Debt Commission Report Targets Social Security, Medicare

live blog

Oldest Newest

Wyden: It Goes Too Far, Not Far Enough

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) avoided a simple endorsement or rejection of the co-chairs' proposals Wednesday. Instead, Wyden compared the chairmen's recommendations to those put forward in the tax reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Judd Greg (R-N.H.):

“The Fiscal Commission demonstrates what Senator Gregg and I have spent the last year saying: By eliminating what amounts to tax earmarks for special interests, it is possible to simplify the tax code, promote economic growth and cut taxes for the vast majority of American families and businesses. Obviously, what the Fiscal Commission terms 'Wyden-Gregg style reform' does not, in some respects, go as far as Wyden-Gregg does in simplifying filing for individuals and families and scaling back the corporate rate. While in other respects, it goes too far. For example, Senator Gregg and I considered limits on mortgage and charitable deductions too politically controversial to include in our legislation. But what I hope people will take away from the Fiscal Commission’s report is the fact that, when it comes to taxes, Congress needs to do more than simply vote on an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Extending a broken tax system will do nothing more than extend the current economic stagnation. If my colleagues are serious about creating jobs and growing the economy while addressing the nation’s fiscal health we need to get serious about comprehensive tax reform.”

Share this:

Color Copies For Debt Commission Proposal?

HuffPost attended the White House deficit commission's presser in Dirksen this afternoon and thought it looked just like one of Steny Hoyer's weekly pen-and-pads sessions (lots of familiar faces), only with Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson at the head of the roundtable, speechifying and fielding questions. As they discussed the finer points of how to reduce the country's budget deficit and eliminate fiscal waste, they passed around stacks of color copies of their proposal. HuffPost noticed their proposals on how to cut spending were written in 32-point font and using only one side of each page. Something else that set the event apart from a Hoyer pen-and pad: Social Security Work's Alex Lawson was initially thrown out of the event, after being told it was for press only. "I walked back in when things had gotten started and people wouldn't want to fuss with me in front of the cameras," Lawson told HuffPost post event.

Share this:

More

Comments

[Longtimeliberal]

12:02 PM on 12/03/2010

There is no way the majority of people will support cuts in social security when there are alterative fixes. We are not going to stand by seeing those most in need suffer when this program does not add to the deficit what has happened to this country. Reducing the cost of health care should involve a public option and negotiatig rate of pay with pharmacutial companies. Where is the fee on Wall Street? I agree with getting rid of tax loopholes for the corporations that outsource IF those loopholes don't get put back in. I would love to see mom and pop business or any busiess created in the US get a break for job creation here by lowerig tax. We have to create jobs here-Not in China! Not on the backs of the least able to handle it.

[NoBlueDogs]

07:22 PM on 11/28/2010

Okay once again, people.

Assume that the foundation of Conservatism is Social Darwinism. Survival of the richest, everyone else gets set adrift.

You can accurately predict EVERYTHING they stand for based on that.

[Charles Lopez]

01:00 AM on 11/18/2010

SSI is not broke it is about the only federal program that solvent. Wake up people SSI is not a give away program. It is based on your wages. The people that get SSI money without paying in are Widows and the disabled people get what they would get at retirement age.
If the people let some selfish political personal take a. Benifit that has helped the majority for years, this is not going to happen. Our government will get a complete overhaul in this next election.
We need to run off anyone that is for this mess period.
I have had people tell me that the Republicans want this country to be third world.
Now I Believe it. They must have stock in China.

[Andy95]

06:28 PM on 11/14/2010

For anyone that thinks there is a real Social Security trust fund, here's a great podcast/story from NPR's planet money:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/12/1312812...

No private investment fund could get away with the baloney the gov't pulls off

[Jonathan Figg]

10:56 AM on 11/13/2010

This is a misleading title. The report was not put out by the commission. It was put out by the chairmen of the commission and does not have the support of the commission itself.

[Patrick Crothers]

09:47 AM on 11/13/2010

@pickles n pops,
you have got the numbers right.
Warren Buffet who earns billions mentioned that he frequently pays less than a middle class American and in fact sometimes he pays no income tax at all.

