E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn advance of their scheduled testimony Tuesday before Congress’ special deficit-reduction panel, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal reform commission offered tough talk for the president, Congress, and outside groups trying to influence the deliberations.
Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd,” former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, expressed disappointment that Obama has not touted their budget reform recommendations more forcefully.
“It’s been really frustrating, and I think it’s been a shame,” Bowles said. “We proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction. We didn’t propose that because the No. 4 bus went down the road. We proposed it because that’s the minimum amount you have to reduce the deficit over 10 years in order to stabilize the debt and get it on a downward path as a percent of GDP. He knows that.”
Bowles’ Republican counterpart on the president’s commission, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, criticized AARP for a television ad they’re running that argues against any cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
“It’s an arrogant bunch of people where the leadership at the top are not patriots. They’re marketers,” said Simpson.
Bowles agreed with Simpson about needing changes to Social Security, and criticized Democrats in Congress.
“What I can’t understand is how people in my party can oppose making Social Security sustainably solvent so it actually will be there,” said Bowles.
Bowles and Simpson are set to testify on Capitol Hill at 1:30 pm ET today.
Leave a Comment:
Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, expressed disappointment that Obama has not touted their budget reform recommendations more forcefully.
Can someone name some democrats that really support this stiff of a president?
It seems Obama is out there all alone on his little bus trips.
Where is the party??????
So they are going to point out that Barry has completely ignored the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that Barry himself created by Executive Order.
Now, THAT'S FUNNY:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul Ryan made a small run at the Simpson/Bowles plan with his FY2012 budget. He got invited to Obama's redo-budget, (recall Obama formal budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate), in April, and Ryan got publicly dressed down by Obama for his effort. Neither Obama or the Senate have yet to present their budgets, a redo for Obama and a first-do for the Senate. Harry doesn't like to do budgets though, it's been 900+ days since he has bothered to do so.
It's obvious Obama didn't get the message from the Simpson/Bowles report. Instead he now tours the country talking about his "Jobs program" (Read: Yet another payoff to the unions) and spending another half trillion dollars to do it. Obama did spin that he had cuts to the entitlement programs "On the table" during the debt ceiling discussions. No one ever saw what that plan looked liked or even if it was written down on paper, it was just more spin from Obama.
And the Republicans are certainly not immune from criticism. They need to continue the message of fiscal restraint and getting government spending under control, and to reform the entitlement programs. It is a certainty they will when the election campaign ramps up, but they should be getting that message more in the public.
Rob,
That would be those who are not blue dogs and Dixiecrats; plus millions of his supporters, Hollywood, and those who gave their hard earned pennies causing President Obama to raise more campaign money than RepubliCLOWNS.
One of the reasons the President has not much supported the Simpson-Bowles recommendations is that economists say it's a financial suicide pact. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz addressed this in detail in an article you can find here:
http://langewinckler.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/28/6362627-gop-budget-plan-suicide-pact-economist
At the very time still more government investment in boosting the economy was necessary, the Simpson-Bowles plan kowtowed to the failed ideology of the right - the Milton Friedman economic philosophy.
And as for the national debt owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to repudiate that is to turn completely coward. It's a ploy to satisfy an ancient wish of the right wing to destroy those programs. There's a concrete proposal to deal with the nation's debt of honor to the older generation here:
http://langewinckler.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/02/7231709-how-to-pay-off-debt-and-save-ss-medicare
The only real crisis facing the nation now is getting its economy moving and creating jobs. And the GOP in Congress has no interest in dealing with that.
Bev, I just found out about your loss.
Condolences.
Simpson Bowles was better than anything on the table now, however we have not seen a concrete product from the supercommittee yet, and there is a glint of hope in talk two weeks ago about a hundred or so congressmen in favor of the "bigger deal" supporting a $3 Trillion or $4 Trillion target point.
Taxing wealth is not much use, 75% of the "top 1%" are members of that group for only one year, and after income averaging their money drops out of the President's plan.
