McConnell laughs at Obama's fiscal cliff plan

[Sbane]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

[Sbane]

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work.

But Democrats aren't "sticking their necks out" by proposing tax hikes--they ran promising to do it, and they won.  Similarly, Republicans aren't "sticking their necks out" to propose entitlement cuts, since that's precisely what they have told their constituents needs to be done.  No deal can be reached if all that's put on the table are all-or-nothing plans, and the Pubs will have a surprisingly easy time making a case for the midterms if taxes go up on everyone on January 1st, so the parties still have one another over a barrel.   And I don't think mere gamesmanship makes going over the fiscal cliff "worth it."  The across-the-board tax hikes and their large-scale immediate economic consequences aside, on the other side of January 1st, the trigger will also be pulled on a huge amount of discretionary cuts that would decimate lots of necessary public services.  If a second-term president doesn't have any room not just to do what makes his own party cheer, but what's best for the country as a whole, then what's the point of having a second term?     

Have the Republican proposed any entitlement cuts? I don't mean just rhetoric, but actually putting down something on paper? Obama and the Democrats have done that with tax hikes but have the Republicans proposed anything?

[Sbane]

I don't know what the GOP proposal said, so I'm not sure.  I suppose some variation of what they put out in 2011, but I don't know.  Anyway, I'm not in charge of anything, just throwing my lonely opinion out there.

Look, I agree that a deal based more on tax reform than rate hikes is better, but the Republicans must be the ones proposing entitlement cuts. You have to realize that a good part of the Republican base (and old, white independents) don't want medicare cuts and instead wants cuts to spending that does not exist.

[Sbane]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

Obama wants to make sure all the people who voted for him stay engaged and keep pressuring their congressmen and Senators. The Republicans did this during Obamacare. Instead of working with Obama, they went out on the road and fired up the masses into a frenzy. I'm not saying he shouldn't work with the Republicans, but he realizes getting a better deal requires keeping his base engaged.

The Republicans never say they want to cut Medicare or social security. They only say they want to cut "entitlements". Hmm...let them spell out what they want. Some Republicans have of course, but the Republicans should not be able to pin cutting Medicare on Obama (and yes the inverse is true too).

[Sbane]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

Obama wants to make sure all the people who voted for him stay engaged and keep pressuring their congressmen and Senators. The Republicans did this during Obamacare. Instead of working with Obama, they went out on the road and fired up the masses into a frenzy. I'm not saying he shouldn't work with the Republicans, but he realizes getting a better deal requires keeping his base engaged.

The Republicans never say they want to cut Medicare or social security. They only say they want to cut "entitlements". Hmm...let them spell out what they want. Some Republicans have of course, but the Republicans should not be able to pin cutting Medicare on Obama (and yes the inverse is true too).

The Healthcare Legislation only the Dem Base likes it. The Dems wanted to work with the Republicans on "Obamacare"? No they didn't. The Dems just ram rodded it through with 51 votes in the US Senate and special deals for states.

Just have a speech on late night TV if you want people to get behind you instead of campaiging.

Cutting Medicare? Who cares its always a game of "gotcha" of who cut Medicare or who is gonna cut Medicare. Its all a big game. Everybody knows the program has to be reformed one way or another. I agree though one party shouldn't pin cutting medicare on one party or the other though. Thats why I say its just a big game.

My point was that Republicans gained leverage on Obamacare by going out there and campaigning so as to pressure moderate Democrats in Republican leaning districts. Obama is now doing the same with the fiscal cliff. He has a more popular position and he is using it to get the maximum on taxes. At least he has also signaled he is willing to go along with entitlement cuts, whereas the Republicans were willing to go along with basically nothing with regard to healthcare. And something needed to be done, as the status quo was not working.

I think with Medicare perhaps both parties need to come out at once and propose cuts, if the Republicans are too scared to go out on their own and do it. In which case the Republicans won't get much cuts at all. Tax hikes aren't popular either, but the Democrats have proposed something.

There are two problems here, one is that a lot of the Republican base is convinced that the deficit is the result of Obama increasing spending on black people, and the other is that a lot of people think Medicare will somehow survive without middle class tax hikes. It's a goddamn mess.

If I was dictator, I would institute means testing for those making more than 30k a year in retirement. Make them pay higher premiums and copays. And I would also cut back on the COLA in Social security. I am not a fan of raising the eligibility age, beyond what it is already scheduled. To get to $4 Trillion, get rid of the Bush tax cuts down to whatever income level is necessary to get to $4 Trillion in savings. Perhaps institute a Milionaire's tax and a minimum tax on all income above a Million dollars to get the wealthy investors like Warren Buffet to pay more.  And reduce military spending by at least 10-20%.

[Sbane]

Obama won't get everything he wants! Come on now, don't be silly. He just proposed that as a starting point. Why don't the Republicans come out with their maximalist position on entitlement cuts? Oh, that's right, because their own base doesn't understand what entitlement cuts mean.

