Implications of a Deficit Supercommittee Failure
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-22/implications-deficit-supercommittee-failure
The congressional supercommittee on the deficit announced yesterday it had failed. The bipartisan panel was charged with crafting a deficit-reduction plan by Thanksgiving - a plan both sides could agree on. Many observers said the supercommittee was doomed from the start. In today's divided Congress, with six Democrats and six Republicans on the panel, there was little chance for an agreement. Others say it was possible and rue a wasted opportunity to benefit the nation. What the deadlock means for the economy and American families - and what the Obama administration could do about it.
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."
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Robert Walker
former U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania (1977-97); chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen
Democrat of Maryland, member of the 12-person Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
IRS and BEA have unemployment and tax numbers. Excel tells us when these data (since 1900 in America) are put next to one another that a correlation is not present. To argue that tax hikes hurt employment (or the GDP) is simply ignoring the facts.
When the majority of Republicans took an oath to Grover Norquist "no raising of taxes no matter what" promise instead of honoring their oaths to the constitution and to the American people.. He is. Norquist is really creepy
Diane, your guests normally provide reasoned, thoughtful comments - whether conservative or liberal - or whomever. Unfortunately, former Rep Walker doesn't fit that mold. He's only a 'yeller' and incapable of any compromise himself.
Tax increases on the wealthy would not only help pay down the deficit, but would also address the issue of HOW the deficit got out of hand. The Republicans simply want to protect the money that they and their Wall Street friends have made through their own corruption. The American people, for the most part, see through this and, hence, the civil unrest we are beginning to see that will most certainly snowball. We do not all start off with the same advantages. It is a lot easier to make money when you have money. We need to evolve toward a more equitable means of governing. We need to educate our people to be able to see through the media bias and rhetoric of those who are simply trying to keep the piece of the pie they have been handed and to which they are not necessarily entitled. It will happen, one way or the other.
The congressman suggests that government should get out of the way and let buinesses get the economy going again. What about what the banks and Wall Street just did to us?
They statement that class warfare is being started is bogus. It has been getting worse for decades.
Upward mobility is lowering every year as compared to other nations.
Income inequality is worsening.
The gap between top and bottom is widening daily.
The middle class is shrinking as a group if income is considered.
I was horrified watching the 60 Minutes interview on Sunday with Norquist. What came to my mind was a form of McCarthism whereby he has totally taken over the republican party by threats of throwing money at any re-election where the republican votes for a tax increase. Where does any non-elected person gain such power. It's big money talking.
I read recently that 2/3 of Congress are millionaires, is this why they are reluctant to tax themselves? They also receive free healthcare, is this why universal healthcare is so difficult for them? If it were made less profitable to be a politician, it would attract a different sort of public servant.
Would not the process be improved by some basic conflict resolution strategies? I don't hear either side recognizing the opposing points of view, delineating common ground, agreed upon goals, etc. I think they need group counseling.
It is NOT true that the rich are discriminated against in a progressive tax system. They like everyone else are taxed at the same rate on their revenue up to the ceiling of each progressive tax rate range. All revenue (regardless of who earns it) above that rate is taxed at a higher rate. Just as sales tax collection (with a flat sales tax rate) is higher on an expensive car than a less expensive one. There is no class warfare in this sense.
First off keep in mind that business are taxed only on profit.
1. Business taxes - Lower business taxes to be competitive with other countries. Get rid of tax loopholes so that all business pay taxes based on the lower rate. This should provide funds and incentive for business to invest profits back into the business====> jobs.
2. Personal income tax - Repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone. We survived on the former tax rate before and will again. Keep the mortgage deduction for primary residences. Those who can afford more than one house do not need a mortgage interest deduction.
Taxing high personal income by a higher rate will encourage business owners to invest in the business instead of taking a high salary. It will also tax these large bonuses that are being given out...
3. Raise the gas tax. We need to reduce the consumption of gas in this country.
4. Raise the retirement age.
I am ashamed that the world has a view of our dirty linen. I really don't think this is what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
I am a senior, share Medicare, and love our country. When I listen to the rhetoric everyday, I fear that our precious democracy is in peril. I can't see myself living under anything but Democracy and fairness to all.
