President Obama's New Deficit-Reduction Plan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-20/president-obamas-new-deficit-reduction-plan
President Obama unveiled a new long-term deficit reduction plan yesterday. It calls for new taxes on the wealthiest Americans. And it seeks to eliminate tax loopholes for the biggest corporations. The president said it will cut the deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next decade. Republicans - opposed to any new taxes - immediately attacked the proposal. Analysts say the president's sharply drawn battle lines could make it harder for the congressional super-committee. The bipartisan group is tasked with reaching a deficit-cutting deal by Thanksgiving. Diane and her guests will talk about what's in the plan and how it's being received in Congress and the country.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthor of "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
Isabel Sawhill
senior fellow, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution.
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Congressman Phil Gingrey
Republican, 11th District, Georgia.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
We should look at how we got into the deficit problem. When President Bush and Mr. Chaney were in office, the general belief that was stated was that deficites do not matter. Later on Mr. Bush got us involved in the war in Iraq and tax breaks to the rich were passed by the congress. I believe correcting those items would put us on the right track.
People who argue so voraciously against their own working class interests remind me of chihuahuas barking bugeyed. Do they expect to be big someday?
Blindness to the effects of power causes worship of the wealthy. We have all been mortified by the little dog hovering beneath the big dog's tail. "Old Bigboy eats the 'good kind' ", they whisper, "and if I lick up to him I will get his trickle down." Unfortunately for those kind people are not dogs, and only a few of lesser intellect and no empathy prefer a dog eat dog world. Obama has finally understood dog obedience school does not work for humans. He has seen Egypt, and Syria, and Yemen; and Bolivia, Chile and Brazil; and maybe even Palestine and understands that those who do the gardening deserve some of the produce.
tea pary man--You still think my grandchildren would be better off in 1860? Are you getting your candidates to sign that pledge> Just letting you know how much esteem i hold your imbecilic rant. None.
FICA contributions are NOT taxes, they are employee contributions to benefit plans for employees.
The reference to payroll TAXES is deceptive at best, although more often arising from ignorance than dishonesty.
Taxes pay for transitory services - police, fire, defense, regulation of industry and commerce, etc.
Taxes are not to secure any promise of future benefit earned by virtue of current employment, in sharp contrast to the FCIA contributions collected based on earnings for that employment.
FICA contributions DO acquire claims to future benefits. The rules and features of those benefits are not significantly different from private employer benefits. Social Security benefits are "population" benefits and the eligibility to receive those benefits depends on a balance between the people working to provide goods and services necessary to provide quality of life where private employer benefits are hard wired to the ability of the employer to pay for them.
I don't see anyone tlaking about one of the roots of the problem. China.
Under valuation of the yuan gives chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage against US and EU manufacturers.
Its time to increase import tarriffs to raise revenue and shelter US industry from Chinese Gov't intervention
I do not understand:
FIRST:
I hear news items about 1) people who earn more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes and 2) increasing the taxes on businesses will stifle employment and the growth of businesses
SECOND:
I would think that if a person owns a business, then the more the business spends on new materials and employees, the less the person who owns the business makes and therefor the less they pay in taxes
THIRD:
The terms “tax”, “tax rate” and similar terms seem to used interchangeably
I assume that I donot understand how the tax laws work with respect to “small business”.
I suggest a change to the tax laws that 1) define the income of a business owner where the owner's income is defined as business “income” minus “spending on materials and employees” and 2) there is a 'simple' definition of “small business” and NO lower limit on a company's “income” that defines it as a “small business” and 3) please, tighten up the definitions and/or the reporting of the terms “tax”, “tax rate” and so on (in a related issue – change all absolute numbers into percentages – speak only of tax rates as a percentage of income and change the 62 year retirement age in Social Security a number that is related to the actuarial tables used by insurances companies (Is that where the original Social Security Act got the number 62? - sorry to throw in a misconception about another issue BUT they are related....).
pisces62 wrote, "I am getting tired of the bigots, too. It is the health Reform Act, not Obamacare."
pisces you are a bigot! anyway it's "The Affordable Care Act" It can rightly be called "Obamacare" because it is his signature piece of legislation, he owns it.
The millionaire from Rochester NY should be more concerned with NY State death taxes. They are very large.
