More

Deficit Commission Slashes Taxes For Wealthy, Corporations, While Raising Retirement Age And Cutting Spending

First Posted: 12/01/10 09:44 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Deficit Commission

WASHINGTON — The president's deficit-commission report, scheduled for a vote by the full panel on Friday, proposes to slash tax rates for corporations and for high earners.

The top tax rate is currently 35 percent and is scheduled to rise to 39.6 percent in 2011. The commission would cut that rate to between 23 and 28 percent, while shaving between seven and nine points off the corporate rate.

The commission does propose taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, a move that would result in a higher liability for the wealthy. It also eliminates some corporate tax breaks. But those losses for top earners would be more than offset by their tax cuts.

The commission also addresses Social Security, though the program does not contribute to the deficit and, in fact, is running a multi-trillion dollar surplus. The commissioners would raise the full retirement age to 69 gradually and the early retirement age to 64.

Social Security would be tilted toward a welfare program rather than a social insurance system if the commission's recommendation to provide poorer seniors with a "special minimum benefit" is enacted into the law.

The commission also proposes medical malpractice reform, a long-term goal of the GOP.

The commission had been scheduled to vote on the proposal as required by law on Wednesday, but the vote has been pushed to Friday, suggesting that the commissioners lack the 14 of 18 votes needed to approve it. Some conservatives intend to oppose the bill, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely respected on fiscal issues by his House colleagues.

Sources close to members of the commission say that the proposal is virtually certain to be voted down and that President Obama has not been engaged with the process or deliberations.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Wednesday that he doesn't agree with everything in the report but will vote to support it. "I don't like everything in this package, but I like even less where our country is headed without it. It would be much easier to say no and to oppose this plan. I certainly would have done some things differently if I were writing it myself. But you can't have everything you want," he said.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), who lost election in November, indicated in his comments to the commission that he'd also support it, but didn't come flat-out and say he would vote yes. "I think we should keep this process moving forward," he said, suggesting that if it failed the issue wouldn't be dealt with for years to come.

Commission member Alice Rivlin told the commission Wednesday she would be voting yes and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), often a reliable Obama ally, said she would vote no. David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell -- yes, the CEO of Honeywell is on the commission -- said that he'd be voting in support; businesswoman Ann Fudge also said she supported the final product.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), meanwhile, told HuffPost on Tuesday that if the plan kept the same "anemic" revenue approach - cutting taxes for the wealthy - he and other progressives would oppose it. The plan released today differs little in that respect from the one offered recently. "Their proposal on the revenue side was anemic. I've said that to both Alan and to Erskine," he said, referring to the co-chairs, Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles. At the commission's meeting Wednesday, he said that he was staying at the table, but was critical of the report. "To me, you punted," he said, charging that the plan didn't sufficiently tackle corporate tax breaks.

The proposal would also slash spending across the board. Becerra said he objected to what he called "this meat-axe approach of just making across the board cuts and assigning the pain 50-50 to schools and environmental clean up and senior housing, along with defense programs or wasteful security programs that are very expensive."

"I have a real difficult time saying that, DOD, unknown to us where their problems are, should have to pay X amount for its wasteful spending and our schools will pay the price at this commensurate rate, even though there may not have been any sign of wasteful spending on the part of our schools. Now, maybe there is, but I say target that instead of using the meat-axe. That's the biggest concern I have with their approach on the discretionary side," he said.

The commission meets Wednesday to discuss the proposal.

One key vote is former Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern, who is still on the SEIU's payroll in an emeritus capacity. The SEIU on Wednesday scorched the report, putting Stern in a difficult position if he intends to support it. "This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work. The American people expect real solutions to create good jobs that support a family and bring fairness to our economy," said SEIU President Mary Kay Henry. "It's time for our policies to move beyond the Beltway to reflect the real world. For too long, we've forced the American people to pay the price for the failed economic policies that plunged our economy into crisis and racked up our debt. We need to reduce the deficit - and we can do so without breaking the back of American workers. We can do so without cutting the jobs of nurses, educators, first responders, fire fighters, and millions of other Americans."

Even as the deficit hyperbole hits a fever pitch in Washington, leading progressives are strenuously warning of the devastating effects a turn to austerity would have on the economy in both the short and long term.

There's a high road and a low road when it comes to deficit reduction, they argue. The high road approach includes robust job-creation measures in the short run and long-term investments in infrastructure, education, and other public goods. Sustained economic growth, after all, is the best way to reduce deficit spending.

The low road approach, by contrast, could stifle the economic recovery and accelerate the decline of the American middle class.

Progressives in recent weeks have introduced three of their own deficit-reduction plans, all of which call for increased spending until unemployment falls to manageable levels, and major public investments going forward, paid for through tax hikes for the rich and
for financial speculators.

