Talk Elections

Romney/Ryan have a plan to get the nation back to fiscal health while maintaining obligations towards Social Security and Medicare, including maintaining the solvency of the programs for those who are under 55 years of age. Does Obama have a long-term plan, or does he simply plan on kicking the can down the road while becoming the presidential version of Gray Davis (i.e., going incredibly negative and somehow winning re-election despite a majority of voters disapproving of his job performance; subsequently doing nothing for the rest of his political career)?

Is this America's choice again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3AwIrLQSE

Obama has no plan to actually solve a problem.  This is evidenced by his first term in office, where you would have a real hard time thinking of a problem solved by BO's administration. 

No, they don't.

In all fairness, Obamacare is an attempt to help more poor people gain healthcare access. Of course, the tradeoff Obama chose amounts to rationing Medicare for current seniors who paid into the system for decades. If you ask me, Obamacare is a bum deal for seniors who worked their entire life. It is a good deal for people who choose not to work because they think the world owes them a living, but why should seniors see their Medicare rationed in order to fund Obamacare?

right... 0 problems solved (some "attempted") numerous problems created.  Thanks for the effort Barack!

if someone says: "we fixed the doughnut hole, precondition denials, and forced insurance to cover kids until they're 26" you aren't a serious person!  I could fix those problems without ruining the healthcare system, throwing the economy into a qusi recession, and wasting at least a trillion dollars. 

Absolutely. It is a Democratic myth that Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it.
Paul Ryan even voted for Medicare Part D. The Democratic lies are a diversion from the fact that Obamacare takes resources from Medicare and shifts them towards poor people. Obama Hood: Take from seniors and give to the poor AKA robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Paul Ryan cares about America's seniors. Go ask anybody in his hometown. Ryan does have a major problem with this president's desire to kick the can down the road rather than solving the nation's fiscal problems. America does not need the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Haha, only one post in this thead is visible to me - Lief's.

So both you and Lief concede that Obama has no long-term plan for America?

Democrats are just supporting another Gray Davis again.

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense -- would have the net effect of raising the deficit. The claim that his plan will reduce the deficit rests on the vague promise that tax loopholes and subsidies will be cut, to make his tax cuts revenue-neutral. And we all know what happened when the Tax Policy Center tried to figure out how to do that, making very generous assumptions about economic growth in the process.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

Now, frankly, if Ryan wants to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, for example, I'd be all in favor. But it would be nice if he'd tell people first.

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that only special interests want.

So, where do you think Ryan would eliminate tax loopholes? And how much revenue would he raise in that way?

Tax rates are going to be cut across the board, so most of the loopholes eliminated (and there will be many, although details will be ironed out after the election) will simply offset the rate reduction. The simplification of the tax code will lower accounting costs for individuals and businesses, further reducing costs associated with taxes for those who utilize loopholes/accountants.

The funny part is that the overwhelming majority of loophole/exemption eliminations will only apply to the wealthiest Americans, but Democrats will lie about that.

By the way, you have a red avatar. Can you please tell us about Obama's long-term plan for America? With all of the red avatars on here you would think that at least one person on here could explain Obama's long-term plan or admit that he does not have one.

I've never understood the GOP myth that Acrosss the Board tax cuts will pull us from recession and not raise the Deficit. The middle class are the ones who spend money in the economy. By the spending of money (70 percent of the economy), they make companies run low on products and have to mamie more. They will need to add more workers to do that, which leads to employment growth. Focused tax cuts are the best and get the best result. And they don't cost nearly as much as across the board ones

Your point is duly noted. Does Obama have a plan for the long-term or does he just plan on kicking the can down the road?

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Obama has a plan and he will implement it when the economy is not in danger of falling back into recession thanks to draconian cuts.

In other words, this ad captures the essence of the campaign if you replace Reaganomics with Romneynomics and Mondalenomics with Obamanomics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3AwIrLQSE

Two Words: SIMPSON-BOWLES

This actually means his plan is to do nothing for 4 more years....at which point the next recession will be upon us or close to it based on the typical length of the US business cycle.

Two words describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: MORE TAXES

Is Obama ready to double-down on this?

