GOP Senator, a deficit hawk and tax reform champion: Let's Raise Rates

[Sbane]

LOL -it's so easy to criticise.  What do you all propose, then, to reform the entitlement programs to shore them up so they don't bankrupt us?  And suggest something you know that congressional Republicans can agree to. 

Some of the things you mentioned make sense. Enacting malpractice reform and indexing social security to inflation as opposed to wages. Tightening eligibility for disability could be a good idea, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say. Reducing the tax credit for employer provided health insurance would only be a good idea with a concurrent move away from employer provided healthcare. Obamacare does not do that.

I disagree with raising the Medicare age up to 70 or 68 (I am fine with 68 for Social Security and you could convince me to raise it to 70). The reason for this is that those who are laid off in their 50's and 60's are going to have to wait that much longer to get proper health care. This is a big problem in this country, and if you raise the retirement age further, this problem will become bigger. You can live off savings until you get Social Security, but with Medicare a lot depends on your circumstances. Many who are that age won't have the luxury of doing so and will face the choice of eating or treating their illness. I think letting them stay with Medicare but with higher copays will be the smart way to go. And also institute means testing. Lots and lots of means testing. That is what Republicans like Bob Corker have proposed and the Democrats should latch on to that.

Or even better, institute a bismarck style system with 4-5 private companies competing with each other for customers. Everyone can join without regards to their job status and everyone must join or face stiff penalties. That would be the common sense option, but we know that won't happen in Washington.

Also you do realize that when you say we should cap the growth of Medicare from next year, you haven't actually proposed anything? How exactly do we go about doing that?

[Torie]

I am against raising the medical subsidy and SS threshold ages because it discriminates against lower SES types who do hard physical labor, and have lower life expectancies. It's regressive and unfair. No, we need to tie SS to the chained inflation index, do more triage, effect an HMO type system that cuts out the incentive to over-treat, and means test the benefits. That is the only sensible way out of the box that in my mind is just.

And people call me a "conservative!" 

Thank you.

[CountryRoads]

Do you Democrats HEAR yourselves? You could NEVER see your party has having ANY flaws. You are right 100% of the time, and everyone else is always wrong.

Frodo is proposing real ideas, but as awhole the left is refusing to give the right anything, yet they snicker at us for not budging.

[Franzl]

Do you Democrats HEAR yourselves? You could NEVER see your party has having ANY flaws. You are right 100% of the time, and everyone else is always wrong.

Frodo is proposing real ideas, but as awhole the left is refusing to give the right anything, yet they snicker at us for not budging.

Well there are a few things that can be comprised on, but you really should remember who won the election. (I know that doesn't mean all that much in the U.S., but it should at least allow Democrats a larger amount of control.)

[Sbane]

Frodo is proposing real ideas

Like capping the growth of Medicare? It just sounds so great doesn't it? Until you start to figure out how to go about it.....

[Franzl]

Frodo is proposing real ideas

Like capping the growth of Medicare? It just sounds so great doesn't it? Until you start to figure out how to go about it.....

Medical malpractice would really be a good one to give them because that really does have an effect on the astronomical price of American healthcare, I would imagine.

I'd also be willing to entertain the idea of rasing the SS eligibility age, but certainly not that of Medicare.

[Benj]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

Mostly good ideas, though I'd be a bit nervous about pushing back the Medicare age just because that pushes people onto other, also expensive health programs and so doesn't save much money though it looks like it does on paper. Also have to make sure that all of these changes apply universally--none of this bullsh**t of "only on people under 55". After all, the people over 55 are the problem in terms of the costs of a high elderly to youth ratio. Once most retirees are people currently under 55, there won't be a crisis any more.

[Sbane]

Frodo is proposing real ideas

Like capping the growth of Medicare? It just sounds so great doesn't it? Until you start to figure out how to go about it.....

Medical malpractice would really be a good one to give them because that really does have an effect on the astronomical price of American healthcare, I would imagine.

