McConnell laughs at Obama's fiscal cliff plan

[Torie]

Ok, maybe I am not getting how the HMO premium support system would work, but how exactly would it reduce costs in the system? Would it be quite different from the current Medicare Part D free for all? Would only one company be getting Medicare dollars? Because otherwise Hospitals will push them around like they do other insurance companies. Only Medicare can call the shots, because they control such a huge part of their patient population.

The HMO system removes the incentive to over prescribe and over-treat. With the government just paying the bills that are sent in, it can generate an MD feeding frenzy - and does.

[Brittain33]

Anyway, my anger is more animated by team Obama ignoring the entitlements issue. That is just disgraceful.

Obamacare tried to engage with rising costs in Medicare. Their response was a massive Republican ad campaign in 2010 slamming Democrats for cutting Medicare, which helped the Republicans take back the House and pick up a slew of Senate seats. Not surprisingly, since he's willing to grasp the nettle of raising taxes, he's right to ask Republicans to match him by suggesting entitlement cuts, and on the record. The Republicans have zero credibility with Obama and the country to ask him to go first on entitlements after their behavior the last time he tried to keep costs under control for the good of the country.

[memphis]

Torie also proposes to make major cuts of farm subsidies, which would add a nice piece of change to the government's till and a lot of which go to big corporate operations anyway.  

Take away the farm subsidies and not only will food prices shoot up, but we'd start start importing most of our food. Not a position I want to be in when the Inks hits the fan, as it inevitably does. Much more so than most issues spun as such, food self-sufficiency is a national security issue. I do think that we subsidize the wrong foods, but that is neither here nor there,

[Torie]

If Obamacare intended to cut the costs of entitlements, in this case medical services, then it is even more of a massive failure than I thought. We just have different views of history I guess. But having said that, yes the Pubs demagogued the issue. And to the extent Obamacare really leads to death panels, that is one of its few virtues actually. Trying to cleanse the most soiled hands of either party on this issue set, is even more futile than cleansing Lady Macbeth's damn spot from her sanguinary hand.

[Torie]

Torie also proposes to make major cuts of farm subsidies, which would add a nice piece of change to the government's till and a lot of which go to big corporate operations anyway.  

Take away the farm subsidies and not only will food prices shoot up, but we'd start start importing most of our food. Not a position I want to be in when the Inks hits the fan, as it inevitably does. Much more so than most issues spun as such, food self-sufficiency is a national security issue. I do think thhat we subsidize the wrong foods, but that is neither here nor there,

No. LOL. The subsidies I get are for not growing food. And the ethanol subsidy pushes the price of corn up a couple of dollars a bushel, if not more. So it is precisely the opposite actually.

[memphis]

Torie also proposes to make major cuts of farm subsidies, which would add a nice piece of change to the government's till and a lot of which go to big corporate operations anyway.  

Take away the farm subsidies and not only will food prices shoot up, but we'd start start importing most of our food. Not a position I want to be in when the Inks hits the fan, as it inevitably does. Much more so than most issues spun as such, food self-sufficiency is a national security issue. I do think thhat we subsidize the wrong foods, but that is neither here nor there,

No. LOL. The subsidies I get are for not growing food. And the ethanol subsidy pushes the price of corn up a couple of dollars a bushel, if not more. So it is precisely the opposite actually.

You farm in a universe that precedes the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act? That's a neat trick! And the ethanol thing is stupid. No argument from me on that one.

[Beet]

I'm pretty disappointed that Obama is campaigning over this rather than reworking the 2011 deal. When I was talking to voters before the election, I told them that Obama wanted to work with Congress to reach a balanced agreement after the election. On Saturday, OFA called me saying they want me to knock on doors to campaign against the fiscal cliff! I told them I had something else to do, which I did, but in all seriousness, I think voters want them to govern the country, rather than bother them with canvassing.

The problem with trying to roll over the GOP is that you still need them to govern. If this so called "Doomsday" scenario comes to pass, it'll be Obama's version of the predictable 2nd term overreach.

Health care costs are going to be a broader problem going forward, it's not just about entitlements. For one thing, the 'penalties' in the mandate are way too low, and it's not clear at all how many people will sign up for health insurance. If not enough people do, the whole thing falls apart. Several states went through this in the '90s.

