Update on Federal Debt Negotiations
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-11/update-federal-debt-negotiations
Negotiations in Washington over the debt ceiling have reached another stalemate. President Obama and top Congressional leaders met at the White House last night. But they still remain far apart on the details of a deal. Saturday night, those talks hit a roadblock. House Speaker John Boehner abandoned efforts to reach a $4 trillion long-term plan. He blamed Democrats for insisting on higher taxes. Democrats say raising revenue must be part of a deal. As the debt ceiling deadline of August 2nd draws closer, President Obama and top party leaders will meet again this afternoon. Diane and her guests discuss the high stakes negotiations and the prospects for a deal.
Guests
Charlie Cook
editor and publisher of the "Cook Political Report"
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor, Bloomberg News.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
What is it with GOP?
They've been advocating Borrowing and Spending like drunken sailors for 30 years now. Didn’t happen to notice the debt?
Didn’t hear much of a wimper the 7 times W raised ceiling? Is it okay to be fiscally irresponsible all that time just as long GOP is doing the spending? Didn’t think boomers would retire? Did they finally get around to looking up word conservative or something? Surely they haven't given up on concept of doing all in their power to funnel all nations resources to a priviliged few?
Why the sudden change of heart? Go figure.
Did they just lately figure out after 50 years or so it’s really not that Conservative to got to War just because we can, as well?
What’s next?
Are they going to notice all the catastrophic world-wide weather incidents and suspect man-influenced climate change might be suspect?
No- now I’m really going out on a limb.
I cringe every time commentators (and government officials) talk about "defaulting on our debt" if the debt limit is not raised because this creates the impression that this is primarily a concern of the bond market. Not lifting the debt limit means that we do not have the cash to meet ANY of our expenditure obligations in full, including civilian and military wages, social security, medicare, and a multitude of other federal obligations. If no agreement is reached within the next week, President Obama should make clear that as of August 2, he will order that all of these obligations will only receive 70 cents on the dollar (or whatever the appropriate ratio) unitl the debt limit is raised. That would get everyone's attention!
I have been listening to all the conversations over the last years saying that it we eliminate the tax breaks "W" put in place that jobs would be lost. I also wasn't happy when the president bowed to the GOP and let the tax breaks continue. Now the GOP is still saying that if we remove the tax breaks it will cause less jobs creation. My question is, "Where are all the jobs they said would become available by leaving the tax breaks in place today?" It seems no one is asking that question. I say remove the tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, give more help to the lower and middle class so they can boost our economy. Giving more money to the rich has never shown the promised results that the GOP is championing. It is so sad that this great country of ours cannot seem to get elected officials that know how to sit down at a table and have meaningful dialogue unless there is the threat of total economic failure. Both sides need to grow up, suck in their gut and NEGOTIATE, or is that a bad word in Washington now? I am a recently laid off (January 27th, 2011) engineer who cannot seem to find work because I am too old (of excuse me there is NO age discrimination in America) or expect too much money. No one has yet talked with me to find out what I really desire.
Hello Pancho Costanza:
The rich are already paying their fair share. Drew sounds like a broke record. He has posted the exact same statements verbatim in earlier posts. All talk no kind of proof to back it up. Economic History for him always starts in the 80's
What we really need to do is cut spending. Let the non-profits, churches, individuals, take up the slack for some of these social programs. Does that sound mean spirted? Tough, because government has spent trillions of dollars since the mid 1960's on all these anti poverty programs only to see more people in the doles and yet Obama wants to further create an enabling society.
I hope Republicans have the "juevos" to stick to their guns.
Drew, have a great beginning week.
If the Bush Tax cuts (Obama Tax cuts) were to end- for everyone including me- it would cut the deficit by $3.8 Trillion over ten years.
There are easy solutions to our problems- they just include raising taxes by a couple of percentage points. If we lifted the FICA cap, taxed capital gains at a higher rate (instead of 15%?) and stopped going to war every year we would be fine.
I make much less than $250,000 / yr. - even with my wife's income added to mine. My taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for the policies of the republicans and democrats. That is fine. But I will not support the gutting of the ONLY program that helps me directly (and for which I PAY for) Social Security.
I no longer listen to anyone who calls a program which I pay for an 'entitlement' it is a benefit- and I paid for it. If I don't have Social Security I will have to cut my spending even more than I already do- which means wealthy people will lose another customer.
BTW- we pay for everyone's healthcare- whether by Medicare/Medicaid or simply taking care of people when they go to the Emergency Room. Scrapping programs which have existed for decades is not responsible- it is radical.