One progressive member of Obama's deficit panel, Rep. Jan Schakowsky
(D-Ill.), drafted a comprehensive proposal that starkly contrasts with the one from the group's chairmen.

Demos, the Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation have produced a "Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility."

And a Citizens' Commission On Jobs, Deficits And America's Economic Future, organized by the Campaign for America's Future, released its proposal on Tuesday.

One of the few areas of agreement between deficit hawks and progressives, interestingly enough, is that the once inviolable defense budget must take a massive hit -- somewhere on the order of $1 trillion over 10 years.

"What the proposals by Representative Schakowsky, EPI, Demos and the Century Foundation, and the Citizens' Commission all demonstrate is that we can reduce the deficit without cutting jobs or undermining the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare," said Mary Kay Henry. "These proposals offer real solutions to move our economy forward, reject the failed policies that created our current crisis, and respond to the demands of the American people to create good jobs."

The AFL-CIO is also out in opposition to the plan. "With this report the Deficit Commission once again tells working Americans to 'Drop Dead,'" said AFL head Richard Trumka. "No proposal on fiscal issues is serious that leaves the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place while raising taxes on the middle class and slashing Social Security and Medicare. All commission members should vote no on this misguided plan."


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The president's deficit-commission report, scheduled for a vote by the full panel on Friday, proposes to slash tax rates for corporations and for high earners. The top tax rate is ...
WASHINGTON — The president's deficit-commission report, scheduled for a vote by the full panel on Friday, proposes to slash tax rates for corporations and for high earners. The top tax rate is ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,394
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (147 total)
  1 of 23  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OnTopicOffTopic 12:35 PM on 12/01/2010
1979 if you made over 161k your rate was 70%

1969 if you made over 180k your rate was 70%

1964 If you made over 200k your rate was 77%

1958 If you made over 200k your rate was 90%

Our country's most prosperous years were mirrored by high tax rates.
There is a definitive correlation at work. We actually payed for what we used / did instead of borrowing it from China or  Read More...
11:58 AM on 12/07/2010
My proposal for President Obama is the following:
1) Unemployment Benefits - each person must complete a short 5 x 8 card or go on the internet and complete same...if married, spouse's monthly wages. If $50K and over, reject continuing UC benefits.
2) Social Security -a) increase the SS deduction to no maximum. If low wage earners and middle class making less than $100K pay the maximum, why shouldn't others who earn more than $100K. b) When someone applies for SS, ask if they are receiving a pension and if that amount is greater than $100K a year, reject SS benefits?
3) Federal Taxes - flat tax for people making less than $100K, i.e. 5%? Next level 10%, highest level 25% for the richest people.
4) Increase the dependent deductions to $5000 giving couples a $10K immediate reduction in income for tax purposes and eliminate the child credit totally.
5) Keep the Schedule A on the 1040 form and allow medical costs even though they may already be tax deferred under a 125Plan. This is where most of our money is being spent on health care and we are receiving no fair and comparable allowances.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
09:37 PM on 12/02/2010
First they stole the money we paid in to Social Security to make their budgets look better. Now we have to take a cut because they spent the money? Social Security was designed as a stand alone system with nothing to do with the budget.

Then they want to cut Medicare so that people with an annual income of $15,000 have to pay a co-pay of up to $7500 per year.

They cut Unemployment and now 2 million people will have no income for themselves and their families. Soon they will join the current 22% of Americans living below the poverty level and homeless.

And, the Rich and the Corporations get tax cuts.

What was that the TPer's were saying about Second Amendment Remedies?
08:10 PM on 12/02/2010
This is one of today's most shared news stories on Facebook. You can see the full list at http://allthingsnow.com
03:39 PM on 12/02/2010
Commission Members
Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton
Executive Director:
Bruce Reed, Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton
Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI 4)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC 5)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union
01:00 PM on 12/02/2010
I have fisical commission exhaustion. They didn't go by facts or common sense. The fix was in when they were appointed.

Medicare probably isn't hurt as bad by inflation as Social Security is, since Medicare is paid out as fast as it is paid in.

The Social Security Trust fund is going to be hit hard since Bernanke is cutting the buying power of the dollar as much as he can.

Higher pay would solve a lot of the problems with Social Security and Medicare. So would medical cost control.

It is the high cost of all medical care, health insurance and prescription drugs that is hurting our competiveness, not Social Security.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
De Tocqueville and Marx were both right
09:39 PM on 12/02/2010
That was what a Single Payer System was supposed to fix, until Obama bailed.
11:40 AM on 12/02/2010
The Madness of a Lost Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIOZYM88Mmk
11:05 AM on 12/02/2010
Our great country is being destroyed by the shameless and the spineless.
Insanity rules. God help us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waynesmyer
10:19 AM on 12/02/2010
REVERSE ROBIN HOOD! STEAL FROM THE POOR! GIVE TO THE RICH!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AJKenn
Black social/sexual progressive/Leftist
10:04 AM on 12/02/2010
WOW. And this on top of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years.

