iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Reich

Robert Reich

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich

The Republican Plan With Lipstick

Posted: 05/ 3/11 08:04 PM ET

Republicans figure that if they can't sell the pig, they'll just put lipstick on it and find some suckers who will think it's something else.

That's the proposal emerging in the Senate from Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee and also Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri. It would get the deficit down not by raising taxes on the rich but by capping federal spending.

If Congress failed to stay under the cap, the budget would be automatically cut.

According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the McCaskill/Corker plan would require $800 billion of cuts in 2022 alone. That's the equivalent of eliminating Medicare entirely, or the entire Department of Defense.

Obviously the Defense Department wouldn't disappear, so what would go? Giant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and much of everything else Americans depend on.

It's the Republican plan with lipstick. It would have the same exact result. But by disguising it with caps and procedures, Republicans can avoid saying what they're intending to do.

The McCaskill/Corker spending cap would also make it impossible for government to boost the economy in recessions. Which would mean even higher unemployment, lasting longer.

Other Senate Dems are showing interest in the lipsticked pig, including West Virginia's Joe Manchin. Not surpringly, Joe Lieberman is on board.

But don't be fooled, and don't let anyone else be. McCaskill/Corker is the same Republican pig.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 565
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:29 AM on 05/06/2011
Is there really any differences between the democrats and republicans maybe we call them repocracts. Honor character nad integrety have all been banished from washington. K street rules god help their poor ignored constituents. They are sooooo disconnected from reality. God have mercy on us the average citizen.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
03:06 AM on 05/11/2011
Mostly correct. The corporatist GOP and DLC DINOs keep fooling the voters with their professional sold campaign, pr and image consultants, The people who don't get the big money bribes are the Progressive Caucus half of the democrats, seem funky and amateur compared to the corporate polished puppets. Look at the the Progressive Bridget the only honest budget out there. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

Beware the "new Democrats" they call themselves progressives, but they are corporatist DLC retreads. Do you homework, vote for the real FDR,Ike, Kucinich, Dean, Grayson Progressive folks, and watch out for the fakes and sellouts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Buffyboy
Here it comes, Senior
09:49 PM on 05/05/2011
What is McCaskill thinking? I just emailed her and asked her that same question at http://mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=contact
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
getsit
good morning, I'm here
02:25 PM on 05/05/2011
One thing we can count on is that the Republicans never change their agenda. They just rename it, move it around, attack at a different angle but the essence of their intent to destroy the middleclass is still there.

I know that are LOTS of Republican's out there on Medicaid/Medicare. If you REALLY value those benefits and rely on them then PLEASE change your vote. Don't vote Republican because it's harming yourself. (maybe that would be a great bumper sticker?)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:05 PM on 05/05/2011
Any head of household breadwinner, upon seeing that income does not equal expenses, gets a highter paying job....that would mean demanding higher taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
getsit
good morning, I'm here
02:28 PM on 05/05/2011
Higher taxes yes. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. Cutting services harms MOST of Americans because MOST of us will need that social security and Medicare. A voucher system is ridiculous. I'd like anyone to name one of those monopolistic private insurance waiting in line to sell to an elderly person since the elderly tend to have more health problems. The law allows premiums to be higher for the higher risk people as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 AM on 05/05/2011
I see conservatives here talking about the alleged 51% that didn't pay taxes--and I assume they mean fed. income tax only--but never see any sites for that?

Funny...
photo
IgnoranceIsStrength
Don't ask me, Google it yourself !
11:00 AM on 05/05/2011
media-perp­­etuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know...:

1. Poor Americans do pay taxes.
2. The wealthiest Americans don’t carry the burden.
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
5. And (surprise!­­) since Reagan, only the wealthy have gained significan­­t income.
6. When it comes to corporatio­­ns, the story is much the same—less taxes.
7.Some corporate tax breaks destroy jobs.
8. Republican­­s like taxes too.
9. Other countries do it better.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
01:56 PM on 05/05/2011
Reality:

1) Poor Americans pay less in taxes than their european counterparts
2) Wealthy Americans pay more in taxes than their european counterparts, and disproportionately.
3) Wealthy are paying more taxes, by any statistical measurement
4) Could be true, depending on the structure
5) Partially true, primary culprit is hardly partisan and rather globalization, of which Clinton/Greenspan pushed further and faster than any other.
6) Sometimes, which is why a flat rate with minimal deductions for both personal/corps is better
7) Destroy? No. Relocate? Perhaps.
8) err? Maybe.
01:53 PM on 05/05/2011
Read the newest Atlantic, all the stats in there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
04:46 PM on 05/04/2011
Sen. Warner from a constituent : 22180“:
Warner made clear he is opposed to the House Republican 2012 budget’s reliance on cuts to Medicare—he called it a “massive transfer of responsibility onto our seniors”–