In any case, the stunt you proposed won't work. Republicans should try it though. It will turn even the business community against them.

Also even from your post the numbers are becoming clear, aren't they? $1.2 Trillion in tax hikes and some unknown amount in entitlement cuts (probably using the framework Bob Corker outlined which I used above as well). I think something like this framework will occur. The powers that be want it to happen so it will.

[Sbane]

Obama won't get everything he wants! Come on now, don't be silly. He just proposed that as a starting point. Why don't the Republicans come out with their maximalist position on entitlement cuts? Oh, that's right, because their own base doesn't understand what entitlement cuts mean.

In any case, the stunt you proposed won't work. Republicans should try it though. It will turn even the business community against them.

Also even from your post the numbers are becoming clear, aren't they? $1.2 Trillion in tax hikes and some unknown amount in entitlement cuts (probably using the framework Bob Corker outlined which I used above as well). I think something like this framework will occur. The powers that be want it to happen so it will.

Oh, Obama will fold rather than have 30% of the government shut down. And I don't see why that would be bad for business actually, at least in the short term.

It obviously is bad for business, or you wouldn't see this frenzy about the fiscal cliff, with the stock market going up and down based on what some two bit congressman said. 30% reduction in government spending is even more drastic than the fiscal "cliff".

[Sbane]

Obama won't get everything he wants! Come on now, don't be silly. He just proposed that as a starting point. Why don't the Republicans come out with their maximalist position on entitlement cuts? Oh, that's right. Because their own base doesn't understand what entitlement cuts mean.

And I wish they would push converting Medicare into an HMO based system, where everyone gets private insurance paid for by the government, but only paid for up to the HMO rate based on competitive bidding for a given level of coverage, with maybe a means tested copay. And I wish they would do that so it affects me. But yes, I know, I'm daydreaming now. My ideas are just too sensible to have a prayer. We prefer doing things the way the dumbs do it. We're pathetic really. 

I would not support fragmenting the system further. Insurance is such a mess to deal with already, and leads to lower productivity for health care workers.

Medicare gets the lowest rates from providers due to their purchasing power. That MUST not be diminished.

[Sbane]

This should not be viewed as an ideological issue IMO. It is a pragmatic issue. How does the government get the most bang for its buck, without being ripped off?  I assume The Left does not oppose that does it?

Fragmenting Medicare will lead to less purchasing power for Medicare, meaning higher costs. This is not an ideological issue, but just fact. And makes perfect sense if you think about the economics.

[Sbane]

Ok, maybe I am not getting how the HMO premium support system would work, but how exactly would it reduce costs in the system? Would it be quite different from the current Medicare Part D free for all? Would only one company be getting Medicare dollars? Because otherwise Hospitals will push them around like they do other insurance companies. Only Medicare can call the shots, because they control such a huge part of their patient population.

[Sbane]

Ok, maybe I am not getting how the HMO premium support system would work, but how exactly would it reduce costs in the system? Would it be quite different from the current Medicare Part D free for all? Would only one company be getting Medicare dollars? Because otherwise Hospitals will push them around like they do other insurance companies. Only Medicare can call the shots, because they control such a huge part of their patient population.

The HMO system removes the incentive to over prescribe and over-treat. With the government just paying the bills that are sent in, it can generate an MD feeding frenzy - and does.

Oh, I completely understand this (and Anvi, I did read your post and you make the same argument). I agree with both of you. But we need to stop this while not diminishing the power of Medicare to get lower rates from providers. We need to switch to a Bismarck model ASAP, with competition between a few extremely large insurance companies for customers. Everyone gets thrown into the same mix, and everyone needs to have insurance. There are subsidies for the olds (like currently) and the poor (and middle class with kids), while the rest of us pay out of pocket. This is paid for by payroll taxes, so companies have some skin in the game, while not being responsible to pay premiums which rise every year.

[Sbane]

If Obamacare intended to cut the costs of entitlements, in this case medical services, then it is even more of a massive failure than I thought. We just have different views of history I guess. But having said that, yes the Pubs demagogued the issue. And to the extent Obamacare really leads to death panels, that is one of its few virtues actually. Trying to cleanse the most soiled hands of either party on this issue set, is even more futile than cleansing Lady Macbeth's damn spot from her sanguinary hand.

The death panels, was a panel that would look at different hospital and health systems and see what practices reduced costs. They would not be able to take into account drugs and treatments iirc. Then using the power of Medicare and Medicaid, they would institute those best practices nationwide, like Reagan did with DRG's. It wasn't really a cut to Medicare or Medicaid, just an estimate of what could happen.

So it wasn't really a cut, but Republicans demagogued on the issue and flipped places like the TVA counties here in Tennessee. Can you really blame Democrats for not proposing cuts to entitlements in this sort of environment?