Compromise In Congress to Avert The Fiscal Cliff
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-02/compromise-congress-avert-fiscal-cliff
At the very last minute after months of high pitched debate and political wrangling, Congress managed to pass legislation to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. The legislation raises tax rates for high earners, blocks a middle class tax increase but doesn’t begin to address the country’s deficit. At best it’s a stop gap measure: decisions on major spending cuts were postponed for two months and the country’s borrowing limit still needs to be raised. In this hour we talk about the specific compromise provisions Congress came up with, what these may mean for tax payers and the economy, and the immense political and fiscal challenges ahead.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks."
Alice Rivlin
senior fellow, Brookings Institution, vice chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (1996-99); director, White House Office of Management and Budget (1994-96); and founding director, Congressional Budget Office (1975-83).
James Thurber
professor and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, and author of "Obama in Office: The First Two Years."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Last Moderate-- if the Social Security taxes COUNT as part of federal revenues then we should be able to liquidate the SS Fund to pay our bills now and no one should any claim to the monies in the future. Social Security and medicare are in essence ANNUITIES that the governemnt collects and should not be counted toward monies into the general treasury, how is that so hard to figure out.
ecgberht wrote:
"Yes, you should! How'd you miss Elizabeth Warren?"
I thought about her, but then I realized she was Native American and I didn't want to be accused of being xenophobic!
(The preceding was a joke - for anyone here who actually has a sense of humor!)
Very good! I truly did chortle at that when I read it. (For anybody who didn't get it, I'll explain: Elizabeth Warren, a rabidly populist type from Massachusetts who quite as angry in her attack on "corporate crooks" as any Tea Partier could ever get, has Native American ancestry which bizarrely became part of her victorious Senate campaign against Scott Brown. I say "bizarrely" because her Native American roots were not, shall we say, visible, and she should never have tried to make anything out of it. Scott Brown intelligently pointed out the ridiculousness of her having claimed minority status because of it back when she... oh, never mind.)
(But the joke was even funnier because, next to Native Americans, everybody else is really an illegal immigrant!)
pjnuge wrote:
Last Moderate-- if the Social Security taxes COUNT as part of federal revenues then we should be able to liquidate the SS Fund to pay our bills now and no one should any claim to the monies in the future. Social Security and medicare are in essence ANNUITIES that the governemnt collects and should not be counted toward monies into the general treasury, how is that so hard to figure out.
I'm sorry if you're having trouble figuring it out. Payroll taxes are designated for a specific program. They remain "part of federal revenues" even while being set aside for one purpose. I'd think you'd be partial to the idea of all taxes working that way--accountability and all that. You would pay so much in an infrastructure tax, so much in a military tax, so much in an education tax, etc. Thus you would know for sure that you were getting exactly what you were paying for.
I have heard many economists interviewed lately who have recommended "going over the cliff" for a better result in the long run. The two guests on this show disagree, why such polarity by the "experts"?
This was an excellent segment for your show. Each of the guests had something significant to say.
It is remarkable how many of the DRS listeners are more focused (as one caller asked) about who is to blame for the legislative stalemate, than on the underlying problems.
How did we get to a point where an increase of $6 trillion in four years on our national debt is not a problem, but the legislators who try to moderate the growth of that debt are the problem?
Norman Orenstein and Alice Rivlin seem to think that the structural problems are correlated with echo chamber districts which elect conservative Republicans.
Not one panelist or caller questioned the echo chamber minority/black districts where tax payers are scarce and resource takers abound.
A certain amount was said today about the risk we begin to look like Greece. Someone said: That won't happen because we are a nation, while Greece is more akin to one of our states. We can print our own currency, while Greece cannot.
So, it seems that the consensus solution of the DRS audience is to continue these trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, funding them with newly printed money from the Federal Reserve Bank, and ignoring as long as we can the inexorable explosion of inflation which will result.