Please take note of the following:

Senate homeland security subcommittee on federal financial management:

“Wednesday’s hearing was chaired by Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. “When we have estimates of more than $47 billion in overpayments, and potentially tens of billions of dollars in fraud within Medicare and Medicaid, there is a lot of opportunity to improve the way government oversees these vital health care programs,” he said.”
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:52 PM on 05/04/2011
did they also manage to track down the pallets of cash that disappeared in Iraq amounting to hundreds of billions?
01:57 PM on 05/05/2011
Hundreds of billions in cash? Really? lol.

That is enough cash to fill a stadium.
05:03 PM on 05/05/2011
Yes, those billions in overpayments to INSURANCE COMPANIES! There should be little or no difference among health insurance companies in the amounts of money that they are receiving from Medicare for services which have been used by seniors; e.g. cancer screening costs should be the same for everyone, diabetes care, dialysis, checkups, etc. In other words, one company shouldn't be charging more than another company for the same types of health care. How much of that fraud is by the companies and doctors who are over-charging Medicare? The issue is not to penalize seniors, but to rein in the insurance companies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Silverwolf72
Are We There Yet?
03:53 PM on 05/04/2011
Would you rather have $1000 at 50%= $500
or $1 tax free?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
optimist7
03:38 PM on 05/04/2011
If Claire McCaskill keeps it up she'll wind up meeting the same fate that Blanche Lincoln did in November. As for Manchin, while I was happy a Democrat was elected in West Virginia at the time, he hasn't taken a single position thus far that would identify him as a Democrat. He appears to be a remnant of the Dixiecrats or an opportunist, who registered as a Democrat just to stand out as being somehow different to be able to run against other Republicans.
12:39 PM on 05/04/2011
As Grateful Dead fans used to say, SSDD.

I am so tired of the moral and intellectual pygmies running this country into the ground that I have trouble finding words for it any more. More than 80% of the country favors increasing taxes on the rich (source: poll reported on TRMS) and a solid majority favors significant reductions in war, err, "defense" spending. So of course those are the first things taken off the table by these poltroons.

In the words of Popeye the Sailor, I yam disgustipated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theidel
02:26 PM on 05/04/2011
"More than 80% of the country favors increasing taxes on the rich "

Not a surprising result when less than 50% of the country are actually paying taxes...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
commchf
isthisthingworking?
03:18 PM on 05/04/2011
Direct blame goes to W for that 50% stat. The child tax credits he passed were welfare for the middle class.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
optimist7
03:24 PM on 05/04/2011
Everyone in the country contributes to Medicare and Social Security, whether you call the contributions taxes or not. Everyone also pays sales taxes and taxes on a variety of things such as oil. SS and Medicare are not "giveaways." Unfortunately, the funds collected to pay the benefits, including funds collected from the poor, who don't earn enough to be able to maintain a decent standard of living and have to go without necessities to pay their contributions, have been dipped into (or one could say pilfered) so tax cuts could be given to the rich, subsidies paid to corporations, and tax loopholes created to give global corporations a break.
 
Your claim is old and tired, not to mention not being true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetestTaboo
12:01 PM on 05/04/2011
This is one of those Bills that would require a Super Majority which means the Republicans would have to turn 13 Democrats. I don't see that happening.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTSnowman
US Navy & Army vet and proud liberal
11:59 AM on 05/04/2011
Here we go again with the 51% didn't pay taxes at all. The 2010 tax table states someone with an AGI of $1000 owes $101 in income tax. If you count babies and people with no income and add in the rich who have great lawyers then maybe you get that number. If you are trying to tell me the working stiff is not paying you are on RX.
Here's a link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
commchf
isthisthingworking?
03:21 PM on 05/04/2011
But if you have children that $101 goes away and you get a check from uncle sam. I call it welfare for the middle class, W called it a child tax credit when he signed the law. It's hilarious to hear conservatives rail against those who don't pay taxes when they themselves passed the law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
04:59 PM on 05/04/2011
EXACTLY AND RIGHT ON
photo
jeffrey678
You don't happen to make it. You make it happen.
11:43 AM on 05/04/2011
“After 3 months of anemic Republican action on the economic front, Speaker John Boehner and the Joint Economic Committee have formulated a plan. On the second page of the executive summary titled, What and How to Cut, the Republican­­­s are demanding to “Decreasin­­­g the number and compensati­­­on of government workers”- the Republican­­­s follow up with their explanatio­­­n of the prior statement,
“A smaller government workforce increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.”
For those who have a slight grasp of economics this is astonishin­­­g. Let me explain, labor costs = American wages. By increasing the supply of labor, wages decrease. This is basic economics of supply and demand. So the way the Republican­­­s want to create jobs in America is to saturate the American labor pool with more workers, increasing unemployme­­­nt, and driving down the American standard of living.
www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/JEC_Jobs_Study.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
05:02 PM on 05/04/2011
“A smaller government workforce increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.”