Then there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/business/a-hospital-war-reflects-a-tightening-bind-for-doctors-nationwide.html?pagewanted=all

Here's my view of politicians: a politician is a professional position. Just as doctors are paid to cure patients, programmers are paid to write code, bartenders are paid to serve drinks, so are politicians paid to perform a function-- their function is to build up political power. The ends are unimportant. In other words, a politician should not be aimlessly "spending" political capital, as if it's a Christmas gift they buy for themselves. They should be "spending" political capital as an investment to get more political capital. Just as, businesspeople spend money to invest in projects that will generate future profits. For Obama, those things are things that are bipartisan solutions with Republicans, & reforms to health care that will make it work well in the future. It's not trying to beat the Republicans with a hammer down with this "I won" bullsh-t.

[Brittain33]

If Obamacare intended to cut the costs of entitlements, in this case medical services, then it is even more of a massive failure than I thought. We just have different views of history I guess. But having said that, yes the Pubs demagogued the issue. And to the extent Obamacare really leads to death panels, that is one of its few virtues actually. Trying to cleanse the most soiled hands of either party on this issue set, is even more futile than cleansing Lady Macbeth's damn spot from her sanguinary hand.

Meet the IPAB. It was created by Obamacare to control costs and is under threat by Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board

[Torie]

Torie also proposes to make major cuts of farm subsidies, which would add a nice piece of change to the government's till and a lot of which go to big corporate operations anyway.  

Take away the farm subsidies and not only will food prices shoot up, but we'd start start importing most of our food. Not a position I want to be in when the Inks hits the fan, as it inevitably does. Much more so than most issues spun as such, food self-sufficiency is a national security issue. I do think thhat we subsidize the wrong foods, but that is neither here nor there,

No. LOL. The subsidies I get are for not growing food. And the ethanol subsidy pushes the price of corn up a couple of dollars a bushel, if not more. So it is precisely the opposite actually.

You farm in a universe that precedes the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act? That's a neat trick! And the ethanol thing is stupid. No argument from me on that one.

It's in the CRP program - a conservation program. Its effect is to pay me not to grow crops where they were previously grown. A year ago, I put another field into production, with a view of taking it out of production in 5 years in order to "conserve" it, and get paid more money for conserving than I did for growing corn or beans.

[anvi]

Take away the farm subsidies and not only will food prices shoot up, but we'd start start importing most of our food. Not a position I want to be in when the Inks hits the fan, as it inevitably does. Much more so than most issues spun as such, food self-sufficiency is a national security issue. I do think that we subsidize the wrong foods, but that is neither here nor there,

Well, how many food products in the market enjoy subsidization?  And, of those that do, how much would the price really go up if the subsidies were removed--how much, in other words, does the subsidy really factor into the price?  It seems to me that removing subsidies would not, on the whole, raise the price of most foods significantly.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Republican Party's members-collectively and individually-do not care about the federal budget deficit, the national debt, or making "tough choices." They only care about "starving the beast" of the federal government. Everything else is a smokescreen.

Lest we forget, it was their hero and patron saint Ronald Reagan who tripled the national debt, because his administration's budget plans relied on the worst kind of magical thinking to balance the budget.

Reagan was a failure when it came to fiscal prudence, but he was a smashing success when it came to distorting the federal government's mission, overhauling the tax code so that it benefited the richest Americans above all else, not to mention beginning the process of privatizing government and selling it off to the highest bidder.

George W. Bush did all of these things too, only "better" and in a more unrestrained way than Reagan. And furthermore, all those "conservative" Republicans in Congress voted for Bush's biggest budget-busting schemes of all: two wars and two tax cuts for the rich.

The Republicans will not negotiate with Obama in good faith, because they despise him, personally as well as politically. They have done nothing to earn the trust of the American people, and everything to lose it.

Sound harsh? Yeah maybe, but I am done with the GOP. 

[funkeepickle]

Oh, Obama will fold rather than have 30% of the government shut down. And I don't see why that would be bad for business actually, at least in the short term.

You and Fred Barnes are literally the only people I have seen who think that Dems would be hurt worse by the fiscal cliff than Republicans.

Even the Heritage Foundation called Boehner's offer a "dud."


"[T]he Republican counteroffer, to the extent it can be interpreted from the hazy details now available, is a dud. It is utterly unacceptable. It is bad policy, bad economics, and, if we may say so, highly questionable as a negotiating tactic."

Your link is to a merely conclusory statement. And I don't understand why capping deductions is "bad economics."  But sure, any reasonable structure where deductions are merely capped rather than exorcised will require rate increases. But if you just raise rates on "the rich," you are going to need to slash spending, and slash it hard. Anyway, my anger is more animated by team Obama ignoring the entitlements issue. That is just disgraceful.