[pickles n pops]

10:03 PM on 11/14/2010

Thanks Patrick. A couple of other luminaries in the-rich-need-to-start-paying­-their-fair-share camp: Bill Gates Sr., and Reagan's OMB Director David Stockman. Now, if we can only get Arthur "Laughing Gas" Laffer and Grover Norquist to see the light...lol

[Patrick Crothers]

04:22 AM on 11/16/2010

Now Laffer makes the most since. Reagan after all actually did have a (DID) Dissociated Personality Disorder, He actually thought he was the first soldier into Auschwitz to free the Jews imprisoned there. The thing that gets me, professionally and as a citizen, is, if you want to get rid of Social Security you need to eliminate the economic device that ultimately lead to the need to have it in the first place. That would be the Federal Reserve Bank. As long as we let foreign banks run our economy we will need a social safety net.

It is pretty clear that corporations and banks run our country and the Social Security Trust Fund is the one thing they have not been able to sack yet. Makes them pretty upset.

The World Bank put out a statement on the 4TH of July that the United States would have to eliminate the Home Mortgage Interest tax deduction. The 2010 tax code has not been written yet but I am certain that this will happen as well as some other suggested middle class taxes and entitlement programs. The day this was in the financial section of the paper it was the only news item and they were not suggesting we do either, they said we must!

[GenXer]

09:17 AM on 11/13/2010

Doesn't anyone look at their Social Security statement every year? It is set to pay 100% until 2037 and then 78% after that if nothing changes. It is a funded program that is retirement support and disability insurance, a real two-for. Now, you can cut the benefit now and make what ever that cut is the new 100% for the life of the program, you can raise the retirement age and pay 100% for 30 years longer, or raise the caps. Let me repeat, it is a funded program with premiums paid by you and your employer every payday. If you reduce the deficit by cutting this program you are diverting money from its' intended purpose. It would be like taking money from the pension fund to pay for a new building, corporate jet, or the CEO's bonus.

[Azcat85]

08:16 AM on 11/14/2010

They are not "taking" social security funds to pay for other programs. Their proposal concerning SS is to increase the solvency period and eventual benefits. SS was a five year plan went instituted by FDR. Since then the average age that we are living to has increased to the point that the original intent of SS has been lost. The age for receiving SS needs to rise with the life expectancy rise. There also should be limitations on collections for those wealthy enough to not need it. Pensioners driving around in Cadillacs and Bentley's really shouldn't be collecting SS.

[Andy95]

06:32 PM on 11/14/2010

We have been diverting money (revenue excess over payments) from SS for years and the gov't does not count this in its debt calculations.

[Anita Moorer]

07:58 AM on 11/13/2010

As a disabled American, I value Medicare. However, something needs to be done about the deficit and the fees being charged to Medicare. Yesterday I received a rubber nasal pillow that I use. Medicare was billed $78.00!

[Noelle Green]

10:48 AM on 11/13/2010

Yes, something needs to be done about wasteful overcharges in Medicare. That is a separate issue. This proposal does not ask Wall Street fat cats and Fortune 500 Companies to sacrifice. The burden is expected to be bore by poor, disabled and working class Americans. The super rich have benefited from 30 yrs of fiscal policies, subsidies,,tax breaks, corrupt laws. Enough!

[SHOWINGYOUTRUTH]

07:39 AM on 11/13/2010

I wonder if all those angry old people have a single clue that NINETY PERCENT OF THEIR PROGRAM IS BEING SPENT SO HOMOSEXUALS CAN keep "being homosexuals?" Their programs, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, are indeed, paying for everything from AIDS AWARENESS to people who could give a rats butt about being aware of anything, to free condemns to make sure AIDS isn't spread anymore, which end up being party favors floating around the homosexual party rooms while the drunken, drugged, wild sexual encounters take over the rooms. Hmm, I bet if they knew they can't have their treatments for cancer, arthritis and diabetes because homosexuals with AIDS are fast tracked to get the money first, they might just be rethinking their party affiliations with more scrutiny. They might even march on Washington and demand homosexuals turn to their favorite defenders for their drugs and condemns. Hollywood (SMUTVILLE) loves them to pieces, let them foot the bill and we'd have instant Medicare and Medicaid surpluses!

[wdw505]

08:46 AM on 11/13/2010

"Medicaid surpluses"? there is no such thing

[GenXer]

09:17 AM on 11/13/2010

Glenn, is that you?

[waynesmyer]

06:34 AM on 11/13/2010

WHAT'S GOOD FOR F-CHENEY AND HALLIBURTON IS GOOD FOR ANERIKA!

