Competing Plans For The Federal Budget
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-12/competing-plans-federal-budget
Since 1921, the White House has been required to submit a budget. But this year marks the first time that Congress, not the president, will begin the budget process. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan offers his party’s budget today. His plan cuts overall spending by nearly five trillion dollars and transforms Medicare and Medicaid. The Ryan budget would also repeal the new health care law. Senator Patty Murray will offer a Senate Democratic version tomorrow, which is expected to call for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and more spending on education and infrastructure. Diane and guests discuss competing visions for the federal budget.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Vin Weber
co-chairman, Mercury/Clark & Weinstock, a consulting firm; former member of Congress representing Minnesota's 2nd district (1981-93).
Chris Frates
national correspondent, National Journal
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"You are correct that Keynesianism does not apply in an economy where half the workers get exactly or near the minimum wage (and fewer than 40 hours) which is less than half the living wage."
Keynesianism is a view of how an economy should work, not how big the minimum wage should be! It focuses on trickle-down government benefits. A minimum wage is one of its HALLMARKS. The only question is, how big that minimum wage should be.
Average Jane typifies self-obsession. She can't comprehend our structural unemployment problem. She blames immigrants and disabled people for her poverty. Never could she admit she is not on the success track or that the income gap affects her. She clamps her ears shut when you explain off-shoring of wealth and income and our inequitable non-progressive tax structure. It's hard to find and help people like her because you never know which rock to look under.
The Last Moderate wrote: "Okay, first of all I've decided not to flag that last as offensive"
Yeah, I know when you're around posts come up missing. Who do you think you are anyway? I think I nailed what you are a month ago.
freedom or welfare wrote:
The Last Moderate wrote: "Okay, first of all I've decided not to flag that last as offensive"
Yeah, I know when you're around posts come up missing. Who do you think you are anyway? I think I nailed what you are a month ago.
Um, what are you talking about, man?
Average Jane wrote: good stuff! thanks for the truth.
Never argue economic theory with the brainwashed admirers of the Super-rich. (trickle drinkers) It's like recounting old times with a patient in dementia. Some lessons can only be taught to the obstinate egoist by letting them experience inescapable abject poverty first person. They urge Austerity so let them (especially) have it.
hello
I observe you've censored yourself. Congratulations. So what was all that about?
At the end of this show, I am left wondering: why is it that the two choices portrayed were simply spending cuts, or spending cuts AND tax increases? Why weren't the choices spending cuts or tax increases?
I think there was an apt anecdote about FDR on Moyers & Company told by Richard Wolff. FDR proposed a 100% marginal tax rate on everyone making over $150,000. The opposition realizing that something was going to be done, compromised to a 94% marginal tax rate.
Finally, the labels on these budget proposals, "centrist", "liberal", "conservative" all seem superfluous and miss the point. We should be placing labels such as "practical", "possible", "not rooted in economic reality", or "solution." These discussions should be broader and talk about what kind of society do we want future Americans to live in. We should have a goal, and then work backwards from it.
It was more than a bit rude of Rep. Vin Weber to chuckle and guffaw all during a caller's comments. The caller actually presented an accurate point about tax history: the Bush tax cuts were implemented with a sunset date and allowing them to expire was accurately NOT a cut but a return to prior rates - E.J. backed that up and accurately noted that it only 18% of the original cuts were rolled back. Vin was correct that at one time tax rates were higher for some (and lower for others); BUT deriding a caller is contrary to the spirit of the discussion and made him appear churlish.
NOTE - Those who may have heard Rep. Weber on KCRW's Left, Right and Center recently can affirm that he has taken a crotchety edge in recent years - he literally bellowed at fellow commenter Robert Scheer re: the Papal succession discussion - called Scheer a religious bigot (....Scheer had mentioned the catholic scandals concerning sexual abuse).
Dear Average Jane, Speak For Yourself Alone !!
Please include ONLY yourself in that tirade about "lazy America". Everyone I know works their tails off and get ever increasing demands to do more with less from management. Pay reviews are a joke and the lack of merit increases is egregious. Corporate profits are up 14% over the decade, productivity and stocks are skyrocketing = the shareholders and upper management are NOT sharing profits with those who created those increases. Americans are working MORE hours per capita than other people, not counting slaves of course.
We all know Ryan's budget is going nowhere, whats the point anymore. At least he has a budget, what about the dems budget? maybe we might get one in the next five years. Bring on the debt wall.