MY 4TH GRAD GRANDSON COULD FIGURE OUT THAT ONE IN TWO MINUTES. LOWER WAGES AND MORE UNEMPLOYMENT!
photo
IgnoranceIsStrength
Don't ask me, Google it yourself !
11:04 AM on 05/05/2011
It's the type of math that kids shouldn't have to think about in the United States. Best of luck to him in the future.
02:03 PM on 05/05/2011
What's the math say about more redundant jobs at a higher than market rate, for which money is taken from him to pay for?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TRex86
Enjoying life in West Ohio
10:18 AM on 05/04/2011
Osama bin Laden not only killed thousands of Americans and cost us at least $3 trillion, he damaged our powers of reasoning. In our frenzy of over-reaction we lost the ability to manage our internal economic affairs. The war was funded off the books. Debt and deficits soared, but most importantly we stopped thinking clearly about our fiscal policy. Now we have trillion plus deficits and soaring debt topping $14 trillion. This BTW was OBL's fervent wish--that we would destroy ourselves.

Our nation cannot slash its way to greatness, particularly with regards to domestic spending. Overseass we should exploit the Osama dividend and rethink our strategic role in the world as we currently spend more than the rest of the planet combined, yet we showed that a relatively low budget operation delivered the goods. At home we need to do whatever it takes to create jobs and boost federal tax revenues, giving us the flexibility to address long term problems without suicidal (self-defeating) austerity measures. Cutting social programs will stagnate the economy; infrastructure jobs will get us rolling.

If we act like adults, at the point that unemployment hits 4% we should restructure our federal budget: revenues = current spending plus amortization of the debt and projected costs of the entitlements programs. We cannot mechanistically put a cap on spending without risking another economic meltdown, but we can demand that our legislators behave openly and responsibly. (That could happen!)
03:29 PM on 05/04/2011
Nobody in power will ever let unemployment get to as little as 4%. It's the regular presence in the work force of threat and desperation that enables wages at the bottom to stay depressed, freeing up even more profit for those at the top. Much like guerrillas or terrorists coming into native villages, asking for the village headman, and immediately shooting him in front of as many people as possible, those who already find themselves on the winning side will spare no pains to make sure they create enough anxiety that their opposition cowers, accepts, and obeys for fear that no matter how bad it is already, it could get almost unpredictably much worse. It's the same thing Stalin's erratic purges accomplished and Saddam Hussein's famously videotaped summary execution of legislators created: the ability to accept any burden or indeed any random abuse and injustice coupled with the fear to enact, speak, and eventually even think of differing with or opposing it.
photo
gonzo marx
bona na croin
09:54 AM on 05/04/2011
the GoPers using deceit to hide their starve the beast agenda under another guise?

and anyone is surprised by the lack of scruples and ethics, how?

next time one of these so called "christian" GoP types talks about cutting safety net programs , you only have to say one thing to them...ask them how they reconcile their position with Matthew 25:40

that's checkmate
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
09:42 AM on 05/04/2011
I say across-the-board, no excuses, no exceptions. Maybe we should outsource federal book keeping? Which country are we on the worst terms with, so we can get an honest critic out of the woodpile?   Somewhere along the line, it became 'ok' to keep trying to pull dollars essentially out of thin air to whatever extent and degree various entities and agencies believed to be prudent. Only under the Clinton administration(s) did things appear to be going in the right direction. There, legend has it, the debt was actually reducing.
06:01 PM on 05/05/2011
Not legend, reality.