the Catfood Commission proposals:
Jane Hamsher has a quote from Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO:
The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare.
Some people are saying this is plan is just a “starting point.” Let me be clear, it is not.
This deficit talk reeks of rank hypocrisy: The very people who want to slash Social Security and Medicare spent this week clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.
What we need to be focusing on now is the jobs deficit. Working families already paid for Wall Street’s party that tanked our economy. If we actually want to address our economic problems, we need to end tax breaks that send American jobs overseas and invest in creating jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and green technologies.
The Hill talked to Bernie Sanders and other liberals
“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people,” Sanders said in a statement.
Sanders has been among a group of congressional liberals who have threatened to defeat the commission’s recommendations if it curtails Social Security benefits in any way. Sanders has said of the commission’s recommendations that Congress would “vote it down” if it touched on Social Security, and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), joined by 136 other House Democrats, has written to similarly warn the commission.
The proposals released on Wednesday, charged Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would only favor the wealthy.
“The path this plan would set is not good for the public. Congress should be having a realistic, productive conversation right now about how to reduce our budget deficit and maintain a secure retirement system for those who have earned it,” he said in a statement. “Instead, we’re debating a proposal from a commission dedicated to cutting crucial social programs and reducing corporate and upper-income taxes at the same time. This is not a recipe for a healthier American economy.”
We need to keep in mind that the co-chairs do not have support from the rest of the commission for these shock doctrine proposals. They also have no power to enact their sick proposals unless the President and Congress support them.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Republicans and Theocratic Republicans? . The first kind love shoveling money to faith based and think ” women’s choice” is a moral issue rather than a civil right. So, maybe “slightly less theocratic”? Or Republicans Light.
Ezra Klein: There is no deficit commission report
Well its at least hopeful that some folks Recognize it for which it is.
I knew it was gonna be bad when skeletor got the job as head of the commission. Didn’t really it would be this bad.
But isn’t that the way with all things Obama?
Skeletor. Good one. His face looks like a death mask.
I am puzzled that these folks don’t think we could cut 30% (or more) of our overseas military bases, or lift a finger against the warfare state.
Are you sure that things would have been worse if Social Security was our money to invest as we choose? We get money pulled out of our paychecks, matched by money our employers were willing to pay to hire us, and we are being treated like it’s some entitlement that we don’t deserve. An entitlement!!! Now we will see just how bad it can get?
Well that’s the answer right there, but ‘defense spending’ is even more of a third rail to congresscritters than social security. They know who pays their perks.
It’s so depressing. I need to find that last bag of Halloween candy.
Or move back to Britain.
Or Sweden.
The proposal includes cuts in defense spending, but that will never happen. They also want to make veterans pay more for their health care. They want to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction–I’m sure a lot of Congresspeople will want to vote for that (snark).
Its not an entitlement. Its a benefit we paid for.
Amen!
The SS obligations should be paid off, and then let the entire thing go.
very bad idea
Paid off at an accelerated schedule, perhaps, but the entire thing is just an income transfer. A shaky, Ponzi-esque income transfer with distinctly shady origins.
They’re all in bed with the managerial state and its wars.
This is a couple of days old but I would not want to pass up the opportunity for all of us to say together – WE TOLD YOU SO
Obama Was Used, And Is Now Used Up
by Robert Freeman
This is the final paragraph from the article:
“It’s hard to feel sorry for Barack Obama. When all the politics, posturing, posing and pontification are over, his party lost because he betrayed his base and they could not stomach voting for his people or his party again. He’s proven himself a duplicitous executive and a feckless “leader” who has “led” the Republicans to their biggest pick-up in the House in decades. Now he has to live with it. But the damage is incalculable. It will last for generations. It will be an embarrassment to watch him try to pretend to be effective the next two years, with everyone – himself included – knowing that he is used up. But he is. Good riddance.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/07
again – WE TOLD YOU SO
ROFLMAO!!
Harsh, but true!
The Repubs will get their comeuppance soon. I think the country is saying, ‘you all stink!’. But as soon as things get less troublesome economically, I bet the voters become complaiscent (sp) again.