Does the Obama plan that you allege exists have any details, beyond repealing the Bush tax cuts for "the rich," and increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends for "the rich," which deals with about 5% or so of the deficit bomb?  Or do we find that out after the election?

Bingo.

Obama simply plans on kicking the can down the road while being the presidential version of Gray Davis. No thank you!

The nation needs to get serious before it's too late! Romney/Ryan offers a serious plan for the future. We are still waiting for a serious commitment from Obama.

If we win, we get to turn America around. If Democrats win, they're stuck with the presidential version of Gray Davis. Either way, Democrats lose.

Obama has no plan. He merely demagogue, or at least attempt to. His hope for reelection is betting that the American people are ignorants to facts, and that he can skid by without a real plan to combat America's fiscal challenges.

this thread is so terrible

Five more words to describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: LONG TERM BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION

And SHORT TERM STIMULUS

Obama is actually a very large tax cutter, in terms of the legislation he has signed.

I presume his plan is here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf



The plan is of course to simply borrow $600 billion per year into perpetuity, or at least 6 years beyond his hypothetical second term. As a result he will accumulate $2.8 trillion in debt in his second term.

This is one of the biggest lies ever told. Short term stimulus merely leads some pigs squealing for more short term stimulus.

Why the hell shouldn't he be? It's a bipartisan plan with significant cuts including raising the retirement age, it just doesn't subscribe to Ryan's brand of troglodytic lunacy that it's possible or even desirable to cut the deficit without extensive use of revenue.

Romney/Ryan does that without raising taxes.

Romney/Ryan: Cut taxes, cut spending, restore growth, create incentives for jobs

Obama/Biden: Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes

Easy choice for America to make. Hope you're braced for a 1980-style loss. Even if you somehow dupe America, you're stuck with another Gray Davis except this time in the White House.

Yep.

Obama is kicking the can down the road RIGHT NOW. He is either going to raise taxes or simply kick the can down the road. He has no serious plan to get America back on track. He has a bureaucratic budget plan in the form of Simpson-Bowles that raises taxes, and he will not even commit to that. He will not commit to a long-term plan, unlike Romney/Ryan. All Obama/Biden offer is attacks and lies. It reminds me a lot of the 2002 Gray Davis campaign.

Yep. And other little piggies are happy to retreat to the Ritz Carlton in return for rewarding their special interest masters.

Is this the worst thread on Atlas? Discuss with maps.

The Ryan budget doesn't actually give you numbers. It advocates a 20 percent reduction in the Bush Tax Cuts and says they'll be revenue neutral. 4 Trillion dollars is revenue neutral? And they'll be payed for by closing loopholes, but doesn't say which ones. That's not a plan. And if we did adopt the plan, we'll be plunged back into recession and be adopting, to borrow a Newt Term,  European Style Capitalism. Plus the budget wouldn't be in balance til about 2030 or 2040.
Simpson-Bowles balances it in 2020.

Definitely.

Except recent business cycles have been based on the credit cycle, which is only now beginning to turn around. Corporations are sitting on trillions of cash, will they will continue to invest as returns are quite high. Since the credit cycle has been particularly long, the natural business cycle will be, too. If the economy falls into a recession, it will most likely be due to some external shock such as the Euro crisis, a Middle East war, or something like that. It will not be due to natural business cycle conditions in the US.

As for Obama's plan, I would assume it's what he was willing to agree to in July 2011, before Boehner pulled the rug out from under him (or rather, before Boehner got the rug pulled out from under him by his own caucus).

This is what these people said a couple years back.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY/pdf/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY.pdf


Spending was supposed to be at $3.6 trillion in 2012, with a deficit of $557 billion.

Whoops. For some reason they ended up spending far more money than planned on welfare benefits for the Democrat base voters.

So are we getting a commitment from Democrats on here to PRESSURE the Obama/Biden campaign to fully endorse and commit to Simpson/Bowles? Or are Democrats satisfied with kicking the can down the road, which is the current plan of Obama/Biden?

I prefer Romney/Ryan, but Simpson/Bowles is infinitely preferable to the current trajectory of Obama/Biden.