True tax reform will only happen when people realize how much or little they pay in taxes. Those of us who write quarterly checks to the IRS are much more award of our taxes than employees whose taxes are deducted from their paychecks. Employees never see this money and often do not realize exactly how much they pay. A real tax revolution would happen if everyone had to write a check for their own taxes.
Hey, the wealthy need that money they get in tax breaks to invest in one of the largest drivers of the economy... the government. Even Warren Buffet talked about how he was going to invest to get solid returns in US Treasuries with the money he didn't have to pay in taxes.
Yes, US Bonds are a great source of wealth. And we non-wealthy should just shut up and continue to pay the wealthy interest on their very kind loans to our government. How dare Obama ask them to give that money in taxes instead of loaning it to the government. Shame.
Let us thank the wealthy for their largess (or was that largeness). Anyway, I feel happy that the government helps pay them dividends. Perhaps if we want a tax break too, we should be willing like the rich to lend the government money to cover those tax breaks too.
Praise the rich,
Daniel
Agreed!!!
I have always been a staunch proponent for social benefits like welfare and unemployment taxes. However, my current experiences as a hiring manager in a small business, as well as the owner of several small businesses with my husband, is that we can't find people to take jobs that we have available. When I have found potential candidates, a large percentage have only wanted the job if I was willing to delay paying them until unemployment and other benefits to run out. I suddenly find myself of the belief that these programs are preventing the job numbers from improving!
A note, the jobs I have are not complex.
I have always been a staunch proponent for social benefits like welfare and unemployment taxes. However, my current experiences as a hiring manager in a small business, as well as the owner of several small businesses with my husband, is that we can't find people to take jobs that we have available. When I have found potential candidates, a large percentage have only wanted the job if I was willing to delay paying them until unemployment and other benefits to run out. I suddenly find myself of the belief that these programs are preventing the job numbers from improving!
A note, the jobs I have are not complex.
Does anyone know what that flute music was that played during the break at around 9:20 this morning? I've heard it several times and love it but can't find what it is? Thanks.
Lay off pices62 monte. You are a pot calling a kettle. Not too many days ago you admitted on this commentary that you were indeed a racist without shame.
Those who "high five" with monte are bigoted racists by association. There is a "hooded gang" on this site threatening those who express empathy. What is wrong with this picture, Diane Rehm? Maybe we need to tax hate speech.
I suggest you change both your moniker and your attitude, monte and friends, and please do some reading up on genuine conservative principles before you parrot hatemongers again. You're causing Frederick von Hayek to turn in his grave. He understood that serfdom could be arrived at by more than one direction. He even recommended state supported health insurance and a socioeconomic floor. This reminded me of Congressman Paul shamed the other night by extremists yelling,"Let him die! Let him die!" when that is something Ron Paul would never support. Dr. Paul and I could agree on this chant, "Let hatred die."
Some think the rich should not pay more in taxes. I think they missed the whole concept of a society. Our society has been deliberately structured so that some people receive outsized benefits and others receive almost nothing. Those who receive more should pay more -- if you go out to dinner, wouldn't you expect to pay more at a fancy French restaurant than at McDonalds? They should pay more to support our society because they get more.
A caller mentioned that the poor receive more gov't benefits, but is that actually true? The rich rely on our patents and courts to protect their intellectual property. Those with private planes utilize our air traffic control system. They get top-of-the line treatment at our health systems (whose providers are educated and trained by govt-funded programs; drugs are developed by govt-funded research and approved for safety by the FDA). Those who own agribusiness and large corporations rely on all kinds of corporate welfare and govt contracts, as well as our schools that educate and train their workers and programs that support workers when the business won't (like Medicaid insurance for workers at WalMart). Then the govt cleans up after the corporations and agribusinesses when they pollute our land and air and water. etc. etc.
The poor pay sales taxes, property taxes (which landlords include in the rent), gas taxes (included in the bus rate), phone taxes, etc. As a proportion of their income, the poorest Americans pay MORE taxes than the wealthiest. (Actual dollars paid are less, bcs you're comparing someone who earns $10,000/yr to someone who earns $100 million) And they pay way, way more for basic things like car insurance, check cashing, food, and other necessities that the rest of us take for granted.
