I forgot to set it last night. It’s just another miserable day in the continuous living hell that is Barack Obama’s America. And Romney has promised to do nothing on this crucial issue, either. Like Tom Friedman, I wish that Mike Bloomberg would run for president, so we’d finally have someone in the White House who cares about people like me, and will take care of serious problems like this.
[Update a while later]
More idiocy from Tom Friedman — he thinks the problem with America is that the government is gridlocked. Even ignoring all the legislative lunacy over the past decade that puts the lie to the notion, gridlock is the only thing that saves us from even worse laws.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Yuval Levin:
The fact is that the legacy of the Great Society, especially but not exclusively in the form of the two health-care entitlements of the Great Society, Medicare and Medicaid, now threatens the fiscal future of the government and therefore the economic future of the country. The design of those two entitlement programs was not well thought out in the mid-60s, and in more recent times has been a primary driver of the inflation of health costs that is at the core of both the health-care financing crisis and the government’s fiscal woes. It is far worse than the usual kind of legislative screwup. Medicare and Medicaid, structured as they are, are just the kinds of “bad laws” passed “through haste, inadvertence, or design” that Alexander Hamilton warned against in Federalist 73, and thought the constitutional system’s various restraints would protect us against. The elite governing consensus of the mid-60s represented a failure of those constraints that resulted in a number of costly errors. It was that period, not our own time, that marked a breakdown of our constitutional system.
Now we are stuck having to deal with the consequences of that failure, yet many of our contemporary liberal elites still insist it was not a failure at all, and yearn for that golden age of the 60s when Republicans and Democrats in Congress could get together over coffee and agree to inflate the welfare state without interruption by the unwashed masses blathering on about liberty and the Constitution. Cleaning up the mess left by the Great Society will not be easy, precisely because the sort of consensus it took to pass Medicare and Medicaid is exceedingly uncommon in our republic. Reforming Medicare and Medicaid would seem to require a similar consensus, but no such consensus looks likely now that our constitutional system is, on the whole, working again.
That means that reform will have to be advanced through the normal processes and circumstances of our constitutional system, not around them. The solution will not involve quiet conversations among liberals of different parties, it will involve a political campaign aimed at informing the public and gaining its support. This has never been a pleasant prospect for politicians—simply put, we have not reformed our entitlement system because voters don’t want to, and bringing about such reforms will involve informing voters about the failures of that system and changing their minds, which is not what politicians generally do. But in the last couple of years we have finally begun to see the Republican Party step up and begin that work in earnest. We shall see later this year if the public is open to such persuasion, or if the Democratic Party will succeed in persuading the public to ignore the coming disaster while simultaneously complaining about our paralyzed politics.
Sadly, I know where I’d put my money.
My neighbor’s cat makes too much noise at night. I wish that Mike Bloomberg would run for president because he doesn’t discriminate against cat as a valuable source of protein.
As long as you don’t put too much salt on it.
Rock is $100/g at the corner. Maybe you’ve gotten used to this and have stopped noticing. I haven’t. Our country needs a renewal.
And that is why I still hope Michael Bloomberg will reconsider running for president as an independent candidate, if only to participate in the presidential debates and give our two-party system the shock it needs.
The fact is that the legacy of the Great Society, especially but not exclusively in the form of the two health-care entitlements of the Great Society, Medicare and Medicaid, now threatens the fiscal future of the government and therefore the economic future of the country.
More accurately, they threaten the continued lowering of the tax rates of the GOP’s favored clients.
we have not reformed our entitlement system because voters don’t want to, and bringing about such reforms will involve informing voters about the failures of that system and changing their minds, which is not what politicians generally do.
It will involve convincing voters that lowering taxes on the wealthy few is more important than preserving health care and nursing home coverage for the elderly middle class, not to mention the poor and disabled.
Expecting President Bloomberg to fix D.C. gridlock is one example of magical thinking. Expecting independent voters to be won over to the wisdom of cutting Granny’s Medicare in order to lower Mitt Romney’s taxes is another.
Expecting independent voters to be won over to the wisdom of cutting Granny’s Medicare in order to lower Mitt Romney’s taxes is another.
This kind of lying demagoguery is why we can’t fix the problem. No one is proposing to “cut Granny’s Medicare.”
No one is proposing to “cut Granny’s Medicare.”
