Posted on 11/28/2012 8:10:41 AM PST by Qbert
There are a large number of policies that make up the fiscal cliff: the expiration of the Bush-era income tax cuts, the end of a temporary payroll tax cut, budgetary caps on discretionary spending imposed by last year’s debt deal, a reduction in planned spending on defense as a result the sequestration process, the so-called “doc fix” which governs physician’s Medicare reimbursements. All of these policies are set to change automatically if Congress does nothing.
What won’t change automatically is the fundamental shape and structure of any of the country’s major entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Yet Republicans are hoping to negotiate changes to those programs as part of a fiscal cliff deal.
That’s a good thing, at least in theory, because entitlements—Medicare and Medicaid in particular—are the biggest drivers of the long term debt. And the sooner that Congress starts looking for ways to restrain them, the better.
Republicans have indicated that they might be willing to bargain: They’ll accept hikes in tax revenue in exchange for cuts or changes to entitlements. But the problem is that Republicans don’t seem clear about what they’re bargaining for. And the hints that they’ve been dropping about what sort of reforms they might accept in a trade suggest that they might be willing to give on taxes in exchange for not much in return.
Republicans have said they want “structural reforms” to Medicare, but haven’t said what, exactly, that might mean.
That’s a familiar dodge. Republican leaders supposedly seeking entitlement reform have spent the last few years saying they’re for it, in vague terms, without giving any real hints about what they might mean.
[Snip]
It often seems as if Republicans are for the idea of entitlement reform—but not for any specific plan to accomplish it.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
” Remember 1990. George H.W. Bush agreed to higher marginal tax rates, violating his election pledge “no new taxes.” The Congressional Democrats agreed to spending cuts. The tax rates went into force. The spending cuts did not occur. The economy went into recession. Bill Clinton then beat up Bush on the economy in 1992 to win reelection.
In 1982 Ronald Reagan agreed to increase some excise taxes. In return House Speaker O’Neill agreed to deliver $3 in spending decreases for every dollar of taxes raised. The taxes went into effect and the spending cuts never materialized.”
Obama will agree to cuts, and then spend twice as much as last time. Just watch.
Watch what happens when Democrat refusal to cut spending and entitlements results in Republicans avoiiding sequestration budget cuts by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for the promise of illusory future budget cuts.. Obama and the Democrats will then be pointing fingers and screaming that the tax increases are Bush’s fault.
Count on it!
” Even this author says SS+medicare are ‘long term drivers of national debt’ as Durbin did but he wont admit that both are adding to the national debt RIGHT now because the worthless trust fun is just gov IOUs to itself.
When will any reporter, even FNC, ask a member of congress or WH exactly where the current entitlement funding comes from, meaning where does the US Treasury get it to give to the trust funds?? “
Apparently never.
You mean there's a doubt?
Ha! Right on the money
Does a bear...
"The Democrats understand history as do the Republicans. If the Republicans give in on taxes, they should not expect spending cuts....Alternatively, they can agree to tax increases which will not be matched by spending cuts. Then, the economy will slow and within six month Obama will be demanding new spending programs to deal with the economy. If the Republicans refuse to sign onto the spending increases they will be portrayed as heartless and cruel.
From Obama’s perspective this is a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition.
I think as a practical matter- and psychological matter, as well- it's always best to tackle one's greatest fears. It may sound kind of general, but I think if Republicans confronted this possibility in advance- instead of perpetually ducking it, they could come up with sound arguments to convince the public.
And the real question is (especially in the short-term) why is skyrocketing spending actually harmful for the average voter? Reagan was able to make that case in plain terms that almost everybody could understand when they were sitting around the dinner table. I rarely hear Republicans talking about this these days (and talking it about it everyday for the low-information people).
IF past history is any indication... the answer is yes.
They will probably further negotiate for an even weaker military.
And will gladly sign on to more freebies for the freeloaders.
I thought that the deal is done. The super committee failed to come to agreement last year and the consequence will take place Jan 1st/2013. End of story. This pain is only the beginning anyway. We’re going to have to shrink before we can expand. This is as much about morality as it is about money. Overdue.
Count on the GOP to cave like you count on the sun to come up.
You are so correct. This corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" is a sham. All here know the outcome. That's why I'm done with the also sham fraud voting exercise. How about this - The Hildabeast & Jeb Bush as your choice in 4 yrs. It will be if that's what the elites want.
They’re still talking tough - time will tell...
Prediction: There issue will be dealt with by passing IMMEDIATE or even retroactive tax INCREASES and there will be promises of future spending cuts. The tax increases will be real and the spending cuts will never materialize. The Republicans will claim that they held tough on spending cuts (which of course they didn't, because they know better than any of us that here will NEVER be any cuts) and pass the arrogant ignorant narcissist's tax increases. Then they'll bleat "but they promisted to cut spending." The whole thing will be a cynical exercise in screwing the productive members of society by both parties.
Absolutely. That's what Republicans do. Democrats are the party of Principle= Marxist principle which negate all other principles- but they stay true to their Marxism. Republicans are compromisers and not terribly bright. Some individual Republicans adhere to principles until they become inconvenient. Republicans crave acceptance by the social elite which tends to be Marxist.
Yep. Don't protect them with half-measures anymore.. let them experience the entirety of their stated wishes. They wanted socialism... they GOT it. And everything that comes with it!
Does a wet noodle have more backbone than Boehner or McConnell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.