President Obama and many Democrats spent much of 2011 talking about deficits instead of doing something about jobs. Now, a too-close election is on the horizon (too-close because of spending 2011 talking about deficits instead of doing something about jobs) and we're being forced back to talking about deficits instead of jobs -- by a Democrat!
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad says he is going to introduce the "Simpson-Bowles" deficit plan as his fiscal year 2013 budget resolution. This is a plan put forward by Alan Simpson, a retired Republican Senator who hates Social Security, and Erskine Bowles, a member of the Board of Wall Street's Morgan Stanley. So here we are once again with the same old same old plan from the same old same old elites. Namely: cuts in Social Security and other things We, the People do for each other, combined with even more tax cuts for the rich. This austeridiocy plan to grow the economy by taking money out of the economy is a billionaire-backed zombie that never dies.
CNN: "Bowles-Simpson back on table,"
A key senator said Tuesday he would try to revive the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan as a starting point in negotiations over a long-term debt-reduction plan.Democrat Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, announced he would present the plan as his opening bid at the committee's budget mark-up on Wednesday.
Murdoch's WSJ: "Conrad's Budget Surprise: Simpson-Bowles,"
A key senator said Tuesday he would try to revive the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan as a starting point in negotiations over a long-term debt-reduction plan.... The original Bowles-Simpson plan would reduce deficits by at least $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting defense and discretionary spending, curbing federal entitlement costs and reforming the tax code.
"Reforming" the tax code as used here means lowering tax rates for the rich and corporations, getting rid of a number of deductions to make it look like it isn't such a big tax cut and then later putting back lots of new deductions and breaks for the rich and corporations.
Now Mr. Conrad could try to force the first Senate vote on the measure, though it would likely first come from the members on his committee. Mr. Conrad was on the Simpson-Bowles commission and voted for the plan in 2010. He's also on the so-called Gang of Six lawmakers looking for a legislative path to put the proposal into law. The plan was originally designed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles.
Push It Through After Election?
Citizens don't get to vote on austerity plans.
This time they're going to try to get this austerity plan through when few are paying attention: after the election but before the newly elected Congress comes in. This way democracy won't get in the way, and the public doesn't get a chance to react and hold legislators accountable. This might sound rather like the Greek austerity plan to cut working people's wages, cut the things the Greek government does for its people, lay off public employees, and especially to sell off the things the public owns and operates so a wealthy few can profit.
When the Greek Prime Minister proposed letting the public vote on this austerity plan he was removed, and bankers took control of the country, this is how it went:
Nov. 1, 2011: "Greek PM puts bailout deal to public vote"
Nov. 2: "Greece sticks to bailout vote, as U.S., Europe weigh options"
Nov 3: "Greek prime minister abandons referendum on Greek debt plan"
Nov. 9: "Greek prime minister set to resign"
Nov. 10: "Ex-banker Papademos is new Greek prime minister"
Ezra Klein talked with Conrad about his budget plan, and reports on the conversation in the Washington Post, "Can Simpson-Bowles really pass the Senate?,"
I've heard from some of my Republican colleagues who... said you're doing exactly what needs to be done but we're not going to be able to do something like this until after the election. And I think that's true for many Democrats as well... Simpson-Bowles put the vote of the commission after the 2010 election to try and insulate it from politics as much as possible. That's what we're trying to do here... I don't expect a vote after the election.
... We should be swift to say to people, however, that compared to current law, it's a $1.8 trillion tax cut.
Grand Bargain -- 'Til They Go Back On The Deal
Aside from the whole subvert-democracy thing where they decide this after the election so no one can be held accountable, the record for "deals" is not good. The "debt-ceiling" hostage deal finally ended with Republicans agreeing to "sequestration" that includes military spending cuts. But it hasn't worked out that way:
TPM: "Bait And Switch: GOP Leaders Renege On Debt Limit Deal Defense Cuts"
Oh, and if you really do want to do something about the deficit, think about this: Jobs Fix Deficits!
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
DCCC. Who can we get to challenge him the next time around? Is it too late for some independent occupy person to get on the ballot?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/health-care-tax-break-deficit_n_788852.html
Job-Based Health Care Threatened
"WASHINGTON — Job-based health care benefits could wind up on the chopping block if President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans get serious about cutting the deficit.
Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay.
The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.
[snip]
Repealing the tax break would raise several hundred billion dollars a year, depending on how it's done. Many economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care..."
Anyone who thinks employers would boost pay to compensate is delusional.
o Mexico
o Turkey
o United States
In 2012, the U.S. is the only industrialized country without universal health care.
We need to go back to the taxation formula during the Eisenhower years. We need to get rid of all the tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy. We need to put an excise tax - I'd suggest 9 % - on all day trades, hedge fund transactions, commodity trades and derivatives - None of these provide jobs - and I defy any one to explain to me what a derivative actually is. (I thought it had to do with the declension of Greek nouns.)
With the proceeds we can fund jobs to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling apart, our public schools and systems of higher learning, and renewable energy. In terms of infrastructure, only about one third of the stimulus went to infrastructure. If you compare that with the report made by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2009, you'll see that's just a down payment. So while the rich get to keep their tax breaks, our roads and bridges are falling to pieces.
Don't expect Kent Conrad to save the country. He's a DINO prostitute for corporate interestes. Instead let's tax the greedy to fund jobs for the needy.
P.S. The people must demand these changes. They must mobilize to elect leaders who will put jobs first. We can begin by re-electing Obama and firing the entire GOP. The first step should be Wisconsin.
To push the country even further to the right, and then right over a cliff...
That's the group that the wingnut Congressman said are all "communists" the other day.
We took in $2.7 trillion in federal taxes last year, but you want more?
Wow.
You are Exhibit A of how Democrats don't have a clue about spending and debt. I hope you don't run your household budget like that. If so, you'll have to file bankruptcy every year or two.
Nonsense, it's the same old tax cuts for the rich, cut Social Security and everything else except military.
FYI the commission had NO proposal, they deadlocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/newsroom/aia_news/2010/deficit_commission_panel_co-chair_recommendations_could_undercut_defense/
That means you put up $15,000 cash and you can borrow $100,000 to start a business.
I don't know what else the man could do the Republicans have stopped everything else the Corporations have borrowed tons of money at zero interest from the Fed. Expanding is not part of their plan as long as they can make money investong off the low interest money from the Fed.
Foole me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...ain't gonna happen.