You’re making my point. Levin is saying that the GOP has to persuade voters (who “don’t want to” reform entitlements) that Medicare is unsustainable, a “coming disaster.” But you, someone sympathetic to Levin’s argument, can’t even bring yourself to make the case that cuts are necessary. If you can’t make that case here, how do you think the GOP will make it to independent voters?
you, someone sympathetic to Levin’s argument, can’t even bring yourself to make the case that cuts are necessary.
Are you stupid? That is a serious question. I didn’t say that cuts aren’t necessary. Of course they are. But they aren’t necessary for current recipients (e.g., “Granny”). Why don’t you actually go read Paul Ryan’s plan, so you won’t continue to look like a fool here.
But they aren’t necessary for current recipients (e.g., “Granny”)
You don’t think it’s possible to be a grandmother at 55?
This business of not affecting current recipients gives away the game. Ryan is simultaneously arguing that Medicare is in desperate financial straits, but there’s no need to do anything about it for ten years. Ten years!
He’s also simultaneously arguing that the new “reformed” Medicare vouchers will be so wonderful that no one will begrudge getting them rather than “Medicare Classic”, but that we don’t dare inflict them on anyone who will turn 65 before 2022. It’s a transparently political dodge.
I didn’t say that cuts aren’t necessary. Of course they are. But they aren’t necessary for current recipients
What’s so special about current recipients (and people who will are 56 and older, who will be grandfathered into traditional Medicare)? Why should they be exempt from cuts? The cuts wouldn’t have to be as deep if they were spread over the entire Medicare population — why divide that population into two classes, and make one of them bear all the sacrifice? Are you really going to tell someone born on January 1, 1957 that she doesn’t deserve guaranteed coverage, while someone born a day earlier does?
And all so Ryan/Romney can afford to lower the top tax rates?
What’s so special about current recipients (and people who will are 56 and older, who will be grandfathered into traditional Medicare)?
What is “special” about them is that they have lived their entire lives having planned on the basis of getting the benefit, whereas younger people have time to make other arrangements.
Are you really this stupid, or do you just think that we are? If you don’t like Ryan’s form of transition of an unsustainable program, come up with one of your own, but don’t insult our intelligence.
What is “special” about them is that they have lived their entire lives having planned on the basis of getting the benefit, whereas younger people have time to make other arrangements.
A 56 year old has lived her “entire life” planning on getting Medicare, but a 55 year old hasn’t?
Someone who is 55 today has paid Medicare taxes for 30+ years, expecting to get the same benefit that those taxes funded for current retirees. She is no less deserving than a 56 year old to whom you would grant traditional Medicare for life. The two of them may spend 40 years getting dramatically different government services, because of a slight difference in their ages, and Paul Ryan’s 2012 political needs.
It will involve convincing voters that lowering taxes on the wealthy few is more important than preserving health care and nursing home coverage for the elderly middle class, not to mention the poor and disabled.
If raising taxes on the wealthy few had any reality-based relation to preserving nursing home coverage for the elderly middle class, then you might be on to something. But it doesn’t. It might make you feel better, but then so does a drag on a crack pipe (I hear).
Seriously Jim, how could you type that and leave out “the children”? If it’s not in your script you need an update. (I think the current version is 19.65d, check under About>Version)
Who already cut Medicare? Obama did by $500b and pushed off a lot of responsibility to the states for providing coverage, effectivly punting any hard decisions on funding and coverage to the states. Imagine that Obama not taking responsibility for his policies.
Just like a certain someone that freaks out about unknown future cuts and cares not that the Obama is already cutting the sacred programs.
If raising taxes on the wealthy few had any reality-based relation to preserving nursing home coverage for the elderly middle class, then you might be on to something. But it doesn’t.
Of course they have a relationship to each other, a dollar foregone in tax cuts is a dollar that has to be borrowed or cut from the budget, and Medicaid (which funds nursing home care) and Medicare are the juiciest targets for cuts.
More specifically, they have a relationship because the Ryan budget and Romney’s economic plan tie them together: they simultaneously propose lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending on Medicaid and Medicare and other things. There’s an old line that goes “Don’t tell me what your priorities are, show me your budget and I’ll tell you.” Judging by the Ryan budget, the GOP’s priorities are lower taxes on the rich, and lower spending on everything except defense.
To put it another way, the Republicans want to cut Medicare to lower taxes on the rich, while the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich to preserve Medicare. Convincing middle class voters that they want the former rather than the latter is a tall order.
But given the Laffer curve and our position on it, or more specifically the position of the rich on it, it may well be that raising taxes on the rich will decrease the amount of revenue they pay, making it a dollar forgone that has to be borrowed or cut from the budget.
