Salon.com > Entitlement reform

Bad deal: The White House’s last-ditch plan stinks

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 22:57:00 +0000

This afternoon, President Obama is meeting with congressional leaders in a last-ditch attempt to avoid going over the so-called fiscal cliff. Most people in Washington think the effort is futile. That’s probably good thing, as going over the cliff is better than enacting the deal the White House is reportedly putting on the table at the summit.

While the details are sketchy and reports conflicting, according to the New York Times, the proposal would extend the Bush tax cuts up to $400,000 (instead of the $250,000 most Democrats want), and it would extend some important tax credits, but it would leave the estate tax as is, do nothing about the sequester (the automatic spending cuts that will go into effect January 1) and do nothing about the debt ceiling.

Fiscal cliff factions: Brown v. Gray?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:45:00 +0000

Ronald Brownstein's latest National Journal story describes a hidden and fascinating fault line in the "fiscal cliff" debate: not between Democrats and Republicans but "between the Brown and the Gray." Brownstein is one of the best mainstream reporters covering the politics of American demographic change, and he lays out a tough truth: The lion's share of public resources today are going to seniors, 80 percent of whom are white, while a shrinking proportion goes to young people, a majority of whom are now black, Latino and Asian. Thus the way we solve the fiscal cliff crisis – by depicting it as a crisis, Brownstein displays a bias toward an establishment narrative that favors Republicans, but otherwise, the piece is fairly neutral – has racial as well as political and generational implications.

Brownstein is identifying a fault line, not creating it, let alone endorsing it. He raises points that are well worth discussing. But I wince at such a catchy depiction of polarization – even though Brownstein is right about the way particularly wealthy white seniors have gobbled up resources for themselves while denying them to others.

The progressive case for the chained CPI

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:22:00 +0000

Liberals are going to have to decide if they’ll stick with the president if the plan he floated this week to cut Social Security benefits by switching to the so-called chained CPI becomes a reality, and it’s not an easy choice. Progressive pressure groups and lawmakers are furious with Obama for proposing the cuts, as I noted yesterday, but House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she’s confident that her caucus would ultimately support the plan if the president asks them too.

The case against moving to the chained CPI is easy to make: It represents a real cut to seniors’ Social Security benefits, which has so far been a non-starter. Even advocates of the switch acknowledge this. But since we may have to swallow it, it’s worth laying out the best progressive argument possible in favor of the chained CPI. We're not saying it's right, but it's a case that should be made.

Boehner and White House snipe after “fiscal cliff” talks

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:16:00 +0000

The first set of high-level "fiscal cliff" meetings do not appear to have gone so well, with both Republicans and the White House sniping over a lack of progress from the talks.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, met with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House legislative affairs chief Rob Nabors on Thursday, following a Wednesday night call with the president. But Boehner said after the meetings that “no substantive progress” had been made and “the White House has to get serious” about cuts to entitlements.

"I was hopeful we'd see a specific plan for cutting spending, and we sought to find out today what the president really is willing to do," he told reporters, according to the AP.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed. "To date, the administration has remained focused on raising taxes and attending campaign-style events, with no specific plans to protect Medicare and Social Security or reduce our national debt in a meaningful way," he said in a statement. "And today, they took a step backward, moving away from consensus and significantly closer to the cliff."

Liberals double down: No entitlement cuts

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:00:00 +0000

In a story already making waves across Washington, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen reported this morning that a bipartisan “grand bargain” is emerging from talks between the White House and Republicans. The contours of the deal are this: About $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue, most likely from an rate increase on income over $250,000, along with at least $400 billion over 10 years in entitlement cuts “and perhaps a lot more,” mostly from Medicare.

Liberals have drawn a hard line against entitlement cuts and $400 billion is a lot of money, so some progressives are not pleased with the idea.

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the chairman of the 77-member Progressive Caucus, told Salon that his members would not support entitlement cuts. “Any agreement to meet our end-of-the-year deadlines will need a large portion of the House Democratic Caucus to pass. Progressives will not support any deal that cuts benefits for families and seniors who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to put food on the table or cover their health costs,” he said.

Medicare cuts reportedly part of framework for “fiscal cliff” deal

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:34:00 +0000

As the talks over a budget deal heat up, reports of an early framework to avoid the "fiscal cliff" show that cuts to entitlements could be a key part of the negotiations.

Politico reports on the early shape of the deal:

Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had what one insider described as a short, curt conversation Wednesday night — but the private lines of communications remain very much open.

The fiscal cliff is a lie

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:44:00 +0000

The need for a “grand bargain” involving taxes and entitlements — in the next few years, if not immediately — has moved to the center of discussion in Washington. But it’s the wrong grand bargain — and a very bad deal for Middle America.

According to the conventional wisdom, any grand bargain should be modeled on plans like the Bowles-Simpson plan or the Rivlin-Domenici plan — financing lower tax rates on the rich by closing tax loopholes and cutting Social Security and Medicare. In the aftermath of an election in which the candidates of the rich were trounced at the polls, America’s plutocratic conservatives might be satisfied with merely maintaining existing low tax rates on the rich, while capping loopholes and cutting Social Security and Medicare.

America didn’t vote for a “grand bargain”

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:00:00 +0000

By 10 p.m. on Tuesday, it was all over but the shouting -- the shouting of Karl Rove, incredulous that Fox News' "decision desk" would dare deploy the best statistical evidence at its disposal to call Ohio for the president; the shouting of wingnuts everywhere that — no fair! — Obama only won because of superstorm Sandy (because demonstrated competence in running the government is no reason to choose someone to ... run your government); the shouting of the joyous throngs at McCormick Place waiting to receive their new second-term president. In my Hyde Park apartment just five blocks from the president's home, soon all around me was jubilation. A second Barack Obama term! I alone seemed to feel the disquiet. This reelection troubles me. It troubles me because of the signal it may send to some of the people running the Democratic Party, and to Barack Obama, a signal that may threaten the long-term health of the Democratic Party itself.