I'd also be willing to entertain the idea of rasing the SS eligibility age, but certainly not that of Medicare.

Tort reform and indexing Social Security to inflation are very good ideas. Increasing the Medicare age is not, and of course capping the growth of Medicare depends on how exactly one would go about it. Means testing is one sensible way.

[Frodo]

When I proposed that list, I wasn't expecting every single thing to be agreed to and adopted in their current form.  It is an outline, not an actual proposal.  That said, I am glad I am not the only Democrat interested in compromise.

Also, Sen. Bob Corker (R -TN) advises his fellow Republicans to concede the tax fight to President Obama:

Corker: Obama's tax offer may be 'best route' for GOP

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 12/9/12 9:55 AM EST

Republicans may need to concede the current tax fight to President Barack Obama, who holds the "upper hand" in that battle, Sen. Bob Corker said Sunday.

"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don’t have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue," the Tennessee Republican told "Fox News Sunday." "I think [that notion] has merit....I actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take."

Corker said ceding to Obama and preserving current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans while allowing rates to rise to Clinton-era levels on the top 2 percent would allow Republicans to pick up the fight over spending and entitlements next year.

Corker also said the GOP will have more leverage in the spending and entitlements debate next year because it can use the threat of not raising the debt ceiling to craft a favorable deal with Obama.

"There's a growing body of folks who are willing to look at the rate on the top 2 percent," Corker. "The shift in focus in entitlements is where we need to go.....Republicans know they have the debt ceiling that's coming up around the corner and the leverage is going to shift as soon as we get beyond this issue—the leverage is going to shift to our side."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we witnessing the end of the Reagan Revolution at last? 

[opebo]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

F that!  The reason they're folding is they have no cards.  Give them as little as possible, and damn sure nothing like what you're describing.  There is no reason to give in on any of those things.

[Frodo]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

F that!  The reason they're folding is they have no cards.  Give them as little as possible, and damn sure nothing like what you're describing.  There is no reason to give in on any of those things.

Even if it meant that entitlement spending -unreformed- would eventually bankrupt us, and crowd out other priorities that we would like to spend on, like education, infrastructure investment, and environmental protection?

[Svensson]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

F that!  The reason they're folding is they have no cards.  Give them as little as possible, and damn sure nothing like what you're describing.  There is no reason to give in on any of those things.

Even if it meant that entitlement spending -unreformed- would eventually bankrupt us, and crowd out other priorities that we would like to spend on, like education, infrastructure investment, and environmental protection?

inb4 he responds with his typical "print more money" argument, completely ignoring the fact that doing so would make the dollar even more worthless than it already is and hike prices on everything.

[opebo]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

F that!  The reason they're folding is they have no cards.  Give them as little as possible, and damn sure nothing like what you're describing.  There is no reason to give in on any of those things.

Even if it meant that entitlement spending -unreformed- would eventually bankrupt us, and crowd out other priorities that we would like to spend on, like education, infrastructure investment, and environmental protection?

inb4 he responds with his typical "print more money" argument, completely ignoring the fact that doing so would make the dollar even more worthless than it already is and hike prices on everything.

Dudes, the entitlement nonsense is just right-wing propaganda to try to eliminate the welfare state.  If there is any adjusting to do, it should all be on the revenue side, not the spending side, since the welfare state is already woefully inadequate.

(you surely to realize that this mantra 'having money for things' is just buying into the capitalist system that cages you?)

[Frodo]

I do hope there aren't more of you who are in denial. 

[opebo]

I do hope there aren't more of you who are in denial.  

Its just class warfare, Frodo.  It is absurd to ask working class people to 'give up' anything, as they already get so little.  For example, raising the retirement age, or any other reduction in benefits, or in the right to sue when a doctor kills or maims you or your loved ones, is obscene until the top tax rate is made confiscatory.  