[andiannj]

04:12 AM on 11/13/2010

I will not vote for any politician that would be party to cutting SS.

Petition to Protect Social Security!
http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/ssletter_main/

"Poll: Voters Would Rather Tax The Wealthy Than Cut Social Security"
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-voters-would-rather-tax-the-wealthy-than-cut-social-security.php?ref=fpb

[leajazz]

04:04 AM on 11/13/2010

Commented Nov 4, 2010 at 12:25:35 in Politics

“Obama: 'It Makes Sense For Us To Extend Unemployment Insurance'

laspeaks Commented Nov 4, 2010 at 03:13:26 in Politics

“Its time to organize an OFFICIAL BOYCOTT where people who are unemployed commit to a weekend of NOT SPENDING. The weekend of November 13th should be a NO-SHOPPING ZONE if you don't currently have a job. Then when businesses see their revenues unexpectedly fall sharply, they will see what will happen if UE benefits are not extended. Doing this boycott in time for Congress to take some action will serve a purpose and make a statement. The point is to make a dramatic statement and show the real impact of joblessness on this economy. If you can commit to do this, for one weekend, you can show that the unemployed have a voice, and must be respected as human beings, as citizens, and as consumers...

At the moment, the business community has not paid any price for unemployment being sky-high. Profits are high, labor is cheap... What incentive do they have to see anything change? The only people who care about this issue are the people who are impacted.... So what's the plan? ORGANIZE AND BOYCOTT ...DON'T SPEND A DIME NEXT WEEKEND....SPREAD THE WORD....” ...I'm In!” leajazz ...November 13 this weekend!

[wdw505]

09:09 AM on 11/13/2010

oh no 9.6% will not spend their money that is not theirs for a whole weekend.......yes that will be a lesson taught to business.........

laughing

[Patrick Crothers]

04:33 AM on 11/14/2010

@wdw505
It is estimated 17.8% is the actual level of unemployment when including those who no longer draw benefits. Any of the retail businesses I have run would be hurt with either percentage. That is more than the average margin of profit.

[grump507]

02:13 AM on 11/13/2010

once again they show they are really not for the people why is it that they can never put a freeze on the entire government is it because many of them can be linked to the defense agencies this crap has to stop they all need to bite the bullet like the rest of us lets start with a freeze for entire fed and state employees and a cut in pay they dont even work a full year next cut the pensions out and no health ins from government when you retire this will help our wasteful spending of giving pensions to people who havent worked long enough to get one in the private sector which is something they need to be brought closer to what people make in the private sector plus it would put a stop to double dipping which should be criminal how is it right for us to pay for someone to retire and take their pension plus get the same health ins benefits as when they were working and then take another job in the government which we also pay talk about a slap in the face no pensions means social security i bet then they wouldnt cut a damn thing in social security and how does reducing the corporate tax rate help with the deficit i wonder whose pulling the strings absolutely no earmarks some argue it doesnt effect the budget but it does effect their state budget and all states need help

[rainkitty]

12:11 AM on 11/13/2010

The Hijacked Commission:
"... how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.
It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?
Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net. " - Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

[Andy95]

12:01 AM on 11/13/2010

Anyone who criticizes the recommendations must provide their own proposals that save as much money. We've become a soft country of whiners too used to our levels of comfort to solve hard problems.

[pickles n pops]

08:52 AM on 11/13/2010

Andy - you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip--you have to look where the money is. The top 1% controls 42.7% of the nation's financial wealth, while the top 20% holds a staggering 93% of all the financial wealth in this nation. One can hardly expect the bottom 80% of us--who control a measly 7% of that wealth--to carry the burden for the freeloaders at the top.

These 3 items will go a long way toward fixing the problem:

Tax inherited wealth at 90% across the board - no exceptions

Restore full progressivity to the federal income tax by reverting to pre-JFK tax rates

Remove the earnings cap on payroll tax collections

[Andy95]

10:30 AM on 11/13/2010

Picks - If you are arguing that we can't solve this problem on the poor, I would agree with that. But very little federal spending is for the poor. The vast majority is for the middle class and we should not be on the dole.

And what do you think the gov't would collect on your soak the rich tax strategy? I'd guess 10 cents on the dollar, max. Inheritances would change to gifts while living. Entrepreneurs would be less inclined to start new businesses if they income would get soaked with 90% income tax rates. Even ignoring the moral issues with your strategy, the math would never add up.