New York Magazine columnist Jonathan Chait explains what ought to be obvious to everyone, but isn’t:
Republicans think government spending is huge, but they can’t really identify ways they want to solve that problem, because government spending is not really huge. That is to say, on top of an ideological gulf between the two parties, we have an epistemological gulf. The Republican understanding of government spending is based on hazy, abstract notions that don’t match reality and can’t be translated into a workable program.
…The United States spends way less money on social services than do other advanced countries, and even that low figure is inflated by our sky-high health-care prices. The retirement benefits to programs like Social Security are quite meager. Public infrastructure is grossly underfunded.
The Bowles-Simpson “plan” was an earnest and badly needed attempt to reconcile the GOP’s hazy belief that government is enormous with reality. They did everything they could possibly do: They brought in representatives from all sides for long meetings with budget experts, going through all aspects of federal policy in detail, in the hope of reaching an agreement on the proper scope of government and how to pay for it. It failed. The Bowles-Simpson plan wound up punting on all the major questions because it simply couldn’t bridge that gulf between perception and reality.
…The real domestic savings in Bowles-Simpson came from building on Obamacare’s steps to save money by holding down the growth of health-care costs and to cut defense spending by pretty steep levels. But these turned out to be ideas that alienated rather than satisfied Republicans. So basically it turned out to be impossible to find real spending cuts that Republicans wanted.
…This is why the spending side of the fiscal cliff negotiation is so discouraging. The potential cuts on the table range from fairly painful steps like reducing the Social Security cost-of-living index to even more painful steps like raising the Medicare retirement age, and none of them would save all that much money — certainly not on the scale that Republicans want.
When the only cuts on the table would inflict real harm on people with modest incomes and save small amounts of money, that is a sign that there’s just not much money to save. It’s not just that Republicans disagree with this; they don’t seem to understand it. The absence of a Republican spending proposal is not just a negotiating tactic but a howling void where a specific grasp of the role of government ought to be. And negotiating around that void is extremely hard to do. The spending cuts aren’t there because they can’t be found.
Fortunately, there is already a deficit-reduction plan that has passed Congress and been signed into law by President Obama. It lets the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich expire at the end of the 2012, and cuts Pentagon spending by $500 billion over the next 10 years, with $55 billion of it expected in the first year.
UPDATE: Rep. Chris Van Hollen: Boehner is stalling on a so-called “fiscal cliff” deal until after his re-election as Speaker of the House on January 3.
UPDATE: Paul Krugman: “It’s a dangerous situation. The G.O.P. is lost and rudderless, bitter and angry, but it still controls the House and, therefore, retains the ability to do a lot of harm, as it lashes out in the death throes of the conservative dream.”
#1 by Geithner on December 13, 2012 - 8:29 pm
“Fortunately, there is already a deficit-reduction plan that has passed Congress and been signed into law by President Obama. It lets the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich expire at the end of the 2012, and cuts Pentagon spending by $500 billion over the next 10 years, with $55 billion of it expected in the first year.”
That makes barely a small dent in the problem. The suggestion that this is some kind of “plan” is a joke to the word “math”. What you just described goes about 1/10th of the way there. That sentence totally reveals your lack of understand of the issue at hand. Go read up on it and get back when you understand.
The only thing it shows is that you have an upisdownism agenda to pretend to tax rich people and to pretend to do something about the budget, however your “plan” does neither. This is an advertisement for ignorance.
#2 by Richard Warnick on December 13, 2012 - 9:13 pm
“Tiny Tim” weighs in. Well, Tim, what is your plan to raise taxes and cut the Pentagon budget?
BTW Romney latching on to the lame Alan Keyes/Dan Quayle phrase “trickle-down government” wasn’t as rhetorically challenged as you trying to borrow “up-is-downism.”
#3 by Cliff Lyon on December 13, 2012 - 10:06 pm
“Tiny Tim” seems to suffer the GOP disease: the fortitude to criticize a deficit reduction plan and a deficit of fortitude to present a better alternative.
This is the now predictable tactic of the left: criticize, play golf, take vacation, criticize some more.
#4 by Keith Ellison on December 14, 2012 - 7:37 am
“But there’s no way to fix America’s problem without doing something on entitlements. If the Democrats — and Mr. Obama, in particular — don’t get more seriously into that discussion, they have no standing to complain about the Republicans’ lack of balance.”
Washington Post Editorial Board
#5 by Cliff Lyon on December 14, 2012 - 8:18 am
Some of the Washington Post Editorial writers are fairly lazy conservatives. Still worse, some purposefully mislabel Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements.”
I think a more accurate statement would be:
“But there’s no way to fix America’s problem without doing something on [Military spending and establishing a single payer health care system]
#6 by Keith Ellison on December 14, 2012 - 8:59 am
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, without reform, spending on Social Security and federal health-care programs will rise from 10 percent of gross domestic product today to 16 percent 25 years from now. If that sounds manageable, consider this: Over the past 40 years, the entire federal budget has averaged 18.5 percent of GDP.
Still waiting for Obama’s single payer health care system. Still waiting for Obama to reduce military spending.
#7 by Dronius Ma on December 14, 2012 - 9:42 am
If the Washington Post says obama has to get down on his knees and take it, then that is what he will do
He’s done it every time, and is a supple lover once cooed
Here is the latest concerning bootlicker cliff’s beloved mentor
http://www.thefinaledition.com/article/nobel-committee-asks-obama-nicely-to-return-peace-prize.html
#8 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 9:56 am
My point is that we already have a deficit-reduction plan in current law, which members of both major political parties voted for. I did not claim it was a deficit elimination plan, however it would reduce the deficit from $1.1 trillion to $641 billion. The CBO projects deficits would continue to fall dramatically through 2018.
The best thing is, this will serve a hot steaming cup of STFU to the deficit hysterics in Washington who are screaming about “entitlements.” Chicken soup for the soul.
#9 by Keith Ellison on December 14, 2012 - 10:46 am
“Current law” includes an end to unemployment benefit extensions, staggering cuts in Medicare, etc. Is this what you support?
#10 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2012 - 11:01 am
Unemployment insurance, like most government benefits, is time-limited. If Congress fails to extend long-term unemployment, the states are free to step in. But it has to end sometime.
Health care organizations may take a hit to their bottom line, but that is long overdue. Health care costs too much. Patients won’t lose out.
#11 by Larry Bergan on December 14, 2012 - 6:35 pm
I always suspected the chart showing military spending in relation to all other spending would look like that, but there is never a shortage of people out there in our media saying grandma is the real drain.
When does this stop?
#12 by brewski on December 15, 2012 - 6:49 am
Patients will indeed lose out when their doctors stop accepting Medicare patients.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/health_med_fit/madison-clinic-s-decision-to-stop-taking-new-medicare-patients/article_70520894-72c8-11e1-a7d0-0019bb2963f4.html
#13 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2012 - 11:33 am
The real “doc fix” would be to switch from a fee-for-service model to a system that rewards doctors for keeping their patients healthy. The Affordable Care Act made a start on this.
#14 by Larry Bergan on December 15, 2012 - 8:18 pm
It baffles me why employers and doctors didn’t fight harder for single payer to get the monkey off their backs. The ACA has some great advances, but it’s just too complex and I’m afraid the scoundrels out for the money are going to find a way to make it fail so they can resume their bilking of sick peoples nest-eggs.
Remember how Bill Frist fought to save Terri Schiavo. I think there was a reason for that, considering the guy was making – was it billions – off of health “care” as it existed.