Man the trash truck hasn’t even come around to collect the mid-terms lawn signs and
the knives are OUT …but watch those who dragged out the health care nightmare for two years try to ram this though in hyper speed… midnight votes and stuff done over the weekend…like the bail outs
Well the best thing that could happen to this country is if we have a basket of currencies as the global currency rather than the dollar. The military would not be deployed for strategic resources and the Americsn people wouldn’t be paying such heavy prices to keep Wall Street afloat for international reasons. Obviously Roosevelt didn’t have to consider international globalist implications when he invested in the infrastructure because the dollar wasn’t the Global currency at the time. Not until after WW2 did that occur. Americans are finding out you can’t have it both ways. They have to rob Peter to pay Paul. For a change to occur Americans need a healthy dose of nstionalism and trading agreements with teeth. When our banks profit more investing our dollars abroad it is time we brought the dollar home and let them speculate with a new currency.
Eat the Rich. Work until you’re 69? Yeah, let’s put the Congresscritters and the members of the Catfood Commission to work at something real. Some of those shovel-ready projects that Oblameless can’t seem to find. Let’s see how they like working until 69 without any plush medical care. Scum.
What would the effect of removing the mortgage interest deduction have on the foreclosure crisis?
What would the effect of raising the SS eligibility age have on the unemployment rate?
Who are these Catfood Commissioners and what are their yearly incomes and total assets?
Alan Simpson inherited wealth from his father and never did a lick of work in his life outside of politics as far as I know.
His dad was a piece of work, too, didn’t he vote against the Civil Rights Act when he was in the Senate?
As we take Obama to task for his failures I just want to remind everyone of his successes:
(1) Cash for Clunkers?
(2)
I’m thinking, thinking, thinking. Shot, can’t think of any more.
anyone?
anyone?
Uh….uh….uh….
Nope, can’t think of a thing.
He keeps his “date nights” with Michele. That has to be good for something.
Invention of the iReggie?
He got a dog! For his daughters! You all are just haters! /snark
Obama is in South Korea working hard for the Chamber of Commerce –
“The trade accord, an update of one the Bush administration negotiated and signed in 2007 and that has expired, has languished in the Democratic-controlled Congress. Mr. Obama, though, has thrown his weight behind it while calling for technical modifications that would be more favorable to American automakers and industrial unions. With Republicans soon to control the House of Representatives, some believe he will have a better chance of winning approval for the agreement.
Trade is a tough sell at home, especially during difficult economic times in hard-hit manufacturing communities, where workers tend to view trade pacts as drawing American jobs overseas. A survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found substantial skepticism about trade deals like Nafta and the policies of the World Trade Organization. The poll found that 35 percent of adults said free-trade agreements had been good for the United States, while 44 percent said they had been bad.
While most Americans say that increased trade with Canada, Japan and European Union countries — as well as India, Brazil and Mexico — would be good for the United States, reactions to increased trade with South Korea and China were mixed, according to the survey, which was conducted Nov. 4-7 among 1,255 adults. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus four percentage points. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who were aligned with the Tea Party movement had a particularly negative view of the impact of free-trade agreements. ”
Can you believe this?
“Many deficit commission staffers paid by outside groups
For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111006850.html?nav=hcmodule
No, I can’t. It boggles the mind.
I guess what makes me so gobsmacked is how blatant they are about how corrupt and corrupted they are. Is DC really that disconnected from the rest of us?
Heh, I know the answer already. It’s sickening.
We need to put some warning labels on the cat commission reports, kinda like they are proposing for cigarettes. Let’s get the visual on it.
Happy Veterans Day – Never forget.
Good idea!
In re Krugman on taxes, He might as well have said, “What are you gonna believe: my numbers, or your lyin’ eyes?”
The problem with taxes is that the vast majority of our taxes go to useless pigs, if you’ll pardon my honesty.
The problem with government is that an entirely new program is added on, and then historical memory is revised backwards to justify it. So that, for instance, no-one ever learned to read without the Dept of Education and NCLB, no art was ever created without the NEA and eternal copyrights, we were entirely defenseless without a bloated military structure, no-one could pay for healthcare without Medicare, and the “reforms” of the Progressive period were all started by “the people” and opposed by large corporations.
All of these hoary historical fables are demonstrably horse—-, but that’s less important in the same way that the historical validity of Genesis or the Aeneid isn’t really important. They provide a political mythology from which the modern American managerial and imperial state derives its legitimacy.