Romney/Ryan is now committed to spending their political capital on tax reform and their long-term plan. America wants to hear what plan the Obama/Biden team is going to spend their political capital on if they win.

We'll commit to that if you commit to coming up with some new disgraced politician to unfairly compare the President to.

Clinton 1996, what is the point of your signature? It seems to be a mix of positive things that Obama is campaigning on, as well as abhorrent things that are sure to be unpopular. If it's supposed to be an attack on Ryan, it sends mixed messages. For instance, I'm no fan of Ryan, but I applaud him for voting the unemployment benefits extension. That makes me think more highly of him.

Gray Davis was not disgraced and is actually a good guy just like Barack Obama, whom I like as a person. That did not make up for the fact that he simply had no plan for the future. He had to run a scorched-earth campaign to win re-election, which barely worked. But then he had nothing he could do for the future because he had no plan to deal with some serious fiscal issues and the special interests he was beholden to. Barack Obama is simply Gray Davis all over again except on a higher level (obviously a recall is not an option this time around).

That's a possibility. Unfortunately, the current growth rate of the economy is far too low to provide with the massive revenue spikes that team Obama seems to be forecasting. He of course forecast that same massive revenue spike back in 2010 that never happened.

Without that revenue spike, there will undoubtedly be more borrowing. Doubly so if we behave like Clinton1996 and use another 'short term' stimulus. Perhaps that $2.8 trillion of debt is understated.


The nice thing for these people I guess is that they can then leave office, and the 2017 Democratic Party can continue screeching about 'draconian' spending cuts.

I completely agree. Obama needs to grow some balls and formally endorse it. I like to think of myself as a Clintonian New Democrat fiscal conservative. We need to get our house in order and tough choices need to be made. Tax Increases And Spending Cuts.
It's known that he supported it in 2010 but didn't come out as he was advised against it by those on the commission because it was believed GOPers would go against it just because he supported it.

This thread needs to be drowned in prayer.

I found it funny so I traded in the Clinton photo in my signature for this. It points out the contradictions in what Romney is proposing and attacking Obama for, and what the VP he chose has done in the past.

Well he obviously want to cut military spending which is what we should do. We should also use means-testing for Medicare and Social Security, rather than privatizing and couponing both. Also, Politico, don't just spew your Reagan talking points since we know how good Reagan was at eliminating the deficit and paying down the national debt ::)

Fixed.

LOL

Lol. Pay no attention to my first 4 years!

He's cut military spending more than Romney ever would.

::)

Lock this thread.

This cap sh**t should just stop. Thanks.

Now we know you're lying, because his own numbers say he hasn't cut military spending at all.

Yeah and Romney would double to Pentagon budget on the backs of the middle and lower classes.

Vague and unspecified eliminations of tax loopholes in exchange for cutting tax rates does not make a PLAN.  (That's as far as I'm will to go with the typographic idiocy that accompanies the other idiocy in this thread.)

Neither side has a plan, just outlines that let voters fill in the details with ideas attractive to themselves, but incompatible with those of other voters.


I don't care what it is drowned in so long as it is put out of my misery.  It has added a couple new names to my ignore list tho.

Shrug, you're entitled to that prediction for the future. It's of course another story to make up something about defense spending from 2009 to 2012.

Eliminating capital gains, the estate tax, and tax on interest while increasing military spending (in fact he was the only member of Congress from Wisconsin to vote against the recent bill to freeze military spending) sure sounds like fiscal responsibility to me.

If you don't like the Tax Policy Center's numbers, give me your own. But be aware that they say that Romney's tax plan would reduce revenue by $360 billion a year, which would require cutting the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the charitable contributions deduction, the EITC and child tax credit, and other tax credits and deductions, by in the neighborhood of 65%. And Romney's plan merely wants to keep the maximum tax rate for capital gains at 15%, where Ryan actually wants to eliminate taxation of capital gains altogether, so it's clear that Ryan's plans would require even bigger cuts to those deductions.
Like I said, if you or Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney don't like those figures (from a think tank that the Romney campaign itself has frequently cited, mind you), any of you would be perfectly free to present alternative figures, and then we could all discuss whose figures looked most accurate. But if nobody on the Republican side is willing to provide numbers on this front, well, how do you expect the rest of us to take you guys seriously?
And what right, then, do you have to complain that the other guy doesn't have a plan, when your guy clearly doesn't have a plan?