A choice is to leave all the sacred cows in place (Military, Social Security, Medicare) and have everybody else contract 7% for a $1.33 Trillion, 14% for a $2.66 Trillion, or 21% for a $4 Trillion deficit reduction in 10 years.
I don't think it is reasonable to ask everybody for more than 21% contraction. Enough money needs to be left in people's pockets for personal spending. Without personal spending there will be no growth.
Government spending must curtail.
A fix for the situation we are in will take only 50 years if we bite the bullet now. That is, we, our children, and some of our grandchildren are ALREADY stuck with this problem.
Cutting Social Security and Medicare without substantial tax increases on people making over $250K and drastic cuts in military spending is a guarantee of bloodshed, justifiably so.
To Bag Boy, if you're out there anywhere.
This one's for you. LoL
The problem is the either/or arguments for reducing the deficit, leaving Social Security and Medicare alone. First, raise the cap on SS and Medicare. Right now it's at about $106-$116 (can't remember off hand). It should be on all income. Capital gains income should be taxed as income, period. And stopping the tax breaks for millionaires/billionaires should occur. A "tax break" is a tax break. Why do they get this? All subsidies to oil, gas, pharma, agriculture, banks, etc. should also be stopped. Let's get back to real capitalism. If you take the risk and win, you win. If you take the risk and lose, you lose, rather than the taxpayer. What about all the IOUs to SS? Why cannot they not widen the spectrum of alternative ways to reduce the deficit. The crap about job creators is just that, crap. They haven't created jobs in 30 years and we've subsidized their taking their businesses out of the country. Why have trade agreements that do not include demands for fair pay, fair working hours and human rights.? Instead of us being pulled to the bottom, why aren't we trying to raise working conditions and fair wages for all this global economy. There are so many things, we all can think of, that don't just loot SS, don't take away medicare, don't make us a poorer and poorer society. What's patriotic is to keep our promises to the American people, instead of pandering to the wealthiest among us.
One small change to shore up SS would be to eliminate the $240? death benefit or at least eliminate for those above poverty. 55 million x $240? is a good deal of money saved. Just a thought.
First, raise the cap on SS and Medicare.
_______________________________________________
There has been no cap on wages subject to the Medicare tax since 1994 and Medicare is still going broke.
November is going to be a rough month. This is the next round of: "We're how much in the red?"
Emotions are so super-charged over little things right now, when the big things hit, it could be explosive.
I think we have created a arrogant obama monster!! Its mainly the liberal presses fault, but many people on here are just as guilty by making excuses for him. He thinks he knows more than everyone and refuses to listen to anyone. Its a shame.
All emotion, no fact. Is this the best you can do "Realhope"? Wouldn't it be far better to just admit that you hate the man just, well, because he does not see the world in the narrow scope you do?
Thats what I'm talking about, a little reality from a democrat about what its really going to take to reduce the deficit, even though it flies in the face of all the social progams funded by the tax payers to support thousands of lazy do-nothing democrats. and an excellant lead in by Rob in ma replacing our favorite redhead, Luc ... oh wait I mean Fiesty. lmao "how about some popcorn fav.... i mean Fiesty :)
newday...
You should remember that an "emotional" vote counts as much as any other.
After all, that's how our current president was put into office. ;-)
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
LOL, New Day!!
Just by reading what you wrote proves my point. The fact is in the artical itself. The artical stated that Obama refuses to listen. You are so concerned with protecting obama that you have lost track of what is really going on. You are not helping him or anyone by doing this. You are so full of hate for anyone that point out the ovious mistake you made putting Obama in office. So what you made a mistake, get over it. move on. Its just sad and pathetic.
Like I said. All emotion and no fact. And what in the name of the wee man is an "artical?" Or "ovious"? If this is the best the right wing has to offer as rebuttal, it is no wonder they are in the trouble they are in.