Or, did I miss an alternative solution which would preserve our balance sheet and currency?
roxiemay wrote:
I have heard many economists interviewed lately who have recommended "going over the cliff" for a better result in the long run. The two guests on this show disagree, why such polarity by the "experts"?
I'm glad you brought that up! I meant to write something about it earlier, but got caught up in petty bickering.
The theory is that the ballooning federal debt is unsustainable, and that when the bubble bursts it will plunge the nation into a horrible depression. In order to avoid this the biggest priority we have is to fight the deficit, and the way to fight the deficit is with austerity. As it happens, the fiscal cliff was an excellent deficit-combatting measure. The trouble is that it took a lot of money out of the economy, and thus would doubtless have triggered a recession anyway. (Going over the fiscal cliff would have been--oh, the horror--"Going down the path of Europe!") But the argument is--as it was in Europe--that whatever hardship is caused by the austerity, it will in fact be better than the horrible crash looming ahead. Cuts to federal spending and hikes in taxes are the standard way to deal with government debt. If you're really worried about what might happen because of it, then you're for going over the cliff, damn the consequences.
However, most people are more worried about averting another recession here and now than about the hypothetical risk in the future. That's why, the day after the last minute, the Congress took action to avert part of the fiscal cliff. Much of the cliff still looms, so if you're for austerity you'll probably get half of what you want.
Hey! You get half of what you want--and everybody else who worries about the cliff gets half of what they want! I do believe that a COMPROMISE has been reached!
(Which means that everybody agrees the situation is unacceptable. Oh well.)
Jeffrey Manor wrote:
"A certain amount was said today about the risk we begin to look like Greece. Someone said: That won't happen because we are a nation, while Greece is more akin to one of our states. We can print our own currency, while Greece cannot.
So, it seems that the consensus solution of the DRS audience is to continue these trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, funding them with newly printed money from the Federal Reserve Bank, and ignoring as long as we can the inexorable explosion of inflation which will result."
Hey, man. I was just writing to roxiemay about this. Are you one of the guys who thinks going over the fiscal cliff would be good for the country? I can't quite tell from your comment. We know that Greece's real troubles began after austerity was imposed, so does that mean you don't want that here? But you say "...continue these trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see...ignoring as long as we can the inexorable explosion of inflation which will result." That seems to put you on the other side.
The Last Moderate wrote:
"Okay, I'm sorry. I'll stop pointing out your typos. But seriously, you might want to invest more time in watching your spelling. :)"
When you point out someone else's typing/spelling mistakes on an informal mb, moderate, you'd better make sure you never make one. That's why most people here don't do it.
Here's an example ...
"In order to avid this ..."
The Last Moderate wrote:
"We all wish. Sadly, like most people, the wealthiest are cautious about spending. The difference is that, unlike less well-off folks, they have the option of simply sitting on billions of dollars, keeping the money from being active in the economy, and unfortunately that is genuinely what they do."
No, they don't.
"This is grossly cliche, but: The facts are on my side."
No, they aren't.
Unless the "rich" (read: successful) are putting that money under a mattress, it's being invested somewhere. Buying stuff isn't the only way to boost the economy. Buying corporate bonds or investing in the stock market also boosts the economy. Even putting money in the bank at paltry interest is investing it, because the BANK is using that money in the economy.
The payroll tax is the most regressive tax there is, it starts on the first cent and ends on income that is considered middle class (a great majority earn less than $115,000).
At 15.3%, then 13.3%, now back up to 15.3%, when you make <20K in a year, $3000 in tax is hard to pay. The lowered rate at $2500 wasn't much easier.