Milk me of all my cash! That is his long term plan!

Any and all "revenue losses" will be offset by the combination of spending cuts, elimination of loopholes/exemptions (that right now are largely only applicable to the well-off), and pushing any possible spending back onto the states for them to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Obviously the details will be worked out after the election. Ryan-Wyden is merely a draft to give some indication.

In short, Romney/Ryan is actually going to walk the walk when it comes to this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

Obama has discarded the Clinton Doctrine and embraced Big Government while kicking the can down the road. Romney will not kick the can down the road. Romney will end the era of Big Government.

The fundamental choice of this election is Romney's efficient, well-managed, decentralized government versus Obama's inefficient, bureaucratic Big Government. Do we want America to be American, or do we want it to become like Europe? Do we want an America of growth and opportunity, or an America of stagnation and class warfare?

1) Obama is more opposed to Simpson-Bowls, than in favor of it.  So, that obviously isn't his plan.
2) The Ryan plan is the only serious plan(s) with a chance of passage in existence.
3) Obama hasn't outlined anything other than GENERIC BUMPER STICKER RHETORIC and Raising Taxes. 

Given that Ryan's plan leaves a hole of several hundred billion dollars a year in the budget, it hardly rises to the level of "serious plan."

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.   

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

Wow. How long does it take one person to admit there are lying when under pressure from Wolf? About 3 minutes 45 seconds apparently.

Is this a concession that if Obama is re-elected he will be as inept as Gray Davis was in 2003?

The Democrats are bent on turning America into California: A land of lost opportunities.

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Obama has no plan for the future. Romney does. That's a clear contrast. Part of the reason why Romney chose Ryan is because Ryan is one of the few people in Washington who does NOT want to kick the can down the road. Kicking the can down the road is the road to poverty for America's seniors.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

I could sympathize with the Ryan Medicare proposal(although it would be near the bottom of my list in terms of preferred deficit reduction strategies) if it applied to all generations, but it's simply unacceptable to me that the burden of the senior coverage overhaul should fall entirely on gens X, Y and Z; whilst the Boomers and Silents make no sacrifices whatsoever.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Such a decentralized approach will lead to lots of experimentation among the states. Who knows what kind of progress and innovations will ensue as a result. Obviously people will be able to vote with their feet, too.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.

It isn't "burdening" the next generations.  In most cases it is giving them a better deal and/or more options(choices).  Democrats hate choices (except the A word one).  They think a private social security account were you could easily get a 2-4% return compounded over your entire career (plus a transferable asset to your family) is worse than a 0.001% return from the government ponzi scheme.  They fear giving people the ability to choose one or the other because almost everyone is going to choose the one they oppose for stupid ideological reasons.  A medicare voucher for someone 20 years from now is the same thing.  A lot of benefits vs. very few negatives.       

Remember how Bush spoke like this in early 2005 and subsequently tanked in popularity? I agree with you, but this is not a winning message. Too many people are terrified of the words "privatize" and "choice" when they are associated with Medicare and Social Security even though you are right and I agree with you. With that said, I am of the opinion that the only politically viable option is gutting much of the rest of government to continue funding the current system rather than going this route. It will be difficult, but at least it is politically achievable.

We've gone six pages in this thread without mentioning once the Progressive Caucus's budget. (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/) Certainly it's too tax-heavy to be adopted by the current Obama administration, but the budget's as "far-left" as it's going to get.

God knows I didn't want to step into this thread but the last posts did it for me:


Why the hell wouldn't people be scared of choice? Health insurance options aren't like apples and oranges: you choose the wrong one and you're either bankrupt or dead.

Give me one way how Ryan's flying vouchers can control costs without referring to the "invisible hand" argument - because the oligopolistic nature of insurance companies should be obvious.

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.