New Day,
Check the poles , I beleive it is the left that is in trouble. Just sayin. LOL
It is OBVIOUS that newday (more like another cloudy day) does not want to talk facts. Instead she would rather nit-pick and sling cr@p. Typical!
.
just for you newday...
.
wait for it....
.
(SHOW ME THE CLOWN NOSE, FISTY!)
"Poles"? Really? More emotion, no fact. But does the fringe right have to make it THIS easy?
Poles are a fact. Go check them out if you dont beleive me. You are really Caught up an a fantisy world. Really sad!! You have to get out away from this communist MSNBC website and check out what going on in the real world once in a while. Sad, Sad, Sad.
Again... cloudyday offers nothing but the same-old-same-old...
Your "emotions" are valid RealHope and cloudy offers nothing to counter your feelings.
She is in a cloud. However, the clouds will eventually be lifted when she is forced to see the light of day.
Would I check a "maypole" or a "barbershop pole"? If you are referring to "polls" so far the putative nominee Romney cannot break out of the mid 20%. Doesn't bode well for his election, does it?
Actually being in the mid-20's when there are like seven candidates gives him a pretty large share.
Go figure! (but never-mind those pesky numbers and math and all...)
-----------------------------------------------------
BTW... your joke would be cute if I actually believed that you understood the difference between a POLL and POLE. (but alas I can't give you that much credit ;-)
LOL!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
It is being reported that Sec of State, Hillary Clinton's mother has passed away. If that is true, sympathies to the family.
Newday
My thoughts and deepest condolences go out to a very strong woman and hard worker. She has forged many well needed allegiances at home and abroad.
She has that, Beverly. Amazing, what Mrs. Clinton has accomplished in her life.
What's sad is that President Obama appointed the Fiscal Reform Committee and then kicked them aside. President Obama won't even support their recommendations.
Again where is the leadership in Washington, it is not in the White House nor Congress. The so called super committee of 12 members of congress is no better. All these special committees are just an excuse for the President and Congress to not take their constitutional responsibilities serious.
And the blame goes to both sides in Congress. Politically unpopular things need to be done. It's time "Eat our peas" as the President so eloquently states. But with Obama being a populist, he's only interested in making popular choices. And spending a half trillion dollars on "Jobs" sure sounds popular, "fixing" student loans sure sounds popular, and giving more and more money away paid for with "taxing the rich" (What ever happened to the Buffet Plan?) and deficit spending is popular, until your debt gets downgraded by the ratings agencies.
The GOP is no better. They pulled their horns in after the Ryan budget was passed. They too cannot make the tough choices, the choices that need to be explained to Americans as to why it's critical we restrain our spending.
JoAnna - point taken re: dems need to accept "restraint" on spending and kudos for admitting there is blame for both parties. BUT, when you get around to the blame for Republicans, you fault them only for not doubling down on spending cuts. "compromise" is NOT even more spending cuts. Reasonable economists AND the fiscal reform committee said clearly that we cannot cut our way to debt reduction. Revenue increase must be part of the formula. So long as the GOP ignores the huge growth in income inequality and the fact that 75% of the demand side of our economy is domestic, democrats will and ought to resist cuts that only intensify the lowering of spendable income for the 99%. You just can't cheer the cuts side of the equation and expect the rest of society to smile and wag their tail. To ask cash strapped seniors, students, workers, etc to sacrifice further while incomes in top brackets multiply 275% and billions in special subsidies for oil companies wallowing in profits is neither compromise nor reasonable.
It is part of Simpson/Bowles. See II. Tax Reform section of the plan:
Source: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
We're in a deep hole marv, everyone will need to sacrifice.
Marv,
I have said several times on these posts, that I, and most republicans, are not against increases in revenue but only after the congress and the current administration can show restraint and reduce spending, waste and over lapping programs. A good place to start is the GAO report of Mar 2011 that pointed out billions that could be saved if congress would demand a complete review of all agencies budgets. I have seen very little on the GAO reports that could save money.