Larry Seale wrote:
I cringe every time commentators (and government officials) talk about "defaulting on our debt" if the debt limit is not raised because this creates the impression that this is primarily a concern of the bond market. Not lifting the debt limit means that we do not have the cash to meet ANY of our expenditure obligations in full, including civilian and military wages, social security, medicare, and a multitude of other federal obligations. If no agreement is reached within the next week, President Obama should make clear that as of August 2, he will order that all of these obligations will only receive 70 cents on the dollar (or whatever the appropriate ratio) unitl the debt limit is raised. That would get everyone's attention!
So then Obama raises the debt limit and we find ourselves in the same situation in a couple of years agains, increasing the debt further.
It has been mentioned that with a 14 trillion dollar debt, $1 bills could be stacked one on the of the other and it would reach the moon or something like that.
Enough is Enough
10 years of tax breaks, especially for the wealthy; 10 years of war; decades of deregulation have brought us to this point. The Republicans don't have a solution, they just want more. Their solutions aren't valid - no taxes, cuts to the lower and middle class.
One must come to the conclusion that the Republicans want the recession to continue in an effort to unseat Obama.
I am alright with a default. The poor and unemployed have nothing to lose. The rich have not lost anything in this recession- they actually have come out ahead- and maybe a default is the only way they will suffer.
I am a profitable employee for the company I work for- they make three dollars for every dollar they pay me. They have had record profits the last three years but they no longer give raises (even COLA). They actually laid-off a lot of people, making me work longer for less, and making even more money by doing so.
It is time for the non-working-rich in this country to suffer too. I think the President should walk away from the table and allow Congress to do its job (or not). I want a default so the rich will suffer mightily.
We must face the fact that our economy rewards the rich for hurting society.
The problem with Social Security is that people are actually living long enough to use it.
If that statement is a true reflection of our 'leaders' position then there is no hope- all of our leaders are sociopaths.
We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. Confiscating workers' earnings is not the answer.
hainc,
Workers pay taxes. It is companies, and their Boards and corporate leaders, that do not.
First of all, $250,000 is not alot of money. See what $250,000 in making a living will be like in the NE or the left coast in California with all the taxes that have to be paid on it. M D's are lucky to get this kind of money for the schooling they go to. No wonder most do not take Medicare and Medicaid. 45% in Texas
What to say that 3.8 trillion saving will not be used for some other gov social program. The great one Obama has already brought up the "benefits" of government sponsored day care.
As for SS, let me take that money that I am forced to put in and give me the opportunity or choice to put it in my personal account even if it is a private money market account earning next to 0.
When your panelist talks about how dire the future of Social Security is he always jumps to Medicare. Which is in dire straights? I keep hearing about how bad Social Security is because Medicare is going broke.
They are different programs. Social Security is fine. Lift the cap on contributions and it will be fine in perpetuity.
Medicare has problems- but when you panelist (intentionally?) equates the two he is doing a disservice to your listeners.
Ms. Rehm- I just heard you refer to special tax breaks for millionaires/billionaires, and corporate welfare to oil companies, as 'benefits.' How are tax giveaways to the wealthy benefits but the promises of Social Security (which people paid for) entitlements? Your show is really starting to disgust me. Can you, possibly, have someone on your show who is not a shill for the democrat/republican brands? You know- an independent expert?
Will T26
Corpoarate leader and Board member who make income pay taxes , because taxes are based on income. They pay some of largest personal income taxes. You know the top 1% that pay 38% of all Federal taxes.
WillT26 wrote:
The problem with Social Security is that people are actually living long enough to use it.
But many more people that are put into the system that have not contributed to it. Not any different than Medicare and Medicaid, more people put into the system that have not paid into it.
When negotiations do not include comprise the nation will become a dictatorship not a democracy.
I ask again, how does cutting taxes for the wealthiest few create jobs? Since these tax cuts were implemented millions of jobs have been lost, not created.
Back in the 1970's that ax codes were revamped and were fair. Since then congress has given so many loopholes that the higher income people - and corporations - pay little to no taxes.
Blame does not solve problems, neither does sticking one's head in the sand.
Fact is when debt is too great the answer is to decrease spending AND increase income.
I have rich brothers and a poor sister, and I am middle class whose job disappeared in the Great Recession. I now work two part time jobs for 1/3 less wage than 2007. I am 62 and willing to work till I am 60, though my SocSec retirement age in 66.
My brothers say that, if the decifit is truly 'a greater threat to our nation's security than terrorism' then they are willing to pay more taxes to fight that threat.
My 40 year old daughter says she plans to live to be a hundred, so a retirement age of 80 is not unreasonable to her.
Get on with the compromises!