Here's a more pertinent question: Why the hell wouldn't seniors be scared of Obamacare rationing? Waiting on a list can lead to waiting too long (i.e., pain, suffering and/or death).


Romney/Ryan will ultimately have nothing to do with vouchers. When it is all said and done, preserving Medicare/Social Security will trump other forms of spending in the government. Many parts of the federal government will be gutted or shifted onto the states in order to maintain the permanent solvency of Medicare/Social Security.

What do you even mean here? There are three ways to maintain Medicare's solvency: cut benefits, control costs and/or increasing revenue. ACA focuses on the second and tax rises coupled with demand-side spending focuses on the third.

Don't think I'm defending Obama here - no attempt at cost control is complete without an attempt to tackle the costs of patented drugs - but you're engaging in some one-dimensional thinking.


Okay, cut it out with the zero-sum flourish. Hospitals will be underfunded so long as price controls are put into place - which is why they are being put in place, albeit not in all of the needed places. Would you rather have prices continue at their regular pace, making it even harder for hospitals to provide services as usual?

You also assume those who weren't covered pre-ACA have to be a drag on the insurance system. If anything, the expansion of the insured base will be a net positive as they make contributions while risk-averse enough to not get into catastrophic health incidents.


I'm leaving this quote without comment...

Okay, one comment. Considering most states require heavy borrowing from the federal government to ensure the solvency of their legislated safety nets, are you really saying we should fracture the economy just so Americans can line the pockets of the health care industry?

I'm not up for "debating" with a Romney infomercial.

If you want to play that game, I can cut and paste "Four more years!" as long as you can type up new posts. I'm with America's team of hope and change, not going back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

In contrast to the false picture Romney paints, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is working for seniors, strengthening Medicare in a variety of ways:

    Improves quality and delivery system efficiency through the federal agency that distributes Medicare benefits—changes that will save Medicare almost $120 billion in the next five years.

    Extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years.

    Saves seniors an average of $4,200 over 10 years. By 2022, premiums and coinsurance for seniors will be more than $500 lower because of Obamacare.

    Makes Medicare prescription drugs more affordable for seniors in the coverage gap, closing the “doughnut hole” by 2020.

    Has already provided more than 24.2 million Medicare recipients with free preventive benefits like the Annual Wellness Visit.

Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan will try to mislead the American people, but he can’t change the fact that the Affordable Care Act is a historic achievement that continues to bolster Medicare and improve the health of our seniors every day.

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.


If R&D of $1 billion goes into developing a drug, why should that firm not enjoy a patent over their drug for a few years? If you take away the incentive to pour R&D costs into making new drugs, you will get a lot less new drugs in the future. That is a fact. Unfortunately, government bureaucrats are not known for developing groundbreaking drugs.


Shifting resources from Medicare to assist poor people is robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you try to analyze it. It does not solve a problem; it merely creates a host of other problems.


Absolutely not. I am in favor of ensuring the permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security. In order to achieve this end, the federal government must transfer a vast majority of its spending onto the states. The states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Innovation and experimentation will ensue, as will progress as a result of 50 states all trying different things with some things working and some things not.

Fixed.

Romney has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush Administration, of course. Whereas Bush embraced and expanded Big Government, something Obama has continued to accelerate, Romney will walk the walk on this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

    President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act to restore health care as a basic cornerstone of middle-class security in America.

    The Affordable Care Act will make health care more affordable for families and small businesses and brings much-needed transparency to the insurance industry.

    When fully implemented, the Affordable Care Act will keep insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers—including denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cancelling coverage when someone gets sick.

    Because of the new law, 34 million more Americans will gain coverage—many who will be able to afford insurance for the first time. Once the law is fully implemented, about 95 percent of Americans under age 65 will have insurance.

Before health reform, insurance premiums were skyrocketing, and the shared cost of caring for the uninsured added $1,000 to the typical family’s policy. The Affordable Care Act promotes better value through preventive and coordinated care, and eliminates waste and abuses.

The Affordable Care Act also helps keep insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9 million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the President passed the Affordable Care Act.