The problem with raising revenue is the politicians will just find more programs to waste it on. Congress and the administration should revise the entire tax code which is now around 20,000 pages, and few, if any, can really understand it.
The major problem with Washington is that they have never seen a program they didn't like and wanted to continue regardless of waste. Our government agencies are top heavy in employees and keep writing more and more regulations for no other reason than to try and justify their jobs. Government has to be cut, a good start would be 10 to 20 percent of each agency across the board.
Once the over spending, waste and tax code has been addressed then we can talk about raising taxes and other revenue.
At least one person in this room has a clue!! I couldn't have said it better myself!
I believe you are sincere, screft, joanna,but... (always a but, huh?) in this time of such distrust on both sides; it is not realistic to expect big cuts in social programs or spending in general withoust ANY revenue increase from those who have benefitted so greatly and so demonstrably, on a promise of revenue to come. There will have to be some balance to the move or no move forward is going to happen. And SOMETHING must happen.
marv - See that's the problem, the left wants to raise taxes so they can spend more on new programs or increase spending on current programs. Washington must show the American people that they can be responsible with the money they now get. They need to get their priorities straight and quit wasting money.
It's a shame that this thread has been able to generate only seven comments, but the multiple "Cain" threads have several hundred comments in total. Isn't this issue somewhat more important than a potential Presidential candidate's behavior in the 90's? I don't condone Cain's behavior (still alleged behavior), but this issue is of more immediate impact, and is clearly playing second fiddle.
Living in LA
Did you ever think maybe people have not refresed their browsers yet; huh?
Comments no Obama ignoring his Deficit Reduction Committee is very old news! Everyone already knew that and gave the President a pass!
I beg to differ... the only people that gave Pres. Yomama a "pass" was the mindless drones on this vine!
.
.
.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
The debt commission plan was a non-starter for several reasons, many of them political, and some of them also practical. Aggressive deficit cutting measures are not the best idea when dealing with a fragile economy struggling through recession and stagnation.
If the economy recovers and starts growing again, then it should be revisited, although at that point it'll still be dead in the water because it has enough ideas that tick off both parties. Democrats are afraid to touch the sacred cows (though Obama himself has expressed a willingness to reform them), and Republicans actually like the deficit because it gives them an excuse to pursue their real agenda, whch is cutting social spending programs.
Thats it Nathan, lets make another excuse to kick the can further down the road.
The debt commission was screwed up with the appointment of Bowles. He's a Clinton Democrat, not really a Progressive, and like Clinton willing to make the bargain with the devil that changes to "Entitlements" can be done without turning them into "Welfare" programs. Once you start "means testing" programs, you head done the road/slippery slope where programs become programs for "you" and not "me," and therefore I don't feel as obligated to fund "you." Social Security is easily sustainable by correcting the inequities in the FICA tax by raising to cap to the same percentage of total income as when Reagan reformed the program in '83. Medicare is workable if drug companies are forced to sell in bulk and if there are incentives to doctors and hospitals to manage "end of life" care (not death panels, but shift to hospice care). The fact is that we have deficits because we have too little revenue, too high of unemployment, too much defense spending and an aging population. Addressing this as solely too much social spending is misplaced.
@William I so agree with you. Moving farther and farther to the ideologies and policies of the right has gotten us into the crises we now face. Some find it impossible to grasp that fact. There are many solutions to our problems, jobs being first and foremost, that deficit reduction is not the problem, and to attack the very programs put in place that we have all paid into is certainly not a solution. Attacking Social Security and Medicare does not lead to any solution, it just creates distraction. Just like attacking unions and public workers, laying them off, etc. also creates more problems as we are a consumer society and it shouldn't matter who's consuming, or how they made the money to consume. The less money coming into the economy by the massive layoffs of teachers, police, firefighters, etc. helps no one. It just makes the economy poorer. New policies on trade agreements, tackling subsidies for oil, pharma, banks, defense, etc. The power to negotiate should be one of our biggest bargaining chips.
