I’m sure the “Master Negotiator” in the White House has another cunning plan centered around chained-CPI though.
|By: Peterr Saturday January 5, 2013 9:11 am|
Tim Huelskamp (FarRightR-Brownbackistan01) has been in the news lately for standing up to John Boehner (NotQuiteSoFarRightR). Last month, Boehner kicked Huelskamp off the House Agriculture committee, leaving Kansas without a member of that committee for the first time in 150 years. Note, please, that Huelskamp prides himself on being a farmer first, and Huelskamp’s most favorite map (his vast congressional district) is packed with farms, so this hurts him not just in his ego, but in his ability to deliver for his constituents.
Given another map that’s making the rounds these days, that ought to make his constituents, very nervous, if not very angry.
|By: Swopa Friday December 28, 2012 8:00 pm|
At first blush, President Obama’s inconclusive televised announcement this afternoon made the long-running “fiscal cliff” negotiations sound like the end of Samuel Beckett’s classic play Waiting for Godot.
|By: David Dayen Friday December 21, 2012 5:51 pm|
Let’s just stipulate something for the record. If the Congressional Budget Office were asked to step in and score John Boehner’s “Plan B,” it would score as an increase to the deficit by about $4.9 trillion over ten yeas. If CBO scored the Obama plan, it would score as an increase to the deficit by about $4.1 trillion over ten years. That’s because current law dictates that America goes over the cliff and stays there. It doesn’t contemplate any changes to the law. And if America went over this cliff, the resulting austerity would be so great that it would swing the economy into recession. It would also virtually wipe out the long-term deficit gap, even while it would probably increase it a bit in the near term, because of increases in automatic stabilizers. But over the long-term, the deficit would essentially be wiped out.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday December 19, 2012 2:10 pm|
The White House announced they would veto “Plan B,” John Boehner’s gambit to pass a bill extending the Bush-era tax rtes for all earners on the first $1 million of income. And Nancy Pelosi said that Boehner had better have 218 votes for such a bill, since House Democrats won’t provide any. Of course, Boehner [...]
|By: David Dayen Tuesday December 18, 2012 8:25 am|
First of all, this is a benefit cut of about 0.3% a year, as Dean Baker points out. He adds that “This loss would be cumulative through time so that after 10 years the cut would be roughly 3 percent, after 20 years 6 percent, and after 30 years 9 percent.” Actually if we started using chained CPI in 2002, we’d be 3.6% behind today. That’s well over $1,000 a year, and the situation grows worse over time. So the greatest impact would be on the oldest seniors, which happens to correlate with the poorest.
|By: David Dayen Monday December 17, 2012 12:45 pm|
To say that “we have a budget deficit” is no different than saying “we’re in the middle of a recession.” The correlation between deficits and economic growth is very tight. A large part of deficits are composed of reduced tax receipts from less people working, and increase in utilization of automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefits, Medicaid and food stamps, which recedes in better economic times.
|By: Swopa Friday December 7, 2012 8:10 pm|
All this week, DDay has been chronicling for the daytime crowd that how to deal with the infamous fiscal cliff/slope/incline/curb/whatever — which, in the real world, remains quite unresolved — is no longer the hot issue among the Washington, DC insider set.
|By: David Dayen Friday December 7, 2012 12:25 pm|
This describes a textbook drop in consumer confidence. We saw it during the debt limit deal and we’re seeing it now. The problem is that the media has described what’s actually happening so poorly that the consumer doesn’t really even know what the problem is or what they should advocate.
Do they get that the “fiscal cliff” means a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that would wreck the economy?
Do they have the conception of budget cuts being bad for the economy, after three years of non-stop panic about high deficits?
This confusion makes it very difficult to reach a solution that works for the economy.
|By: David Dayen Friday December 7, 2012 8:06 am|
Since Jon Chait has never met a concession he didn’t like, he comes out with an endorsement of raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of a long-term deficit deal. So his cover for what is universally regarded as a terrible idea surely led deficit scolds seeking to use the problem to weaken the safety net to give each other high-fives.
Let’s look at Chait’s reasoning. I would probably start with the fact that he’s not 64 or 65. My parents are, and until my dad reached Medicare in November, they were paying $2,500 a month on the private market for health insurance. So I’ll be happy to provide him with their phone number so he can tell them how it’s “tolerable” for them to spend two years more than they expected doing that.
But soft! Here are his actual reasons.