I knew about Norquist well prior to the 60 Minutes airing, but you are correct. I saw it too and it made me want to go take a long hot bath afterwards to get the creepy off me this guy caused.
Please ask your guests why there have not been any budgets passed for three years in the Senate. The Republican caucus in the Senate has filibustered every budget bill that has come to the floor preventing any budget bill from passing in that chamber. To claim the Dems in the Senate have not passed any budget in three years while he Republicans have blocked every effort to do so is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever heard on your program.
Diane, please do not ever invite Robert Walker to be a guest on your show again. What an unpleasant character. Also he seems to be banging a table or something as he answers questions. He contributed nothing but stale talking points to your show, which is usually notable for the thoughtfulness of the guests.
We have elected officials unwilling to make hard decisions because of their desire for re-election. Despite their dismal overall approval ratings, the turnover rate in Congress is lower than the Soviet Politburo. I cannot understand why more people aren't clamoring for Congressional term limits as a solution to this problem.
Bottom line is ......the president is black....and people in Washington can't stand the idea.....no matter what he does, this poor man is against a wall...it is very sad...and yes I did vote for him and will do it again.
I agree, see my comment below! Plus, Walker is...guess what? A lobbyist. And we wonder why the government is broken...
I understand Senator Mitch McConnel is going to introduce a bill to have money given personhood status. In keeping with his "right to life" philosophy, a dollar will be considered a person from the instant of it's creation. When this bill is voted into law and signed by the next Republican president, dollar bills will then outnumber humans and Republicans will be assured a thousand year reign.
I agree. The term limit would have to be 1 (one). That way, the Norquisters out there would have NO control over elected officials.
Not to mention the main financiers of Norquist and his ilk...the Koch brothers. Here's some interesting reading - just look up (Wikipedia) the Koch's old man and his involvement as a founder of the ultra creepy John Birch Society. Check out their racist and other creepy agenda. The main thing they want is for the US to return to the 1800s. Let corperateers run wild, work labor in a coal mine for $2/day and dump toxic materials into rivers. Or, as Diane's guest so sweetly put it "Get government out of the way of business". Yeah right.
Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican, had a op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal giving his explanation as to why the Super Committee, whose constituency doomed it to failure from day 1, did indeed fail. His long winded explanation can be distiiled down to one sentence: It's not fair that the Democrats negotiated the way we did on the debt ceiling.
I can only assume by listening to Mr. Walker that he is well versed in the same old rhetoric we have heard since the election. Mitch McConnell said his number one priority is to get Obama out of office. I natural assumed the Republicans would become do nothings at that time. I expected nothing less than their pledge to Grover Norquist (sp) and not to the United States of America with the super committee. They are do nothings and as an independent my vote has swayed quite dramatically. I pledged to my late husband and to the United States of America, and to nothing else.
If this country were in trouble, it would be different. Tax increases would be a must, so again, I must assume this is staged and not true or it's not bad enough that we can kick the can down the road indefinitely. Right Mr. Walker? Because if it was bad, everyone would be more than happy to kick in on the tax increases, including all Congress people and Senators, after all, they do have "inside information".
Well, all is not lost. The automatic cuts are now going to come into effect. While not the best option in my opinion, finally the military-industrial complex is going to take their first hit in forever.
Look up the youtube video (3 minutes long) of a great president and general (Eisenhower) warning the American public of this monster in his farewell address. If the video doesn't give you the creeps, nothing will. And I am glad it's getting hit with the reduction it deserves.
Can't believe Diane used her show to give a forum to Bob Walker, a former Congressman who cashed in to become a K Street lobbyist, and whose firm is being paid millions of dollars by business interests to lobby for the positions he was advocating on the program. To pair him with Chris Van Hollen, who is speaking as my elected representative, is outrageous. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_63/No-End-for-K-Street-Deficit-Lobbyin...
I'm with Mike. Ideological sloganeering gets everybody's dander up, but thoughtful discussion and analysis seem to put them all to sleep. It's a shame.
I just can not believe what I heard from the person who called stating that having higher tax rates for the rich is a form of discrimination. A number of points:
1) Surely he is not equating higher tax rates for some with, e.g. having separate bathrooms for blacks and whites. I assume the caller is aware that such things occurred.