Once you’re on the downhill side of the curve’s peak, raising taxes reduces revenue. All you’re doing is making the programs more unaffordable while slowing economic growth rates, making the programs even more unaffordable in the future.
Once you’re on the downhill side of the curve’s peak, raising taxes reduces revenue.
Which, of course, is why all the rate cuts since 2000 have boosted revenue as a fraction of GDP. Oh, wait….
It would be wonderful if we were on the downhill side of the Laffer curve. Everyone loves to cut taxes, and everyone loves more revenue.
Unfortunately, research and experience tells us that the Laffer curve peaks at a marginal tax rate of about 80%, and we haven’t been on the downhill side in half a century.
I hope Obama and the Congressional Democrats campaign on an 80% tax rate. I really hope to God they do! 😀
Everyone loves to cut taxes
No they don’t. You don’t. Because it’s unfair. And unhealthy. Some people actually loose sleep because the rich don’t pay enough. If you’re one of them, please consider either paying more voluntarily or moving somewhere with higher rates.
Everyone loves to cut taxes, and everyone loves more revenue.
Not everyone. Raising revenue to the government can be an unfortunate side effect of lower tax rates. It sickens me to see this drooling, gibbering motard of a government get one more penny to spend.
research and experience tells us that the Laffer curve peaks at a marginal tax rate of about 80%
Sorry, that’s incorrect. The labor tax revenue peaks around 60%, but the capital rate peaks at, well, I’ll be charitable and call it 40%.
But otherwise, I’m with George — I’d love to see Obama and the Dems campaign on those rates. 🙂
Keep in mind that those leftists who even acknowledge the Laffer curve tend to argue to high tax rates for max revenue. The model I favor suggests a broad revenue peak at about a 30% tax rate ( federal, state, and local taxes taken together). Accounting for impact of taxes on demand for social services, a lesser total tax rate is favored. On that basis, we are clearly on the far side of the peak.
We will probably have to raise taxes to deal with the debt and deficits but eating the rich wont come anywhere near close enough to solving our money problems and raising taxes or making cuts in the rates of growth does not mean we have more money to spend.
Unfortunately, research and experience tells us that the Laffer curve peaks at a marginal tax rate of about 80%
Nonsense. Research and experience indicate that we can’t get more than 20% of the GDP in revenue. We’re currently spending about 25%, and the Democrats want it to go higher.
Nonsense
So, Rand, where does the Laffer curve peak?
Some professional opinions (summary: Dem economists say 70+%, GOP economists other than Bruce Bartlett dodge the question, GOP ideologues say 20-33%).
we can’t get more than 20% of the GDP in revenue
Wait a second. We were over 20% in 2000. If we were on the downhill side of the Laffer curve at that point (top marginal rate of 39.6%), then of course we should be able to get more than 20%, simply by lowering those rates (which, in fact, we did). Or does the Laffer curve break when revenue reaches 20% of GDP?
Meanwhile, back in reality, revenue is under 16% of GDP. We’ve got a long way to go before we have to worry about hitting this mythical 20% ceiling.
Call me when you figure out how to boost 20% of GDP in revenue to balance Obama’s 40% of GDP in spending. I can’t seem to get the math to work, but maybe becuase my calculator doesn’t have enough digits.
Citeing 2000 isn’t a good way to go considering there was a major tech bubble at.the time. Might as well remind you that the surplus in 2000 was a projected surplus and not actual.
In a few months I’ll be sucking on 3 or 4 government teats:
Civil Service early retirement since ’09.
Naval Reserves (26 yrs).
Tricare for life.
So let all the Bush tax cuts expire – it’s past time that half this country should get it’s federal government for free.
Stop “Baseline Budgeting”. The talk of “cuts” is BS when anything less than an annual 7% increase is considered a cut. How about an actual freeze?
Eliminate COLA’s.
Too big to fail is half right. Break up the big banks.
Defense can handle a stable, level budget.
Put loggers back to work – open the state and national forests.
Open ANWR and all coasts to oil exploration and development.
Put miners back to work – open state and national lands.
Cut EPA, HUD, Homeland Security, etc, by 40%.
Just eliminate TSA. Allow law enforcement to carry on all flights.
Cut NASA employment by 40%. Go back to basics and establish billion dollar Space Prizes.
Eliminate the penny.
There. Fixed everything.
Almost forgot – outlaw public unions.