This is more an IMF "shock doctrine" austerity budget, but with the wealthy and the corporations exempted. And, it's entirely President Obama's Frankenstein, done with no help from the GOTP.

If this is Obama's answer to the Republicans' scorched earth policies, then give me President Palin and be done with it. At least, she's honest about her principles.

Strike three and you're gone, Barack Obama and the Democrats. My money and votes go Green or Left from here on....no more Democrats. Or, should I say...Dimocrats.

Anthony
03:38 PM on 12/02/2010
The CBO recommends extending the tax cuts for one to two years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TedEjr
Geeky nerd. Or is it nerdy geek?
09:54 AM on 12/02/2010
Well, as I often say, things usually work for the best. Back, what, six months ago, when Obama put together this commission, he tried to get a Congressional Panel to do the work. The Republicans refused.

Had these same ideas resulted from a Congressional Panel, by Congressional Rules, Congress would have been required to implement them. Since they are from a blue ribbon panel, Congress is not required to abide by them.

I hate to say this, but, thank you, Republicans, for being so ornery. In this case.

I bet they are also kicking themselves right about now.
09:44 AM on 12/02/2010
IT is no surprise the deficit commission's plan favors corporate America and the wealthy......look who the members are. I fear most of it will be adopted by congress because they are to cowardly to stand up for the poor, the working class and the middle class of America. Where is the morality in this proposal, where is the Christian influence, since a vast majority of the members of congress claim to be Christians? What Christian principles advocate protection of the wealth and power of the rich at the expense of the poor and the workers? It is also extremely disturbing that these Christian legislators and members of the commission have deliberately lied to the American people about Social Security and it's roll in the nation's deficit problems.....Social Security is not part of the deficit problem, Social Security is forbidden by law to contribute to the deficit, and it doesn't, yet these Christian's have been waging a propaganda campaign deceiving the nation, conniving and convincing too many Social Security is a major part of the deficit problem. God Bless America......with our current Christian leadership we will need God's blessings to help us survive.
12:41 PM on 12/02/2010
You can't pay the poor when the government breaks your piggy bank. I'm just saying.
03:37 PM on 12/02/2010
Social Security is part of the Gross National Debt. In fact it and other programs like it are the difference between Debt Held by the Public and Gross National Debt. They're called intragovernmental holdings.
yougg
just a citizen
06:22 AM on 12/02/2010
Why is Social Security even included in this mix? It is not an entitlement program. It is a trust. We pay into this program. The wealthy don't need tax cuts. Get over it. One situation that makes me insane is the Bush prescription program for seniors. Bush handed a monopoly to the drug companies. Medicare can't even negioate for better prices. WalMart can get better prices. The VA can negotiate for better prices. What is with this?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Enroh Mot
Veritas Lux Mea
07:02 AM on 12/02/2010
Corporate controlled Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
04:48 AM on 12/02/2010
This was NOT an effort made in good faith, it was a think tank exercise from the far right who are being extremely intellectual dishonest in saying that they tried to be fair. They did not.
1. Take the cap off of income that can be taxed for social security
2. Do NOT raise the retirement age, it is NOT fair to those who have worked with their backs and their hands for their entire life.
3. Tax the rich. It is NOT fair for the middle class to be paying almost 60% of taxes while the wealthy are only paying around 40% - with nothing for the U.S.A. to show for it.
4. Tax cuts DO NOT increase revenues and they do NOT bring jobs.
5. REAGAN raised taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Enroh Mot
Veritas Lux Mea
04:46 AM on 12/02/2010
Raising the retirement age will make it even more difficult for young people getting out of school to find a job, tax cuts for the rich, that's just business as usual in Washington DC.
yougg
just a citizen
06:15 AM on 12/02/2010
I agree-raising the retirement age isn't going to do much-except make it harder to get younger people into the work force. My niece is going to graduate with a pharmacy degree in the spring. She has been going to job fairs and the number of employers looking is pretty sparse. Of course she has student loans to pay back too.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Enroh Mot
Veritas Lux Mea
06:36 AM on 12/02/2010
After the military I went to Europe and traveled around working as a welder, before coming back I wanted to make big money, and that's on the oil rigs in the North Sea, but you have to be a certified pipe welder, which is difficult, the British government paid for the school I had to go to learn, they even paid for my room and board, years later I was working in New Orleans, and got wiped out by Katrina, went up to NYC, and got a job as a welding instructor at a vo-tech school, they charged $16.000 for the 7 month course, and they helped the students get bank loans, even the working class don't get a break in America.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:50 AM on 12/02/2010
Social security should not have even been a topic in this commission study. That is a subject that could become a problem twenty years from now. How about solving today's problems, like the messed up Bush Rx plan, first. The only problem with Social Security is that the govenment owes it a whole bunch of money, not the other way around.