2) Equal tax rates do not translate into equal burdens. A higher tax rate for a rich person means that person might decide not to buy a BMW, yacht, private airplane, have a new addition built on a house, etc. For a poor person, paying taxes at the same rate would likely mean not having enough money to pay for prescription drugs for one child.
3) We do not all receive the same benefits for our taxes. Take for example, roads and mass transit. We all pay for these, and one of the major benefits is the ability to use these to commute to work. But an owner of a company benefits not only because he/she can commute to work, but also because his employees can ... which typically/hopefully allows the owner to make more money. A rich person typically also is more likely to have the means to lobby government authorities to make sure he/she receives whatever is needed to make the business run.
4) A lot of it boils down to fairness, and we all have different views on that. But basically, our society has needs, we need the government to provide for some of these, people should be compelled to chip in according to their means, but also in a way that fosters a culture of responsibility.
5) Fairness arguments in favor of a flat tax would make somewhat more sense to me if, in general, a person's income is more or less proportional to what a person actually contributes to society. That is clearly not the case. My guess is there is a positive correlation, but it is pretty weak.
I just can not believe what I heard from the person who called stating that having higher tax rates for the rich is a form of discrimination. A number of points:
1) Surely he is not equating higher tax rates for some with, e.g. having separate bathrooms for blacks and whites. I assume the caller is aware that such things occurred.
2) Equal tax rates do not translate into equal burdens. A higher tax rate for a rich person means that person might decide not to buy a BMW, yacht, private airplane, have a new addition built on a house, etc. For a poor person, paying taxes at the same rate would likely mean not having enough money to pay for prescription drugs for one child.
3) We do not all receive the same benefits for our taxes. Take for example, roads and mass transit. We all pay for these, and one of the major benefits is the ability to use these to commute to work. But an owner of a company benefits not only because he/she can commute to work, but also because his employees can ... which typically/hopefully allows the owner to make more money. A rich person typically also is more likely to have the means to lobby government authorities to make sure he/she receives whatever is needed to make the business run.
4) A lot of it boils down to fairness, and we all have different views on that. But basically, our society has needs, we need the government to provide for some of these, people should be compelled to chip in according to their means, but also in a way that fosters a culture of responsibility.
5) Fairness arguments in favor of a flat tax would make somewhat more sense to me if, in general, a person's income is more or less proportional to what a person actually contributes to society. That is clearly not the case. My guess is there is a positive correlation, but it is pretty weak.
When the comments of the audience and the guests are such that reasonable people can't believe what they are hearing this may mean the show has abdicated its educational role for sensationalistic promotion. It may also mean a manipulative agenda has been set in order to mobilize bias in a particular way. Why can we not understand that the deficit and shortfall are all the result of political policy and purposeful inactions designed to reward and please already wealthy and powerful sectors of the citizenry. A smart observer first concludes that the engineered debt created by the cooperation of both pro-corporate major political parties is a trick foisted on polite society. Then one deduces that any government who could allow such a sham is illegitimate.
Occupy is a poor solution but right now it is all we have. It is a shame Diane Rehm is captive to the agents who control discourse on WAMU, that her lips are zipped on the subject of Oligarchy. I have heard much better from her in years past: insight and miraculous applications of reason. Keep fighting my friend! This too will pass.
(They call it a flat tax because it is about as appealing as beer that has sat overnight to working people.)
OK, so here's an idea to get some progress from the "super committee", after all this time and both sides are so obstinate that they can't do their JOBS! Usually people would get fired, but since we can't for another year... How about congress passes this bill today.."if the super committee fails to come up with a plan to cut the deficit by Dec.10th, congressional pay gets cut in half and they lose their pensions".....period
Make sense right! If they're willing to sink the economy they should have a little skin in the game.
I hear way too much discussion from republicans like Mr. Walker about their beliefs. Unless we have somehow abandon rational empiricism as our means of acquiring knowledge in the public sphere, reference to beliefs should be irrelevant. Where does the evidence lead you? It seems that republicans, by and large, don't even think to ask this question. There is nothing good that can come to this approach to decision making, as the administration of G.W. Bush so clearly demonstrated.