Opinion: Social Security should actually mean social security, and as such should to some extent actually be a wealth transfer mechanism from the advantaged to the disadvantaged, since the rest of the system has the table tilted so steeply toward the 'haves'. The simple adjustment: First, no hidden tax. Every bit should come out of the paycheck, no 'employer contribution'. You know full well they ain't contributing anything, it's coming out of your pay. So be honest about that. Cut the percentage to something the lowest earners can live with, like half the present rate. Then raise the income subject to the tax, like double it to $250,000, or even more. That should raise the total taken in some, though not much. Then on the payout side, the minimum payout should be equal to the local poverty rate. No more trying to live on $600 a month! But the maximum payout should be no more than double that, no matter how much you paid in. If your lifestyle demands more, earn it. As for who can collect: TBC below
(continued) raise the default age, since more people live and can work longer, but make it easier to qualify for earlier collection due to disability or high local unemployment. So if you lose your job at 62 and no one will hire you, you can go to SS (not everyone has unemployment insurance, but if you do, you can choose that instead for a while). (When I was on unemployment back in 2005, I was expected to live on $500 a month (NOT per week) and as soon as I reported more than $125 in income one week, I was cut off permanently, even though that was a one-time check. Is there something wrong with that system? And I don't even have UI now.)
Could someone give me the name of the Book that was mentioned in the broadcast --- something about "Coming together.....". Thanks
The younger generation is about to learn the meaning of a word I hoped that we all could forget....STAGFLATION!!!!
Eggie,
Unless you have discovered a species of "humans" who literally sprouted from the soil of the. Americas, ALL people here are "immigrants". Even those dubbed native americans walked, rowed, or sailed here from elsewhere. In fact, Dr. Leakey says all humans descended from a female in Olduvai Gorge in Africa........thus making all those here "african americans". We are all in the same dirt boat. There is no evidence anybody arrived via plate tectonics.
You and the other conservatives need to quit counting heads based on artificial bases.......and that goes for stats based on income. I can assure you that low income folks work as hard, if not harder, than high income types; and I personally know members of both income sets. Few of those earning over 400K bother to offer blog entries on this or any other site.
Frankly, in their efforts to save grief for the unemployed and ordinary citizens, the Prez and the Dems gave away the farm. The T-Partiers will, as somone earlier aptly put it, be back to destroy the rest of the economy. The Puckered-Posteriors will use the debt ceiling and sequestration debacles to shred SS and MCare and MCaid......along with infrastructure, research, and anything related to saving the environment.
The real culprits are the bogus politically oriented gerrymanderers who set up the 90% protected congressional districts. Most future "elections" will be decided by an increasingly slim middle area of contested districts.......at least until those are also redrawn or reformed by demographic based measures in place of party politics. (Unlikely for sure.)
Welcome to the advent of Feudal America........the one percenters have solidified their control of state and congressional elections. All hail the barons of business.
ecgberht wrote:
"Every time taxes have been cut (under Reagan and Bush), revenues to the government INCREASE. That is an undeniable fact."
Orly? Citation? Didn't think so. You drinkers of the conservative Kool-Aid never think to actually find evidence for your beliefs.
"The Last Moderate wrote:
ecgberht wrote:
The money of the "rich" (read: successful) does not sit "in the bank". It gets invested in the economy.
We all wish. Sadly, like most people, the wealthiest are cautious about spending. The difference is that, unlike less well-off folks, they have the option of simply sitting on billions of dollars, keeping the money from being active in the economy, and unfortunately that is genuinely what they do.
This is grossly cliche, but: The facts are on my side.
January 2, 2013 - 12:14 pm"
As usual, eggie is out in Right Field.
During an earlier program, Rivlin pointed out that the Fed allows Banks to deposit Excess Reserves and pays Interest on them. This allows the 1% to sit on piles of unproducious Cash while awaiting the Great Great Depression and its even more catastrophic deflation that will multiply the Bloodsucker's wealth by huge ratios.
At that time, Rivlin suggested that the Fed should stop paying interest on those reserves so the Super Procutious will get off their lazy a_ses and do a little work procutiong Profits, Jobs n stuff, but she must have gotten the Word and hasn't brought it up since.
Eggie wil now invoke a Straw Man unrelated to my comment, then dispute it.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Bort wrote:
ecgberht wrote:
"Every time taxes have been cut (under Reagan and Bush), revenues to the government INCREASE. That is an undeniable fact."