We ALL benefit from living together in our society. A handful benefit far, far more than the rest of us, and a growing number benefits much less. It's fair to ask those who get more to pay more.
Kelly,
That is a typical bleeding heart answer. Fairness, really, really. Not going to win any arguments with fairness or facts. Let's get real.
We depend on the wealthy. More than paying taxes, they invest billions in our government. Sure we could take the money they invest in US, state and municipal bonds and just take it in taxes, but then they wouldn't have the rock solid AAA/AA investment tools.
Hey, and some of the that money trickles down as charity. We need to work harder at lower wages so the wealthy can invest more. And we should not demand that our government protect us--are you crazy-- from poverty in our old age or checking our drugs and food. Smart people don't need that, they make the decision to be wealthy. You should too if you care.
As Tiffany Inc. once said, our country needs more millionaires. And if we tax instead of borrowing from them, tisk, tisk, we might not have enough to get through the hard times.
Daniel
Sadly, this partisan bickering is going to continue because there are so many different perceptions of “fair.” I totally agree with Tom Friedman (NY Times columnist) when he said the President missed a golden opportunity to show leadership when he failed to throw his full support behind the Bowles-Simpson bi-partisan Debt Commission recommendations. That commission recommended spending cuts, reforming Social Security and Medicare, and tax reforms that would lower marginal rates but increase revenues by eliminating deductions.
I am retired and reliant on Social Security and Medicare to live. From a purely selfish perspective it would be OK to tax away 90% of the wealthy’s income. Nevertheless, my lifelong experiences tell me that high marginal tax rates are counterproductive, unfair, and ultimately hurt the nation’s economic output because they stifle the investment necessary to grow the economy and jobs.
We need a social safety net but, as a nation, we need to decide just how big a net we can afford. I want Social Security and Medicare to be around for my children and grandchildren. Unless we reform them we will wind up like Greece.
Sadly, this partisan bickering is going to continue because there are so many different perceptions of “fair.” I totally agree with Tom Friedman (NY Times columnist) when he said the President missed a golden opportunity to show leadership when he failed to throw his full support behind the Bowles-Simpson bi-partisan Debt Commission recommendations. That commission recommended spending cuts, reforming Social Security and Medicare, and tax reforms that would lower marginal rates but increase revenues by eliminating deductions.
I am retired and reliant on Social Security and Medicare to live. From a purely selfish perspective it would be OK to tax away 90% of the wealthy’s income. Nevertheless, my lifelong experiences tell me that high marginal tax rates are counterproductive, unfair, and ultimately hurt the nation’s economic output because they stifle the investment necessary to grow the economy and jobs.
We need a social safety net but, as a nation, we need to decide just how big a net we can afford. I want Social Security and Medicare to be around for my children and grandchildren. Unless we reform them we will wind up like Greece.
Sadly, this partisan bickering is going to continue because there are so many different perceptions of “fair.” I totally agree with Tom Friedman (NY Times columnist) when he said the President missed a golden opportunity to show leadership when he failed to throw his full support behind the Bowles-Simpson bi-partisan Debt Commission recommendations. That commission recommended spending cuts, reforming Social Security and Medicare, and tax reforms that would lower marginal rates but increase revenues by eliminating deductions.
I am retired and reliant on Social Security and Medicare to live. From a purely selfish perspective it would be OK to tax away 90% of the wealthy’s income. Nevertheless, my lifelong experiences tell me that high marginal tax rates are counterproductive, unfair, and ultimately hurt the nation’s economic output because they stifle the investment necessary to grow the economy and jobs.
We need a social safety net but, as a nation, we need to decide just how big a net we can afford. I want Social Security and Medicare to be around for my children and grandchildren. Unless we reform them we will wind up like Greece.
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"Lay off pices62 monte. You are a pot calling a kettle. Not too many days ago you admitted on this commentary that you were indeed a racist without shame."
The definition of bigot and racist does not change because the user of these words is black. If you and she do not like your own words being used to point out the obvious hypocrisy in your posts I suggest you refrain from using them in the first place.
I completely support the President in increasing taxes for the wealthy. The "Bush tax cuts" should have never been extended and I take issue with those who say increasing taxes will prohibit hiring. Taxes on the rich have been at a historical low since the Bush cuts and unemployment rates have only increased and the economy has tanked.