Fox and other phony news outlets and many obtuse conservatives repeat the mantra about media friendly to Obama and Democrats. The most tiresome blather is that line about "Gee, what would have happened if a Republican had done X Y Z". As IF...... Writer Tom Ricks called Fox out last fall when interviewed about the Benghasi attack - said Fox and the media person were merely an "arm of the Republican Party".
The habit of Fox commentators and Rush, Beck, Krauthammer, Savage et al referring to those they disagree with as "the media" is downright silly - As IF they were not part of that media. Sheesh !!
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"(trickle drinkers) It's like recounting old times with a patient in dementia. "
You must have missed my post from yesterday, but I will happily reiterate it. By the way, I've noticed that the leftists here have taken to suggesting that anyone who disagrees with them must suffer from dimentia; in the same way they suggested anyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist. Is this the latest meme, Pancake? I ask you, because you, if anyone would know.
Now, on trickle down ...
The left invented the term in the 80's for something that has always existed and always WILL exist. Trickle-down economics is a fact of life for those who are not self-employed owners of their own businesses. Those who are not either depend on those job creators and owners or they depend on government to provide for them [through redistribution]. Get it? Trickle down from private industry or trickle down from government. Take your pick. The former is far more efficient than the latter, so private business is my choice.
freedom or welfare wrote:
"We all know Ryan's budget is going nowhere, whats the point anymore. At least he has a budget, what about the dems budget? maybe we might get one in the next five years. Bring on the debt wall."
"dems budget" comes out within 24 hours. Or weren't you listening to the radio at all?
Outside of the beltway, there are folks who can't see pass the color of his skin. One can wrap whatever ideology around it they want but the emotion is still racism.
On the baby boomers (population bubble in a democracy): When each baby boomer retires (stop contributing to the gov revenue base) let leave the next generation holding the bag for >$100K (or whatever the current number is) of services they received over their life. As a member of a democracy it is their burden not the next generation. I fear each one will wan a $1Million operation in the final months of their lives, which would be fine if they (as a generation) saved up for it. Each time I look at any of the political proposals, the boomers are protected and the next generation isn't.
Outside of the beltway, there are folks who can't see pass the color of his skin. One can wrap whatever ideology around it they want but the emotion is still racism.
On the baby boomers (population bubble in a democracy): When each baby boomer retires (stop contributing to the gov revenue base) let leave the next generation holding the bag for >$100K (or whatever the current number is) of services they received over their life. As a member of a democracy it is their burden not the next generation. I fear each one will wan a $1Million operation in the final months of their lives, which would be fine if they (as a generation) saved up for it. Each time I look at any of the political proposals, the boomers are protected and the next generation isn't.
"Or weren't you listening to the radio at all?"
Actually, no. I hope you're right, can't wait to see it. 24 hours aye!
RussellAlbert wrote: "Outside of the beltway, there are folks who can't see pass the color of his skin. One can wrap whatever ideology around it they want but the emotion is still racism."
Who are you talking about, black voters?
203cc wrote:
"Everyone I know works their tails off and get ever increasing demands to do more with less from management."
Sorry, 203cc. There is a glut of labor in the market because that market is now global. We are in the midst of a great "leveling" of world wage rates. I've been saying this (in various forums) since the middle of the decade. That demands that the inflated rates in this country must stagnate so that the rest of the world can catch up. I don't like it. You don't like it. But it's economic reality. For years we paid auto-workers $60/hour for $40 worth of work. It finally collapsed GM.
"Outside of the beltway, there are folks who can't see pass the color of his skin. One can wrap whatever ideology around it they want but the emotion is still racism."
So on the one hand, Obama won an "overwhelming victory" (at least per Eugene Dionne). On the other hand, the 49% who didn't vote for him are racists. Got it!
You just stick with the meme, Russell. It appeals to the low-information folks.
Jane, eight percent unemployment is one out of every twelve people. Can you look any one of those people in the eye and repeat your comments.
The far right is willing to cut education, because companies that support their agenda don't need educated employees to unpack boxes.
Some in Congress reward companies for paying their employees less than a "living wage". Especially those that tutor their employees on how to get their health care at taxpayer funded clinics and how to collect food stamps to supplement their minimum wage paychecks.
Have you tried to live on those generous entitlements? By the way, how is that Kool-Aid?