What issue? Why does anything need to be done?

[Sbane]

Ok, maybe I am not getting how the HMO premium support system would work, but how exactly would it reduce costs in the system? Would it be quite different from the current Medicare Part D free for all? Would only one company be getting Medicare dollars? Because otherwise Hospitals will push them around like they do other insurance companies. Only Medicare can call the shots, because they control such a huge part of their patient population.

The HMO system removes the incentive to over prescribe and over-treat. With the government just paying the bills that are sent in, it can generate an MD feeding frenzy - and does.

Oh, I completely understand this (and Anvi, I did read your post and you make the same argument). I agree with both of you. But we need to stop this while not diminishing the power of Medicare to get lower rates from providers. We need to switch to a Bismarck model ASAP, with competition between a few extremely large insurance companies for customers. Everyone gets thrown into the same mix, and everyone needs to have insurance. There are subsidies for the olds (like currently) and the poor (and middle class with kids), while the rest of us pay out of pocket. This is paid for by payroll taxes, so companies have some skin in the game, while not being responsible to pay premiums which rise every year.

[Sbane]

If Obamacare intended to cut the costs of entitlements, in this case medical services, then it is even more of a massive failure than I thought. We just have different views of history I guess. But having said that, yes the Pubs demagogued the issue. And to the extent Obamacare really leads to death panels, that is one of its few virtues actually. Trying to cleanse the most soiled hands of either party on this issue set, is even more futile than cleansing Lady Macbeth's damn spot from her sanguinary hand.

The death panels, was a panel that would look at different hospital and health systems and see what practices reduced costs. They would not be able to take into account drugs and treatments iirc. Then using the power of Medicare and Medicaid, they would institute those best practices nationwide, like Reagan did with DRG's. It wasn't really a cut to Medicare or Medicaid, just an estimate of what could happen.

So it wasn't really a cut, but Republicans demagogued on the issue and flipped places like the TVA counties here in Tennessee. Can you really blame Democrats for not proposing cuts to entitlements in this sort of environment?

[Torie]

Ok, maybe I am not getting how the HMO premium support system would work, but how exactly would it reduce costs in the system? Would it be quite different from the current Medicare Part D free for all? Would only one company be getting Medicare dollars? Because otherwise Hospitals will push them around like they do other insurance companies. Only Medicare can call the shots, because they control such a huge part of their patient population.

The HMO system removes the incentive to over prescribe and over-treat. With the government just paying the bills that are sent in, it can generate an MD feeding frenzy - and does.

Oh, I completely understand this (and Anvi, I did read your post and you make the same argument). I agree with both of you. But we need to stop this while not diminishing the power of Medicare to get lower rates from providers. We need to switch to a Bismarck model ASAP, with competition between a few extremely large insurance companies for customers. Everyone gets thrown into the same mix, and everyone needs to have insurance. There are subsidies for the olds (like currently) and the poor, while the rest of us pay out of pocket. This is paid for by payroll taxes, so companies have some skin in the game, while not being responsible to pay premiums which rise every year.

OK by me. As I say, this is a pragmatic issue, not an ideological issue. Ideology only kicks in when considering how much the youngs want to/will pay to care for the olds - to wit, just how Draconian will be the triage system? The other ideological issue, is whether rich olds lose all subsidies if they get out of the system, or just have to pay top-up costs to get more, faster, better medical services. That is one of the great underlying ideological divides that nobody talks about, that generates a lot of the controversy which pretends to be about something else, but isn't really. It is kind of the same concept as with school vouchers.

[Mr. Morden]

The Congressional GOP seems to be in total disarray over what to do about the Fiscal Cliff:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE8A80WV20121205

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bowles and Simpson should have been put up for a vote w amendments. Through the normal legislative process.

[anvi]

Bowles and Simpson should have been put up for a vote w amendments. Through the normal legislative process.

I agree.  But it was disowned three times.  The first time by the GOP Senators who had been backing it but withdrew their support when Obama announced his support for it.  The second time by Obama himself, after he had ordered it and then failed to endorse its findings.  The third time by the vote of a joint Congressional committee, where both key Dems and Pubs voted against it.  The provisions were quite reasonable.  It was the Little Commission that Couldn't. 

[hopper]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

Obama wants to make sure all the people who voted for him stay engaged and keep pressuring their congressmen and Senators. The Republicans did this during Obamacare. Instead of working with Obama, they went out on the road and fired up the masses into a frenzy. I'm not saying he shouldn't work with the Republicans, but he realizes getting a better deal requires keeping his base engaged.