Now, of course, Krugman would never find that taxes are too high, nor would he ever find anything else to contradict the hoary corporate-liberal shibboleths that he specializes in selling to the public. Much like with the mysterious way in which reason always agrees with revelation in Thomist theology even if reason needs a bit of “convincing,” empirical reality always happens to agree with his preconceived notions. In the rare cases where he is stunningly and dramatically wrong, then the history can be conveniently swept under the rug. The housing bubble is a wonderful example. In the pages of the NYT, he insisted that he never (never ever ever) called for a housing bubble, and warned of it as early as 2005. These quotes seem to indicate otherwise: http://blog.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/
So what do we think of a “scientist” who, despite Platonic mathematical models, has a theory which “never touches on reality at any point,” and who, apparently, can’t predict his way out of a wet paper bag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Why hasn’t this guy been tarred and feathered yet?
Really, Ben, we go around on this a lot. You can’t really take down an entire body of theory without understanding it and studying it first. Just going to the Hayek Cafe and pulling out their screeds doesn’t count. You can’t even get published in any journal with any of that stuff which is why they had to come up with the Mises Institutes. There’s absolutely no data that backs any of their stuff up which is why they can’t get published. It doesn’t pass peer review. Friedman was as libertarian as an one and he got published cause he could prove things with data, as did Krugman with his areas of microeconomics and trade. You have to study economics to be able to critique it credibly.
If I tell you that the sun is going to rise in the west, am I any less wrong because I had data for it?
Do you have data for the sun rising in the west?
Isn’t this a straw man argument?
Well, imagine if instead of telling you that the sun was going to rise in the west, I instead told you that after a certain date, there would never, ever be any significant problems with the financial system ever again.
Or imagine if I told you that my mathematically-derived powers of prediction indicated that the best response to tech stocks going south was to create a housing boom to replace them, and also told you that I had some meaningful ability to predict future events based on the patterns discovered in past events.
You’ll notice that I never actually mentioned anything specifically relating to economic theory. I refrained from doing that for a reason. Every word of what I said can be backed up because I purposefully stuck to history and public policy issues. You’ll notice that I never said that “Krugman is wrong because of issues x, y, and z that I obviously don’t have a good handle on.” Rather, and this is quite a rather, I said that Krugman is wrong because he said something obviously, painfully wrong. Something so wrong as to cast into doubt the ability of his theories in this particular area to have any meaningful relationship to reality.
No, I noticed all that and appreciate it. But it’s a bit of dancing around the major criticism don’t you think?
Not terribly much so. If I can reasonably comprehend what is supposed to happen, and also comprehend that that does not, in fact, happen, then understanding the actual content of the argument is less than necessary.
For instance, I can do without reading Marx to understand that his historical theory is empirically false. I can do without reading Aquinas to understand that his arguments against use of sex for purposes other than reproduction would also militate against use of my nose for purposes other than breathing, such as eyeglasses.
Basically, if I’m told something that is obviously and demonstrably false, then not knowing why it is false does not prevent knowing that it is false.
actually, you could do with some reading of both marx and lenin right now, because what’s going on right now fits their theses to a t which is mildly frightening to say the least. You can’t accept that what others discuss is going to be the correct interpretation. You might as well stick to watching Pat Robertson’s interpretation of Christianity and believing every word he says is true …
I’m sticking with Kolko and Domhoff. 😉
At least I never say stuff like this:
“Any election that has Democrat party members running is [a] farce. These traitors to our nation’s Godly heritage are robbing us blind through taxation and imposing Sharia law upon us.
Enjoy what’s left of your ‘freedom’ while it lasts!”
I understand that there is an update version (or several) of Domhoff’s _Who Rules America?_ Quite a good book. Along with Kolko’s famous _Triumph of Conservatism_ and less-famous _Railroads and Regulation_, they make for rather informative reading.
Read them years ago. I’m an old lady remember? I went through an Ayn Rand phase in high school.
I have as much difficulty believing that you’re old as I do believing that my mother had a childhood. :-p
I’m a year older than Lama, you know.
Age is just a number!
I’ve never actually read much of anything by Rand. Maybe a total of two-dozen pages. Having first read Nietzsche, my tendency has always been to oppose the existence of politics in any way, shape, or form as destructive to everything halfway decent (other than good quotes from Edwin Edwards.)