The T-Party controlled House of Representatives has voted to repeal Obama care 33 times already. What will one more time do..?? This lazy bunch of goofs will only work 130 days this year.The ratings down grade created by the T-Party,in the self inflicted debt limit debacle ,has cost more than $50 billion in added interest..
I KNOW THEY HATE OBAMA. CAN YOU TAKE A BREAK AT HURTING AVERAGE AMERICANS..???
ecgberht2, see the media and auto company propaganda have convinced / deceived you with their wage cost rhetoric. The same as the municipalities that are in financial straits today, auto companies never set moneys aside for retirees during the years those employees were working. Now they are laying the high wage blame on today’s workers.
Congress allowed companies to pay for retirement commitments with future earnings. And management claimed exaggerated profits to receive bonuses all along. When the economic fortunes started to turn, they blamed the postponed retirement burden on current employees.
I retired from the auto industry; I have yet to meet one of the $60/hour auto-workers. They must have been much higher up the food chain than anyone I ever worked with.
Old Turk wrote:
"see the media and auto company propaganda have convinced / deceived you with their wage cost rhetoric."
I'm not decieved at all, Turk. I'm just an observer. Like I said, I've been talking about this great "leveling" since the middle of the last decade - the collapse of GM happened in 2009. (What I was observing probably started years before that as businesses began to offshore). Anybody with a lick of sense could see it coming.
"I retired from the auto industry; I have yet to meet one of the $60/hour auto-workers. They must have been much higher up the food chain than anyone I ever worked with."
Actually, you probably were one. Not salary, Turk. Total cost. That includes all other benefits including HC, vacation, workman's comp., etc. Toyota was laying out $40 for the same work.
Yes, Toyota's cost is in the $40 range as their workforce is relatively young, and they don't have the burden of retirees to pay for. Employees at Toyota are being paid a bit more in their paychecks so they have no appetite to consider unionization. That $60+ is including retirement cost of former workers rolled into today's production cost. We are not paying that money; it just makes the US auto companies less competitive and profitable against their overseas rivals.
Kind of like our Social Security reserve, the excess tax dollars were spent by our politicians on other programs (e.g. two wars, big tax cuts, etc). Low to zero interest money thru the Federal Reserve for the past two decades, what has that done to the SS reserve? Now, when its time for us to collect they don't have the money?
I had a tenant working at the now closed GM Janesville plant, he cleared 105K a year as a union pipe fitter, dumb as a stump.
You say, "That $60+ is including retirement cost of former workers rolled into today's production cost."
No, I don't think so. Retirement costs lead to higher COGS, no doubt about it. But we're talking about the difference in total compensation for TODAY's employees. Why is that the case? Because unions drove those higher benefits, and, management let them. Pension and health care benefits for current Toyota workers are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers even though both pay an average salary of about 30 bucks and hour.
"Congress allowed companies to pay for retirement commitments with future earnings".
No doubt about it. This happened with retirement benefits in many public sector jobs across the country too. Now they are unable to pay. It's the "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" syndrome. Now. Whose fault is that? Instead of decoupling retirement and health care from employment, which should have been done decades ago, we keep them tied together in some unholy embrace and think that Congress can make the actors behave in a responsible way. And by the way, when Congress forces the Post Office to act in a responsible way by funding retirees, the left screams. You can't have it both ways. And Obamacare simply exacerbated the problem.
You forgot to mention fluoridation of the water!
How to overthrow a government without firing a shot,just using a big fat checkbook..???
#1. Give tax cuts that are not paid for. largest breaks to those with the big fat checkbook.
#2. Replace the cash in treasury with worthless investments.(Derivatives) financial instruments created by the folks with big fat checkbooks.
#3. Fraud, like Enron.promoted and benefiting folks with big fat checkbooks.
What do they offer..?? Salvation. Like the bankers of IMF. The guys with the biggest fattest checkbooks. All you have to do is sell your soul, or your water system like Argentina. Or wanting the Parthenon in Greece. Or the Ohio Turnpike or Ohio Lottery....for bargain basement prices...
No blue hat U.N. military needed .Just Big Fat checkbooks.
He is a politician after all. After listening to them for 60 years or so I know they don't speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I will believe what he says when he starts off by saying:
"We are cutting spending, starting with cutting congressional salaries from 1 billion dollars per year to 100 million dollars per year".
If it happens I will know he speaks the truth. All the other words are like leaves as indicated by Alexander Pope.