Skip to comments.NYT Reports That Senators Are Working On A Fiscal Cliff Deal — And Paul Krugman Is Already Furious
Posted on 10/02/2012 6:47:57 AM PDT by blam
NYT Reports That Senators Are Working On A Fiscal Cliff Deal And Paul Krugman Is Already Furious
October 2, 2012, 4:47 AM
This sounds very hazy, but Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times says work has begun among some Senate leaders will hammer out a plan that would cut $4 trillion out of the deficit over 10 years, and avert the fiscal cliff/sequestration nightmare due to hit on January 1 of next year.
First, senators would come to an agreement on a deficit reduction target likely to be around $4 trillion over 10 years to be reached through revenue raised by an overhaul of the tax code, savings from changes to social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and cuts to federal programs. Once the framework is approved, lawmakers would vote on expedited instructions to relevant Congressional committees to draft the details over six months to a year.
If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obamas fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.
There are so many hurdles for something like this, including the tax issue, not to mention trying to craft something palatable to the House.
But at least it's worth noting that some form of the 'Grand Bargain' is being kicked around somewhere in Washington.
Meanwhile, Paul Krugman is already flipping out.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Jim DeMint will not allow this in a lame duck session.
The operation of a simple lever is post graduate science to the Krugfool.
Don’t know how he ever got into economics, because math is most certainly not his friend.
As for the Nobel-O-dork committee...it appears that all save for the science awards are now permanently beclowned.
And Plan B will involve a whole lot of tax increases.
This is precisely how they got the major defense cuts that are coming.
bet none suggest stoppoing spending
Raise our taxes and the Republican party is dead.
“to be reached through revenue raised by an overhaul of the tax code, savings from changes to social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and cuts to federal programs. Once the framework is approved, lawmakers would vote on expedited instructions to relevant Congressional committees to draft the details over six months to a year”.
I’m sorry, but the first item “revenue raised” is a non starter. Anyone who thinks giving more revenue to the ultimate revenuers who have spent us into oblivion with the revenue they already have access to is an absolute moron, or very wise to the ways of the electorate. How about we just see what can be done with the present level of revenue, or back it up about four years and start there.
Cutting $400 bil a year from the budget is like cutting soda from a household budget. Nice try, but it’s only a fraction of a fraction that needs to be cut.
As long as we have an EPA, we’re still spending too much.
A few things bother me here - one, the timing of this ‘plan’, the dearth of details regarding the senators involved, and the source.
He has already said so. At least twice. He said in July that he will do all he can to prevent a lame duck session. He said once the new Congress with a President Romney are in office, things will be ‘fixed’.
That is what *He* said, not me.
Krugman has been lying under the rock
As long as we have an Education Department, we're still spending too much.
Oh Hell, as long as we have [fill in your favorite bureaucracy], we're still spending too much.
$4 trillion over 10 years isn’t even back to pre-Obama levels
It is still far too much debt
Wouldn't it allow the can to be kicked down the road a little longer?
There was an amusing thread yesterday featuring the "10 worst debate mistakes" -- it went back as far as Gerald Ford and his statement that the USSR did not dominate Eastern Europe.
Well, two of the Top 10 came from Rick Perry. I'm not really picking on Rick, but they were pretty funny. His most amusing was when he tried to name the 3 US Departments that he would certainly eliminate. They were, "Education, Commerce, and ... uh, uh , uh ..." Eventually a bit of chuckling all around ensued. Someone yelled out "EPA?" and Perry laughed out loud and said "EPA! Right!" and then struggled some more but couldn't really complete his point.
At that point, a moderator said, "Just for clarity governor, is EPA the third department?" And Perry laughed again and said, "No, that isn't the one. I'll think of it later."
And right there we see the problem. We need to cut more than just 3 departments, and, yes, EPA is certainly one of them.