Oh dear, dear. Here is my first six pack of questions for you Politico. Yes, I find posing questions often the best way to go about matters like this. 1. What costs are going to be passed on to the states?  2. Where will they get the money?  3. How will dirt poor Mississippi et al handle it all? 4. How workable is it to have 50 different this and thats across the Fruited Plain? 5. What does that do for economic efficiency?  6. How does one avoid a race to the bottom?  

Oh moving on to Brittian33 to just say hi, you say accurately that health care premiums were "skyrocketing" before health care reform (a hyperbolic term but sadly accurate). What have health care premiums been doing since?  Health care reform in the end has little to do with containing premiums, as currently fashioned, has little to do with containing premium costs, and a lot more to do with expanding health care services to those that don't have them, and effecting a rationing regime behind closed doors through regulatory fiat. Unless we go the Torie route, in partial mitigation, and it will only be partial, for those that can afford it, costs are going to ramp up, and at a faster rate, before the health care reform structure that has been put in place collapses. It won't take long. Thanks.

It is duly noted that you believe it is a good idea to steal resources from a program that seniors paid into for decades in order for there to be higher health coverage rates among poor people and students, most of whom have no chance of finding a decent job after they graduate in this economy. It is also duly noted that you do not care about the fact that Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024 if we continue the Obama Doctrine of kicking the can down the road.

Strengthening Medicare

Fact: More than 47 million Medicare beneficiaries now have access to free health services—including an annual wellness visit, mammograms, and other health screenings—to help detect and treat medical conditions early.

Fact: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, nearly 3.6 million seniors who fell into the Medicare “doughnut hole” last year saved an average of $604 on prescription drugs.

Torie, surely you know that your rhetorical questions (when re-stated as statements) are the not-so-secretly desired goals of Politico and his ilk. "Transferring Medicaid to the states" is just a roundabout and slightly more politically palpable way of eliminating it completely. Same with all other federal programs that must be "transferred to the states."

Any and all spending at the federal level that does not meet our obligations towards Social Security, Medicare, national defense, law/order and BASIC infrastructure. We must have a federal government that does what it must do, the aforementioned outline, rather than being a bloated government of broken promises and dismal results.


States will decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Inefficient, unwanted spending will become a relic of the era of Big Government.



See the above.


The world works with far more than 50 countries, so why should experimentation and innovation across 50 states work any differently? Besides, the latter (albeit with fewer states) is largely how America built itself from the ground-up in the early years of the Republic. Essential spending will be taxed and spent at the local/state levels.


This will increase accountability and efficiency. It is hard to imagine a lot of this spending being more efficient at the federal level compared to the state level. Washington is an out-of-touch bubble.


People vote with their feet. Those who want Big Government can find it in some states. Those who want government out of the way can find this in other states.

Rather than being a race to the bottom, it will be a race towards efficiency and accountability.

Well, let Politico have his turn at bat here. I am just trying to get the chap in shape. Going way out on limbs is fun if you enjoy being edgy, but tends to make one "uninsurable" as it were.

Oh, I see now that Politico just hung himself above. Hey Politico, why don't we play a game?  I need to do my morning libations now. Why don't you pretend that you are Torie, and put up a post responding to your own little statements above, trying to get into my little mind as to what I might say?  Just how good are you at detecting the weaknesses in your own arguments/assertions?  

I am fully aware of the ultimate consequences of my proposal. You'll just have to face the fact that California is screwed whether we go my way or continue on the current path. Unaffordable promises are eventually broken promises no matter who is making the promises.

The difference between my proposal and the current path: America as a whole continues to be strong in the long-run under my proposal.

What do you think the "ultimate consequences" of your proposal(s) are, Politico?  Yes, I think that might be fruitful path to explore here. Ultimate consequences typically are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png)

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_population (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_population)

Just a little though-experiment here.  In the 2011 federal budget, non-military discretionary spending stood at $646 billion.  What would it mean for the states if we cut all that spending?  How about one "equal" but unrealistic scenario, and one less equal but more realistic one?