[traininthedistance]

Now that the GOP has gone flexible on taxes, we should go flexible on entitlements.  You cannot realistically expect to make a deal without giving them something in exchange, like the following:    

-enacting medical malpractice reform,
-increasing the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capping Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightening eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexing Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,

Mostly good ideas, though I'd be a bit nervous about pushing back the Medicare age just because that pushes people onto other, also expensive health programs and so doesn't save much money though it looks like it does on paper. Also have to make sure that all of these changes apply universally--none of this bullsh**t of "only on people under 55". After all, the people over 55 are the problem in terms of the costs of a high elderly to youth ratio. Once most retirees are people currently under 55, there won't be a crisis any more.

Here's a good run-down of why raising the Medicare eligibility age causes more problems than it solves:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/12/medicare_retirement_age_raising_medicare_eligibility_age_to_67_would_cost.html

Basically, for every dollar it saves the government, it costs the wider economy two dollars.  That's pretty much the definition of "not worth it".

I could get on board with malpractice reform and tightening the disability eligibility for sure, and would entertain some of the other things (don't know enough about them to say for sure either way).  But raising the Medicare age is too counterproductive to accept.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Preferably sooner rather than later before the nutters primary Coburn and co. for "surrendering".

I would love to see that too. Its kind of not possible for Coburn.

And if anyone gets this seat, it should be Governor Fallin.

[memphis]

How do people buy into the idea that the GOP is suddenly willing to negotiate out of the goodness of the hearts? They want to negotiate because they have nothing and they deserve nothing. Taxes go back up to the levels of the economically catastrophic 1990s on Jan 1.  There's no need to piss away Medicare and Social Security just to get something that happens anyway. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it needs to be against something that will not happen automatically in a few weeks.  As an example, I'd like to see the SS tax kept at 4.2% permanently, but applied to all income without a cap. Then all seniors should get the same SS amount, perhaps retaining the option for a lower payout starting at 62. This is not rocket science.

[Svensson]

I find it ceaselessly amusing how the left spent the entirety of the last four years whining about the GOP and their compromise-nothing-my-way-or-the-highway policy(which was very real, don't get me wrong), then turn around and do the exact same thing and brag about it once the election is over and expect everyone to like it.

Thank you, lefties, for once more proving why I left your party before you could suck me into your equal-but-opposite flavor of partisan retardation.

[Torie]

How do people buy into the idea that the GOP is suddenly willing to negotiate out of the goodness of the hearts? They want to negotiate because they have nothing and they deserve nothing. Taxes go back up to the levels of the economically catastrophic 1990s on Jan 1.  There's no need to piss away Medicare and Social Security just to get something that happens anyway. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it needs to be against something that will not happen automatically in a few weeks.  As an example, I'd like to see the SS tax kept at 4.2% permanently, but applied to all income without a cap. Then all seniors should get the same SS amount, perhaps retaining the option for a lower payout starting at 62. This is not rocket science.

The GOP can refuse to raise the debt limit, the Dems want to pass the middle class tax cuts on a standalone basis, and the GOP will go along with that. Anything the Dems want in more revenue beyond the 4 percentage point rise in rates for "the rich," needs to be in exchange for entitlement reform. If the Dems refuse to deal with entitlements, or want 4 dollars of higher revenues for every dollar in cuts, or nothing, then the GOP should use the debt limit rise as the short circuit mechanism to preclude a continuation of the kick the can game, or the Dem 4 to 1 game. It is come to Jesus time now. Sure you don't like it Memphis. I understand.

[Franzl]

How do people buy into the idea that the GOP is suddenly willing to negotiate out of the goodness of the hearts? They want to negotiate because they have nothing and they deserve nothing. Taxes go back up to the levels of the economically catastrophic 1990s on Jan 1.  There's no need to piss away Medicare and Social Security just to get something that happens anyway. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it needs to be against something that will not happen automatically in a few weeks.  As an example, I'd like to see the SS tax kept at 4.2% permanently, but applied to all income without a cap. Then all seniors should get the same SS amount, perhaps retaining the option for a lower payout starting at 62. This is not rocket science.

