http://washingtonexaminer.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-needs-spending-cuts/article/2515052#.UL-OPZPjn5F Separately, the Republican Study Committee, headed by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has put forward detailed plans that would cut spending further than in the House budget and balance the budget in five years without raising taxes. These proposals deserve serious consideration. The proposed RSC budget sets discretionary spending at $931 billion in fiscal year 2013, slightly less than the amount in the fiscal 2008 budget, $933 billion. To get there, the RSC budget eliminates funding for several programs whose functions need not be provided by government, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (savings: $4 billion over 10 years), the National Endowment for the Arts ($2 billion saved), and the Economic Development Administration and the Legal Services Corp. ($4 billion saved). The National Labor Relations Board would be merged into the Department of Justice. The RSC budget contains lists of agriculture subsidies that are ripe for elimination, adding up to $55 billion over 10 years. It proposes privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (savings: $43 billion) and ends the concept of too big to fail (savings: $32 billion). It suggests raising federal employees' pension contributions to private-sector levels. Most importantly, the RSC tackles entitlement programs. Costs of Social Security and Medicare increase with people's life expectancies, and changes have to be made to keep the programs solvent. For those 55 and younger, the RSC proposes to gradually raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Both the House budget and the RSC suggest transforming Medicare beginning in 2023 into a premium support program, with competing plans, like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Seniors would choose from government-approved insurance programs, and wealthier seniors would pay more for coverage.
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rsc_budget_cut_cap_and_balance--long_doc--final.pdf Starts on page 14.
I'm sure I'm missing something here, but how (if we're already pretty close to the new debt ceiling) can we "cap" our spending if it takes 5 years just to balance the budget? Isn't that another 5 years of deficits, which means 5 more years of loans/debt? Assuming that everything in the plan is correct and will save what they say it'll save? (Not that I'm totally convinced of that)
Anybody remember President Obama saying, last year, that he could raise $1.2T in revenue without raising taxes? http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...illion-revenue-increase-without-tax-rate-hik# This year, he says that is not a realistic possibility. How does one believe anything this administration says? It would be one thing if he said, "Oops we were wrong when we said that last year, and here's why." But he doesn't. Instead, it comes across as saying whatever is expedient at the moment, and assumes we're all to stupid to remember. (Seems like he's right about that for a lot of the voters.) Go Blazers
What I want to know is how does taxing the rich more just to pay 5% of the deficit (not much of a dent!) going to make anyone's life better?
Easy. It doesn't; but the liberals think they are Robin Hood and this will be a win to them. It doesn't matter how much they fuck up our economy as long as the rich get fucked and the poor get free shit.
I agree it doesn't, but it doesn't really matter at this point because Democrats with the help of the media have the upper hand in public perception. Nobody feels any sympathy for the rich. I agree that it won't help the economy and it won't put a dent in the deficit, and the request to give the president the power to extend the debt limit at his will is beyond ludicrous. But if taxes go up on the middle class then Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame...and the only thing worse IMO than Obama being President right now is Obama being President in 2014 with a Democratic Congress and NOTHING to lose.... Republicans just need to bite the bullet, agree to raise taxes on earners making over $1 million or at worst $500,000 and move on...That way at least they can be seen as compromising...and if Obama refuses that offer then they at least have some political cover.... But no way you turn over authority to raise the debt ceiling to him...The rest, just bite the bullet and do it.
Republicans don't have any solutions, because the government grows in size over the long-run. You can balance the budget as many times as you want, our currency and financial collapse is still looming.
So... What if the House passes extension of the Bush tax cuts for all? Leave things as they are. The political cover is, "we passed a bill to keep taxes from going up, and Dems and Obama blocked it." So we hit the fiscal cliff. Budget growth is reduced by force. Don't extend the debt ceiling. That will force Obama to prioritize what to spend on. But hey, govt. spending has a multiplier effect, according to those lefty economists, and we're giving govt. 10x what hiking taxes on just the rich gets them. Let's see this multiplier in action! Tho these economists talk out both sides of their mouths because they say fiscal cliff will cause a recession. Recession is Obama's legacy.
That's the problem. For many of those who voted for Big Government, it IS free. Raise the tax on the rich because they can pay for it and it can continue to be "free" for the less-rich. I am not rich, but I am sick of the class warfare. Gramps...
Good for Howard Dean http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...eeds_to_pay_more_taxes_not_just_the_rich.html
If you could get Dean to add, "and we need to spend a whole lot less than we are", I'd really be impressed.