The Republicans never say they want to cut Medicare or social security. They only say they want to cut "entitlements". Hmm...let them spell out what they want. Some Republicans have of course, but the Republicans should not be able to pin cutting Medicare on Obama (and yes the inverse is true too).

The Healthcare Legislation only the Dem Base likes it. The Dems wanted to work with the Republicans on "Obamacare"? No they didn't. The Dems just ram rodded it through with 51 votes in the US Senate and special deals for states.

Just have a speech on late night TV if you want people to get behind you instead of campaiging.

Cutting Medicare? Who cares its always a game of "gotcha" of who cut Medicare or who is gonna cut Medicare. Its all a big game. Everybody knows the program has to be reformed one way or another. I agree though one party shouldn't pin cutting medicare on one party or the other though. Thats why I say its just a big game.

My point was that Republicans gained leverage on Obamacare by going out there and campaigning so as to pressure moderate Democrats in Republican leaning districts. Obama is now doing the same with the fiscal cliff. He has a more popular position and he is using it to get the maximum on taxes. At least he has also signaled he is willing to go along with entitlement cuts, whereas the Republicans were willing to go along with basically nothing with regard to healthcare. And something needed to be done, as the status quo was not working.

I think with Medicare perhaps both parties need to come out at once and propose cuts, if the Republicans are too scared to go out on their own and do it. In which case the Republicans won't get much cuts at all. Tax hikes aren't popular either, but the Democrats have proposed something.

There are two problems here, one is that a lot of the Republican base is convinced that the deficit is the result of Obama increasing spending on black people, and the other is that a lot of people think Medicare will somehow survive without middle class tax hikes. It's a goddamn mess.

If I was dictator, I would institute means testing for those making more than 30k a year in retirement. Make them pay higher premiums and copays. And I would also cut back on the COLA in Social security. I am not a fan of raising the eligibility age, beyond what it is already scheduled. To get to $4 Trillion, get rid of the Bush tax cuts down to whatever income level is necessary to get to $4 Trillion in savings. Perhaps institute a Milionaire's tax and a minimum tax on all income above a Million dollars to get the wealthy investors like Warren Buffet to pay more.  And reduce military spending by at least 10-20%.

I know Obama is in a popular position to get rid of the tax cuts on people earning over 250,000 dollars a year.

Obama has said he would cut entitlements recently? I didn't know that. I know he did say that he was open to cutting entitlements in 2011 but this year I didn't know he said that. I don't think the R's want to do nothing on healthcare. I agree that the status quo isn't working.

Spending on black people? I don't know about that. Afterall the Republican Base is aware that Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in the US Senate in 3 years. Therefore if you don't do a budget in 3 years you are gonna have spending problems. What family or state government doesn't balance their budget every year? I know the state of Vermont doesn't have a balanced budget amendment but they balance their budget every year I think.

As far as Social Security goes it will last till 2033 and then it goes broke. I don't know about your proposed tax increases if that will work or not to save Social Security.

[hopper]

Hahaha, Torie endlessly complains about the deficit and then his proposed solution is to make Medicare much more expensive by privatizing it. What a joke.

Not only this, but the GOP wants ADDITIONAL tax cut for richers, beyond those in the Bush tax cuts. One may not like the Obama deficit reductin plan, but it is a deficit reduction plan. After whining incessently about deficits (a religion that was strangely quiet during the fiscally disasterous W years), they've offered additional tax cuts. They may as well suggest Bushie lose weight by eating additional fast food. All after definitavely losing the presidential election, losing Senate seats and losing the House popular vote. At this point, I am a strong proponent of going off the "cliff" and dealing with individual issues peacemeal next year. Having lost the all in round, the GOP has zero cards and zero chips but are acting like they just won the championship.

I do think the GOP has leverage since they have a majority in the US House but not as much as Obama has leverage. After all the Dems and Obama have the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

[hopper]

Another debt ceiling fight should do wonders for the Republican brand. Nice country you got here. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it. Troube with the Republicans is that they've lived in privilege so long, they don't know when they're defeated. As for their only voting "present" for the extention of 98% of the public's tax cuts, that should make for some serious popcorrn theater. I may have to upload that one to youtube. As for their referring to that situation as "Doomsday," that really does tell one all he needs to know about the priorities of the GOP. As if it were not already painfully obvious.