I don't know if you watched last night, I think it was Rachel or Lawrence, regarding the cost of an anti-cancer drug that shot up from $12 a vial to $999 a vial due to shortages. Why aren't companies making these drugs? There are many pharmalogical companies in the US. Why aren't contracts given to them to make the drugs? More business, cheaper cost.
Health insurance should be Medicare for all. That would substantially give us a break for insurance price gouging which has been going on for 30 years.
It's time for Democrats to support democratic progressive ideas and to quit running like chickens from the obnoxious nasty Republican playbooks. and actors Tell me anything you've heard in the last 10 years from a Republican that made any sense at all. But they sure do get behing their idiotic spewings, do or die. It's time for Democrats to quit worrying about being re-elected and to put forth some power to get things done that would really benefit the people, all people, of America.
Simpson should take greater care in discrediting the patriotism of seniors who have paid their share into Medicare and Social Security. Advertising for one's political point of view is exactly what the Supreme Court confirmed is constitutional (and by the way without the need to disclose who's giving the money.)
What about the patriotism of the undisclosed contributors to political discourse (ads and lobbying) that benefits corporations and special interests, ie. Koch brothers?
John A: One of the reasons the President has not much supported the Simpson-Bowles recommendations is that economists say it's a financial suicide pact. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz addressed this in detail in an article you can find here.
============
So now I guess we're down to which suicide pack we want to pick. The one that reforms the tax code, reforms entitlements, and puts the country on the path of fiscal responsibility, or the one where we keep spending money we don't have.
Pick your poison.
Yeah JoAnna--many of us will NOT pick the TPGOP brand of "poison"! TPGOPers have no idea of what constitutes fiscal responsibility. We have seen how that great bastion of the TP, Eric Cantor, has not practiced what he is preaching to others about "fiscal responsibility". It seems that he is all about pork barrel earmark money for his part of the country, but others must do without. Infrastructure and jobs for him--for the rest of us--not so much! "I want mine, screw you!" Yeah--we're really going to pick that brand of poison!
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
Well then nurse we'll wait for the Democrats plan, which apparently is to spend even more money we don't have. Maybe Senator Reid can roll it into his FY2012 budget. It will be good to see how the Democratic Senate majority will vote on it, seeing they already voted down the standalone Obama "Jobs" bill.
Well here's a solution: you don't want to fund "my" entitlements, so I don't want to fund your "defense." You want protection from the Chinese you pay for it. You clearly don't want to insure that my job stays in the US, that I have access to an educated work force, or have the infrastructure to conduct business in this country.
Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd,” former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, expressed disappointment that Obama has not touted their budget reform recommendations more forcefully.
=======
Take it as a defense of the President or not, but in all due respect to Mr. Bowles, what I would also like to hear them be "frustrated" at would be the overall GOP response from both Chambers regarding anything the President would endorse. Truth be damned the man can not say and/or do anything that is "for" the Country in the eyes of Congressional GOP members.
If the 'have to do this' aspect of the Commission's findings are true, the sell should be that much easier to the Congress to put together a budget that passes both Chambers and force the White House to have to oppose the changes once they are in legislative form.
If as Mr. Bowles says that the President "knows" this, than the same would apply to those in the Congress. As far as I'm concerned the Congress has more 'court' here than the President does.
Allen,
The President is suppose to be the leader of the country, it was the President that appointed the commission. Why didn't Obama in his many campaign trips around the country pushing his jobs plans, green energy schemes and other pet projects do the same for his debt commission? Yes, I agree that congress shares the blame along with the President. Remember it was President Obama that keeps saying he is going to the people to force congress to act, but not once do I remember him touting the commissions recommendations. President Obama must lead or get the hell out of the way, he has done neither.