Even splitting that spending evenly among the states (an utterly unrealistic scenario, I know, but bear with me for a moment) would add $12.9 billion to every state's spending obligations if it wanted to make up the difference.  That figure is greater than the amount of money that state governments spend in total in eight states, more than half of what seven additional states spend, more than a third of what four additional states annually spend, and more than a quarter of what 9 more states spend.  In other words, over half the country would either have to massively increase revenues in order to replace non-defenese federal discretionary spending, which of course would mean dramatic hikes in state tax rates, or cut so many services in a state so as to cripple economic activity anyway.  

But let's say, to be more realistic, we assign less burden to states with the smallest spending budgets like South Dakota, shrinking their cut of discretionary spending to the tune of, say $3 billion (since they spend 61% less than does the highest spending state in the union, decreasing their share of the burden by 75% seems like a good deal for them).  The problem is that $3 billion is still nearly half the equivalent of that state's total spending of $6.9 billion.  Let's say, using the same logic, we increase California's share of the burden by shrinking their cut of discretionary spending by $18 billion (since, again, that state spends 61% more money annually than does South Dakota and saddles California with only .7% more responsibility for all the discretionary cuts than splitting up the burden equally would--a good deal for them).  That still takes an additional 4% out of the California state budget, which is already quite cash-strapped.  The larger point is that proportionally divvying up the burdens caused by slashing all fed non-defense discretionary spending would still mean absolute murder for small states even if the larger ones might have a chance to get by.  People in small states won't be able to vote with their feet, because they won't even be able to afford a Greyhound ticket after they're gutted that brutally.  That's not a proposal for a strong America, it's a recipe for civil war.

The lesson is that, in order for the massive spending cuts that we certainly need to make to be bearable, we need to spread them across the entire budget, and even then in complicated ways.  This is an area where platitudes will solve nothing.

I am saving my "thought experiment" for later on this. I have a dream. Anvi is definitely on the right track here, but has not yet fully etched out "the vision thing." :P

Obama has no plan, other than to get re-elected.

True, because if he isn't reelected, the Medicare changes he worked into PPACA will be repealed by Congress and Romney.

Obama does indeed have a plan. It was passed in 2010. You may have heard about it.

This thread is about what he will do if re-elected. I believe that his only ambition is to be re-elected, and thus has no concrete vision of where he would like to see the country go. Contrary to the line spun by some in the GOP that he's a dangerous leftist, I believe he's instead a soulless careerist and opportunist, whose only ambition is power.

David Stockman, former Reagan-era director of the OMB, says what I've been saying about the Ryan "plan":

The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station.

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=3

The special interests-driven federal budget of Barack Obama is of no interest to Americans who care about limited government. It is certainly not a representative baseline. An appropriate, bipartisan baseline would be the 1996 federal budget of Democrat Bill "the era of Big Government is over" Clinton. Non-defense discretionary spending for FY 1996 was approximately $250 billion, which is approximately $370 billion in 2012 dollars. In other words, we have evidence that the 2011 federal budget is approximately $280 billion of junk that can be eliminated overnight without the world coming to an end, even for social programs and the like (1996 conditions were not the Great Depression; if you don't believe me because you are too young to remember, go check out the election results for 1996).

$370 billion is a hefty amount of money, but it is only about 2.5% of GDP. Surely by shifting this spending back to the state level some states will choose to raise taxes to pay for this spending while others will not. For example, California will surely continue funding the Single Room Occupancy program while Wyoming will probably decide not to, to give an obvious example. In the process, California will do a better job of providing for this program than currently because there is greater accountability when funding comes at the state and local levels as opposed to the federal level. Similarly, the people of Wyoming will no longer be subsidizing a program that they feel they do not need. We cut the middle man out of the picture (i.e., the out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats are reassigned or return to the real world). States that want certain programs they are willing to pay for get what they want and ensure efficiency and a lack of waste. States that just want government out of the way also get what they want. Ultimately, the nation is better off on the whole. Accountability and efficiency are increased on the whole. The nation's fiscal health is restored, since states must balance their budget, and the federal government is able to indefinitely meet its obligations towards Medicare, Social Security, law/order, defense and basic infrastructure after engaging in further restructuring.