Well if we go off "the cliff" and the US credit rating gets downgraded the GOP brand will be in shambles. If there is no credit downgrade nothing happens to the GOP brand status.

[hopper]

(the Pubs at least made a serious offer - 800 billion in more revenue in exchange for cuts in entitlements in some unspecified amount),

Their offer was sheer nonsense. They said they were willing to take $800 billion in more revenue with lower tax rates and magical deduction closings and dynamic scoring that would somehow generate more money in a way no one can document. It's Laffer Curve magical thinking, not a concession.

Obama's offer was his bargaining position, not a compromise. They will have to work out a compromise behind closed doors, as we said. But Obama has tried bargaining with himself first in the past, putting forth 50% compromises, only to have Republicans hold out for 80% or 90% compromises. He's doing the right thing now by sticking to his guns, which will force the House Republicans to take him seriously. I wouldn't expect Republicans to see it as acceptable, but that's why your side has to be willing to make some real concessions in order to trade for our side to make real concessions. It's not a hostage situation any more, it's a negotiation, and one where the outcome favors Obama. It may be tough for the Tea Party caucus to accept, they value their purity and will primary any Republican who compromises, but we're not playing games any more, this is real. Dems have principles too.

The fact that Republicans campaigned on their plans for the budget, and lost, and lost HARD (including in the national House vote total), matters for what the outcome should be.

They lost but HARD? No. I mean 50-48% in the the House Vote is not a landslide. The Presidential Vote? Yes the R's got blown out in the Electoral College but not in the popular vote 51-47%. I could get more into the Presidential Results but this is not the thread for it.

[hopper]

Bowles and Simpson should have been put up for a vote w amendments. Through the normal legislative process.

I agree.  But it was disowned three times.  The first time by the GOP Senators who had been backing it but withdrew their support when Obama announced his support for it.  The second time by Obama himself, after he had ordered it and then failed to endorse its findings.  The third time by the vote of a joint Congressional committee, where both key Dems and Pubs voted against it.  The provisions were quite reasonable.  It was the Little Commission that Couldn't. 

The Dems and the R's both didn't want to touch Simpson-Bowles because of tax increases(the R's) and the D's didn't want entitlement reform. Both the R's and D's didn't want a primary challenge last cycle(2012.)

[hopper]

The Republican Party's members-collectively and individually-do not care about the federal budget deficit, the national debt, or making "tough choices." They only care about "starving the beast" of the federal government. Everything else is a smokescreen.

Lest we forget, it was their hero and patron saint Ronald Reagan who tripled the national debt, because his administration's budget plans relied on the worst kind of magical thinking to balance the budget.

Reagan was a failure when it came to fiscal prudence, but he was a smashing success when it came to distorting the federal government's mission, overhauling the tax code so that it benefited the richest Americans above all else, not to mention beginning the process of privatizing government and selling it off to the highest bidder.

George W. Bush did all of these things too, only "better" and in a more unrestrained way than Reagan. And furthermore, all those "conservative" Republicans in Congress voted for Bush's biggest budget-busting schemes of all: two wars and two tax cuts for the rich.

The Republicans will not negotiate with Obama in good faith, because they despise him, personally as well as politically. They have done nothing to earn the trust of the American people, and everything to lose it.

Sound harsh? Yeah maybe, but I am done with the GOP.  

Reagan tripled the National Debt? Sure but Obama and Bush W. were/have been worse than  Reagan at managing the federal budget.

Overhauling the tax code for the Richest Americans? Reagan didn't do that by himself he had a Dem US House.

The R's despise Obama? they don't like his policies. I will say that.

[hopper]

Anyway, my anger is more animated by team Obama ignoring the entitlements issue. That is just disgraceful.

Obamacare tried to engage with rising costs in Medicare. Their response was a massive Republican ad campaign in 2010 slamming Democrats for cutting Medicare, which helped the Republicans take back the House and pick up a slew of Senate seats. Not surprisingly, since he's willing to grasp the nettle of raising taxes, he's right to ask Republicans to match him by suggesting entitlement cuts, and on the record. The Republicans have zero credibility with Obama and the country to ask him to go first on entitlements after their behavior the last time he tried to keep costs under control for the good of the country.

I don't think the 2010 Elections had anything to do with the issue of cutting medicare. It had to do with Obama Care minus the so-called Medicare Cuts. Cutting Medicare was a heavy issue in the 2012 elections though I will say that.

What was the first time that Obama tried to keep entitlement costs under control? Through the so-called Medicare Cuts in ObamaCare or his 2011 negotiations with Boehner?