Orly? Citation? Didn't think so. You drinkers of the conservative Kool-Aid never think to actually find evidence for your beliefs.
January 2, 2013 - 8:48 pm
mchaun wrote:
"IndieLady7 wrote:
@ecgberht--it's amazing that you take out part of my post to suit your convouluted thinking as opposed to looking at my whole post. It's as if you're deliberately trying to start an argument.
September 11, 2012 - 10:39 am"
Eggie believes he may be experiencing Early Onset Alzheimer's and admits to working lots of Puzzles to forestall development of the disease.
He also admits to staying sharp by engaging in the debates he starts and, in his mind, believes he has won. He 'Wins" by Straw Man arguments and by picking minute pieces of Comments out of context which he then spins into a completely perverse and irrelevant counterclaim.
He is either a very underhanded debater or no longer able to see the gaping holes in his reasoning.
He also presents huge sweeps of imagination and/or speculation which he expects to be believed on his Say-So, yet when cornered by other's facts, demands detailed documentation.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
September 11, 2012 - 1:00 pm
Can obama decouple debt ceiling increase from other negotiations by forcing a simple up/down vote on debt ceiling alone?
This program was filled with self-serving muddle.
Obama should hold the line on the rich (who even with the Clinton era tax rates are paying less than half what they paid in America's economic hey day period 1940's-1970's).
The poor and working classes should not carry the burden for the ultra rich and finance captitalists who got us into this deep recession. Government is about protecting the common man, not the billionaire.
Tax the rich, regulate the banks, and end these expensive military safaris.
DRShow, censorship at its finest!
Censorship:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
I took Alice Rivlin's comments to heart and joined "No Labels" and "Fix the Debt". I think we need to get beyond the gripes and outrage of the Right and the Left. Although I agree with Norm"s book that the Right is more destructive than the Left at the moment- perhaps they are that way because they are scared. A scared angry right wing tiger should probably not be taunted. Perhaps it should be treated thoughtfully.
HonestAbe wrote:
"Eggie,
Unless you have discovered a species of "humans" who literally sprouted from the soil of the. Americas, ALL people here are "immigrants". Even those dubbed native americans walked, rowed, or sailed here from elsewhere. In fact, Dr. Leakey says all humans descended from a female in Olduvai Gorge in Africa........thus making all those here "african americans". We are all in the same dirt boat. There is no evidence anybody arrived via plate tectonics."
And that is referring to what, exactly? Unless it's the Elizabeth Warren thing ... in which case, thank you for confirming that you have no sense of humor at all
mchaun, just read your post - having nothing to do with the topic of the day, just unfounded attacks against me. Big surprise.
You still don't know what the "strawman" argument is. The reason your statement "He 'Wins" by Straw Man arguments and by picking minute pieces of Comments out of context which he then spins into a completely perverse and irrelevant counterclaim." is false is because I quote enough context to make sure the other poster's point is reflected. DRShow limits posts to 2000 characters, so it is not always practical to repost the entire text and still make a point - plus, it clutters up the board unnecessarily as posts like yours frequently do. Anyone who feels they need the ENTIRE context can go back and read it. Your post infers that if I want to respond to any point in someone else's post, I have to respond to EVERY point, which is bizarre. I've explained all this to you before. You just don't pay attention. The other reason the strawman argument does not apply to my posts is that I don't restate other people's posts to suit me, as you do, I QUOTE them. Get it?
And you have to go back more than 3 months to dig up a post to work your freaky obsession with me?
I also don't feel the need to personally attack other posters by accusing them of having neurological brain diseases to try to win an argument - as you, again, frequently do. Do you think that makes you look tough, mchaun? Do you think it makes you look smart? What it does, is make you look small and bitter about losing so many arguments to me. If I were you, I'd keep the notion that I was losing debate after debate to someone with an "Alzheimer's addled brain" to myself!
Oh ... and one more thing ... "The next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”" and "federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988". You could have found this information for yourself. My Alzheimer's riddled brain was able to do it.