The republicans have stated repeatedly "ABSOLUTELY NO TAX INCREASES" reasoning be damned, how the hell are you supposed to compromise with people who do not intend to compromise?
w bush, I have absolutely no problem with a tax increase as long as it comes with reduced spending.
Just more Republican robo-talk from Simpson and Bowles, the democrat. The root causes of the massive deficit that the Bush administration left behind are Mr. Bush's trillion-dollar, no-win wars; Mr. Bush's trillion-dollar tax cuts through an effectively regressive tax regime; and the Bush-inspired 40:1 leveraged speculative excesses that precipitated the economic plunge into the Great Recession.
Croaker, it is astounding how the facts you stated are considered irelevant by many, in fact the republicans are running on returning us back to those very failed ideologies, and many think it is exactly what we need to do, unbelievable and sad.
CATHY M, there is no "cap" on Medicare tax. You pay on 100% of earned income (and now because of "health care reform" on some unearned income)! But even though I pay on 100% of my income, when I become eligible for benefits and my income is above a certain amount, my premiums will be increased!! Talk about redistribution of wealth! If there is no cap on wages to be taxed for SS, it is possible that a person making 1M dollars per year could pay $124000 in one year (self employment tax is double since you also have to pay the employers part) for SS taxes! But the way it is currently structured, the benefits would go up dramatically as well. If you break this connect, it becomes just another welfare program!
I beg to differ, there is a cap. If the cap were moved to say $500,000 then of course there would be more money for the system. Why is it that someone making $50,000 has to pay on all of his or her income, but someone making $500,000 doesn't? I'm sorry, i don't agree. Why are all the caps, including the taxes for capital gains, etc. all slanted only to the wealthy? If you don't understand that all of this set-up of taxes, loopholes, caps, etc. have certainly not been initiated by working Americans, but by the wealthy to enable them to pay less, then you don't understand much!
There is no cap on earnings subject to Medicare tax. This is a fact!! In your ignorance, you dispute this fact! If you remove the cap on earnings subject to SS tax, you make it just another way to redistribute wealth. It was designed as a suppliment to retirement income and was never meant to be a sole source of retirement income. It was designed to give payouts proportional to what is paid in. If I pay in 10 times as much, my benefits should be 10 times as much!! As noted above, if you increase the payins, the payouts will increase. Any other design makes it just another welfare program!! When I go to fill up my tank with gas or go to the grocery store am I charged more because I have more income?! I know this does not please you but that's the way it is!!
Bowles: "...that’s the minimum amount you have to reduce the deficit over 10 years in order to stabilize the debt and get it on a downward path as a percent of GDP. He (Obama) knows that.”
Obama ignores the $15 trillion debt. The U.S. continues to borrow from the Chinese just to keep the govt. running and the entitlements flowing. Even the s&p downgrade means nothing to Obama. He put together a bipartisan " Simpson Bowles " to get ideas and ignored the recommendations.
Why are we paying Obama ????????
GOP 2012 !!!!
After about 600 snarky anti-Republican headlines, First Read displays some criticism of Obama...
Dont worry, they wont make a habit of it. Upcoming First Read headlines:
"Perry eats children" "Bachman wants the homeless to starve"
"Obama saves the world" "Latest Obama polls worry Chuck Todd, he is given sedative"
Cut in Social Security and Medicare do not necessarily imply that we will be causing the elderly, retired to starve in the streets without medical care. Don't people realize that over the years, these programs have become a catch all for alot of other categories of aid? However, in true sensationalistic journalism, they choose to portray it as an attack on retired citizens rather than a tightening of the rule to insure that those who were intially supposed to derive benefit would continue to do so. It is always the case that the elderly, the physically and mentally challenged, and children are held aloft as victims whenever it is suggested that we cannot continue to pay for everybody.
Good point!! I agree. You are delusional if you think that these programs can continue in their present form long term! If we wait until the #### hits the fan, SS payments will have to be cut about 25%. This is what happened in England and there was rioting.