A question: In reference to Social Security and Medicare. Why do we have to beg for something we paid in to all our lives? We were forced to pay in, we had no choice. Now we have to beg for what we were guaranteed.
Hi, this is Alex from Ann Arbor. What would happen if say the Treasury printed $3 trillion dollars and used them to buy back part of the debt?
The president has failed to articulate and advance the progressive moral and policy agenda. On moral grounds, he ought to be talking about taxation as a moral opportunity to provide civilization to an exceptional nation. On policy, he ought to be offering cooperative solutions to the problems with Medicare, like cooperatively purchasing prescription drugs and controlling costs through outcome based measures of performance.
WillT26 wrote:
I am alright with a default. The poor and unemployed have nothing to lose. The rich have not lost anything in this recession- they actually have come out ahead- and maybe a default is the only way they will suffer.
But there is a flip side, many of the middle class or poor that have 401k or IRA have seen their portfollios go up with the stock mkt raising. 70% of US worker have company sponsored retirement accounts.
"We must face the fact that our economy rewards the rich for hurting society."
Our economy rewards the hard worker, it is government that destroys the hard worker by taxing and regulation.
Republicans doubled the debt, over eight years, and leave a $1.1 trillion per year ongoing deficit and now they refuse to take responsibility for their action. Every person, regardless of party, who votes against increasing the debt limit needs to be impeached because they are the problem with the two party system. The only real solution to America's problems is a centrist oriented independent party which is willing to be reasonable.
Alex
Cleveland, Ohio
listener/member of WCPN
When poor people have a bit of extra money, they are more likely to spend it than when rich people have a bit of extra money. So for stimulating the economy, I'd suggest cutting low income people's taxes. Bang for buck.
Mountainwomon wrote:
I ask again, how does cutting taxes for the wealthiest few create jobs? Since these tax cuts were implemented millions of jobs have been lost, not created.
Ask Bill Clinton. He cut the 1% wealth tax during the budget debate of 1993 that Bush I inposed in 1992 and many in the left give Clinton credit for creating 22 million jobs.
Does that answer your question mountain womon.
I am 70 years old. Knowing how our government works, I see delusionary thinking in the attempts to solve problems. Social Security and Medicare is the bone of contention to take out of joint.
Here is what I am sure about. If there were no Social Security and Medicare, the US would still be in the same financial debacle today. Or another view would be, even if they drastically reduce SS & Medicare, in a few years we will be at the doors of another financial disaster. Anyone of moderate intelligence knows this. Our government spends money as if they were printing it. --- Attempt at pathetic humor.
I think that all of congress needs to look back at the Federalist Papers and see what principles this country was founded on and act accordingly. The Federal government is bloated and way too large. Under the recent administrations has gotten even larger. The reality is that we need to cut but we have to do so logically and over time. Right now we have an immediate need to balance the budget and if that means that the rich lose some tax breaks than so be it. We also really need to look at severely cutting back on the IRS and our stupid tax code. Simplify things, get to a more flat tax and get rid of write offs. Mostly the government needs to go on a diet and stop coming up with new ways of spending money and creating red tape. We, as individuals, need to take care of ourselves and stop looking to the government for a free hand out. Social spending needs to be temporary in nature, not permanent.
I am 26 now and was part of the wave of young progressives who helped vote in Obama in '08. I remain committed to focus on personal liberties and environmental issues held by that group, but I have never been convinced that entitlements are very important to me. The growing concern over the deficit has further diminished my opinion of them. Considering I have at least another forty if not fifty years to work before I could benefit from them personally, I am not confident they will even be in place by then.
To sum up I am all for cutting a deal on both sides in order to take care of this problem.
-Cameron
One point that seems to be overlooked in the recent discussion is that we are currently seeing an underfunded government at the state and local level, resulting in thousands of job losses (as seen in the last jobs report).
How does the argument for a smaller government continue to gain traction as we see the pain being felt at the local level, as an indirect result of an under funded public sector?
Diane:
I am disabled and am grateful to receive help from taxpayers. After two years of no COLA increase — living on less than $850 a month — it is a humbling, simple life. That has its spiritual benefits; however, I also ache for others. It feels as if we are the target of an economic manipulation of a "Survival of the fitte$t" Do the financial powers understand that we spend our meager benefits ("welfare" - that ugly word of many judgmental connotations) to live? That we put into the hands of small businesses our money?
As a Mennonite (Fairfield Mennonite Church, Diane... ; ) ) I see the USA as very un-Jesus-like, for all the claims of being a Christian nation. Over 1,000 times the bible repeats we are to take care of the "poor, widowed, orphaned, sick, thirsty, hungry, -- and the indebted and foreigner"!
Peace,
Bonnie
Gettysburg, PA