And if the Republicans are hell bent on continuing these unfunded wars they need to find a way to pay for them!
My husband and I make slightly more than $250k/year, and we can afford to pay more in federal taxes. We would not take issue with higher federal taxes, as long as our money was not going to warmongering nonsense in Iraq and Afghanistan! If the U.S. stopped the wars the money could be used to help balance our budget for expenses necessary in the interior of the U.S. (i.e., within our own country).
If any Republican candidate comes forth with a promise to stop spending our money on wars they've got my vote.
Diane you didn't ask your Republican guest if he is afraid of rich paying more fair taxes because all Congressman are the rich-ones and they do not want to pay more or even considering lowering their salaries.
Why is it that Congressmans don't like to retire? Is it because they are very comfortable making millions? Let's get rid of letting Congressman be in office as long as they want.
I am not Republican/Democrat. I would love to see Congressman do their job donating their time and having their own job wherever they live. :)
Michael
One thing that I think gets lost in the discussion of fairness is the difference between luxury and necessity, and its relationship to the large percentage of people not paying income tax that conservatives love to trot out at any opportunity.
The income required for basic food and shelter is more essential for a well-functioning society than income above that amount that can be called luxury. Conservatives seem to have no explanation as to what they would do to keep their free market utopia from turning into some kind of Somalia-like government-free zone with bands of desperate idle hungry people resorting to whatever actions they can get away with to survive, with the "job creators" hiding in their gated communities protected by armed guards.
Also, the idea that the rich benefit less from government spending than the poor is wrong. The rich benefit disproportionately from the mortgage interest deduction, the national infrastructure, a well-functioning legal system, and all the many many public goods and services upon on which commerce depends, and which are the reason why people can do business in this country in the first place.
Talk about HATE! Pot, meet kettle. Great "Christian" attitude TEA PARTY MAN 1, good luck on judgement day. BTW, this comes from a Christian who believes neither side is going far enough. We need to eliminate most entitlements and raise revenue. Both may be achieved by eliminating tax loopholes and exemptions (just another entitlement) as well as socially destructive entitlements. Take a look at Jon Huntsman's ideas. Too bad the only rational GOP candidate can't gain any traction in these times of hate.
I truly support J.Hunstman ideas. There is candidate that cares for the citizens of our great country. We need a flat tax rate! Go Jon
GMG,
How can you say that... what a wuss. Fairness did not make America the richest nation on earth. Rich people did. And you can't have rich people if you tax them at the same rate as ordinary people who leech off of the government. What are you talking about...luxury. No sir, those massive mansions, yachts and jewels are necessities. Without them the rich would have no incentives to create wealth by hiring people to make something or other. The more you tax the rich, the less work they do to make more money. Eventually they might even go on strike and leave us all in the lurch-I think the Turks and Caicos are nice this time of year.
If you really were interested in helping the economy, you would become rich too or at least accept less government largess and work for lower wages. Now India and China are beating us to the punch at creating billionaires.
You want a better economy, allow millionaires to get even more money. I say give them more tax breaks so they can buy more US bonds.
Eat the poor,
Daniel
... What?
You claim that being wealth equates to being smart? Smart enough to do what, be born into a millionaire household? Also, way to insult everyone who isn't riding around in a brand-new Mustang. Furthermore, asking the middle class, blue collar, and jobless to "work harder" is kind of a problem when your vaunted Fortune 500 stock portfolio owners aren't actually hiring anybody, don't you agree?
Since you're so well-connected on Wall Street, and know these millionaires invest so much money in the government, relay them this message for me: We, the American people, paid for your bailout two years ago, and we have not seen a return on our investment. I, for one, would like a refund.
Nebroxah,
How dare you attack the defenseless heirs of the wealthy. If you take away any money at all from the recently deceased rich people, then their children will think less of their parents. And then all of us would be left with slightly less rich landed class. And then our wealthy patrons might start to resent the working people, even fire more of those peons.
No I say, capitulate to capital. Don't throw money on poor people, they make lousy investors (usually just use it to survive, not grow the economy). And if the rich have less, they may give less in charity and worse yet, there would be fewer to which to give charity.
We must insulate the rich from the depravities of average taxpayers. Stop this class warfare on the wealthy, you are making them nervous.
Munching on the poor,
Daniel