The fact of the matter is that most of the non-defense discretionary spending at the federal level is unwanted by the smaller states. For example, the Dakotas are well-off right now and government intervention has nothing to do with it. They will be voting Republican because they are in favor of limited government, not Obama's special interests.


California would have to adopt a more realistic property tax scheme, or stop voting for out-of-touch liberals. That's California's problem, not the 49 other states. I would bank on California reverting back towards the way it used to be before the economic liberals ran amok.

 
Go tell the people of Utah, South Dakota, etc. that the Big Government Way of California is going to lead to prosperity, and watch them laugh in your face. Go tell them that the only reason they can even afford a Greyhound ticket is because of bureaucrats in Washington, DC. There's a reason why most small states vote Republican.


At least I am offering an alternative to kicking the can down the road. Surely I am not the only one who recognizes that unaffordable promises eventually become broken promises. Unaffordable is unaffordable, and all of the borrowing and accounting gimmicks in the world cannot prevent an unaffordable house of cards from eventually collapsing.

Yes, we need to assist people in need who want to help themselves but are unable to do so at the present for whatever reason(s). Most of our fellow citizens are decent people who will help those in need if we start to see a rise in poverty (either through increased state spending/taxation or charitable activities). But good, decent, hard-working people are not interested in subsidizing those who do not want to help themselves. The free ride is over.

I am extremely confident that this proposal will not lead to an increase in misery. It will produce greater economic freedom, and a stronger degree of accountability and responsibility both at the micro and macro level. No longer will true despair be shrugged off as "the federal government's job," and the level of feigned despair will decline.

Romney's vision is a federal government that does not overstep its bounds. Romney is in favor of a fundamental restructuring of the federal government. He favors a government committed to meeting obligations towards Social Security, Medicare, national defense, law/order and some basic infrastructure. In other words, Romney will end the era of Big Government. Clinton promised the end of Big Government; Romney will deliver it.

He's not going to deliver it, or anything else, without some credible math. You clearly know that, or you'd respond more effectively.

Politico,

To use two states you give as examples of being willing to let discretionary dispersements from the feds go, in FY2012, South Dakota is faced a budget shortfall of $127 million, representing 11% of its budget, and Utah a $390 million shortfall, a little over 8% of its budget.  See the chart about halfway down this essay.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711)

In order to address its shortfall, South Dakota drastically cut funding for state schools and reimbursements to hospitals caring for the poor.  But this year, the state, with the Republican governor's blessing, decided to boost its spending back up to the tune of just under $4 billion to meet the needs that accrued from these rollbacks, and $1.75 billion (almost half) of that money was federal money, and a pretty big percentage of that, especially the money devoted to shoring up the schools, came from federal discretionary spending.

http://www.necn.com/03/16/12/Gov-Dennis-Daugaard-signs-4-billion-SD-b/landing.html?&apID=6011bfee347f4720aafa74427502b483 (http://www.necn.com/03/16/12/Gov-Dennis-Daugaard-signs-4-billion-SD-b/landing.html?&apID=6011bfee347f4720aafa74427502b483)

In the case of Utah, take a look at the state budget pie charts on page 5; note that, as indicated in the top chart, federal dollars make up 25.1% of the state budget, a larger share than any other source of revenue.  Then glance down at the bottom chart and note that the state's biggest budget item is public education.  Federal discretionary spending dollars make up a sizable portion of that spending, particularly since Utah has made a point to not fund public education through nearly as much bonding as other states.  

http://governor.utah.gov/budget/Budget/Budget%20Summaries/FY%202012_SumBk.pdf  (http://governor.utah.gov/budget/Budget/Budget%20Summaries/FY%202012_SumBk.pdf)

If I was president, and I told governors and state legislators in South Dakota and Utah that very large chunks of federal discretionary dollars were going to abruptly disappear for good, they would do a lot things to my face, but laughing wouldn't be one of them.

Eliminating No Child Left Behind is key in those particular instances. It is a worthless Kennedy/Bush experiment that does far more harm than good.

 There is no doubt that federal discretionary spending is like a bad drug habit, especially the past decade. Eventually you kick your habit or it kicks you.