The GOP can refuse to raise the debt limit, the Dems want to pass the middle class tax cuts on a standalone basis, and the GOP will go along with that. Anything the Dems want in more revenue beyond the 4 percentage point rise in rates for "the rich," needs to be in exchange for entitlement reform. If the Dems refuse to deal with entitlements, or want 4 dollars of higher revenues for every dollar in cuts, or nothing, then the GOP should use the debt limit rise as the short circuit mechanism to preclude a continuation of the kick the can game, or the Dem 4 to 1 game. It is come to Jesus time now. Sure you don't like it Memphis. I understand.

What makes you think the GOP (as a whole) is actually interested in deficit reduction, Torie?

[Torie]

How do people buy into the idea that the GOP is suddenly willing to negotiate out of the goodness of the hearts? They want to negotiate because they have nothing and they deserve nothing. Taxes go back up to the levels of the economically catastrophic 1990s on Jan 1.  There's no need to piss away Medicare and Social Security just to get something that happens anyway. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it needs to be against something that will not happen automatically in a few weeks.  As an example, I'd like to see the SS tax kept at 4.2% permanently, but applied to all income without a cap. Then all seniors should get the same SS amount, perhaps retaining the option for a lower payout starting at 62. This is not rocket science.

The GOP can refuse to raise the debt limit, the Dems want to pass the middle class tax cuts on a standalone basis, and the GOP will go along with that. Anything the Dems want in more revenue beyond the 4 percentage point rise in rates for "the rich," needs to be in exchange for entitlement reform. If the Dems refuse to deal with entitlements, or want 4 dollars of higher revenues for every dollar in cuts, or nothing, then the GOP should use the debt limit rise as the short circuit mechanism to preclude a continuation of the kick the can game, or the Dem 4 to 1 game. It is come to Jesus time now. Sure you don't like it Memphis. I understand.

What makes you think the GOP (as a whole) is actually interested in deficit reduction, Torie?

Because it is near treasonous not to be so interested. Why do you think that at this juncture the GOP is not so interested?  The partisan fight is over how to reduce it, so that the national debt stays below say 80% of GDP or whatever (90% is when things begin to get fragile), and out of the danger zone.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? What makes you think 80% is the danger zone? Danger of what? We've gone through this before Torie, and you weren't able to provide a satisfactory answer.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? What makes you think 80% is the danger zone? Danger of what? We've gone through this before Torie, and you weren't able to provide a satisfactory answer.

It's the conventional wisdom. I have heard these percentages bandied about by many economists. You may think it is higher because private debt is less. That's fine. When I read a mainstream economist say that with data to back up his or her opinion, I will reconsider my position. I don't pretend to be a macro-economic expert (unlike some around here), and thus my opinions in that area are derivative.

You do remember Paul Ryan saying he had the CBO run a computer model of going the way we are going, and the computer crashed and could not handle the red ink around 2030 or something, don't you? The currency will collapse long before then is my current derivative opinion.

[Beet]

Fair enough. At least you admit you don't know. The only place I've heard a hard cap like that is the Reinhart-Rogoff studies. They found that when debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, economic growth tends to be slower. I don't think they made a specific prediction of a currency crisis for the U.S.

I don't predict the future either. We can only understand the mechanisms by which things might occur, not whether they will occur. I do think though, that there's at least as much chance of a crisis occurring as a result of the GOP not raising the debt limit, as there is from the U.S. debt level itself. If you read the text of S&P's 2011 downgrade of the U.S., you'll see that the main factor they cited was political dysfunction in Congress. So I'm not quite sure that I understand the logic of creating a crisis to avoid a crisis, but whatever.

Overall though, I do agree that the Democrats should agree to the type of entitlement reform that you want.

Edit: What scares me a lot more than the debt to GDP ratio is the U.S. net international investment position of -$4 trillion. In the event of a capital flight, this is going to be the number that matters more.