Published: Saturday, Dec. 8 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
ABSOLUTELY.Simpson Bowles is far better then anything that our
congress will manage to eek out themselves.Bottom line - it was
derailed by Republicans and Democrats who are more interested in party ideology
than solving Americas problems.And I blame Obama for not making a
media tour, touting the plan.Is it perfect? Nothing ever is.
Perfect is subjective anyway.But, it is the closest thing we have
seen in years to a bi-partisan solution to our debt problem.Call/write/beg your congressmen to adopt it.
Stop the posturing...ah yea, a good idea DN.."It would also stabilize
out-of-control growth in federal entitlement spending". No one is saying
entitlements don't need adjustments, but "out of control" is
hysterical right wing posturing. None of it's out of control The growth is
simply benefits responding to changing economic and demographic conditions. The
hysteria is fed when you arbitrarily take some of the solutions off the table.
The country is getting older, the work force is being given less and
less of the wealth and "them are the facts" so you decide with that
reality what kind of a country you want.
It would have been helpful if this article spelled out in detail the main
provisions of the Simpson Bowles plan. Everyone seems to want to hide the bad
news. We need to get pass that and the press should be helping us to do that.
The plan that President Obama proposed called for 1.6 trillion in new tax
revenues. When he did this the Republican leadership said he was in "la la
land". Simpson-Bowles calls for 2.8 trillion in new revenues. The
Republicans will never, ever go along with this plan.
The president, who created the commission, saluted the commissioners' hard
work but did nothing to implement their plan"?????Uhh, the president can't implement a plan shelved by both parties in
Congress. Interestingly, the Senate Republicans on the Committee at the time
unanimously supported it, while the House Republican Committe members unaimously
rejected it. The Democratic Committee members rejected it as well in a more
mixed fashion. The Simpson-Bowles Commission assumed, as their baseline, tax
cuts expiring for those making more than $250,000. Simson-Bowles
would:Increase out-of-pocket Medicare payments. For older Americans
eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, require drug companies to provide the
discounts they would for people under Medicaid. Limit supplemental payments to
teaching hospitals.Retirement age rises to 69 from 67 by 2075,
higher incomes are subject to payroll taxes, cost-of-living increases are
smaller and benefits for higher-income people shrink.Lower marginal
tax rates. Eliminate most tax expenditures, replacing mortgage interest and
charitable giving deductions with a 12 percent tax credit. Tax capital gains as
ordinary income. Add an additional 15-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax by
Alan Simpson has always been one of my favorites. Don't always agree with
him, usually do, but I love his style and condor. If we would
simply start with a simple balanced budget legislation that required in 5 years
the government run a balanced budget, without raiding things like social
security funds.... we would be a long way toward reaching our debt targets. It
just isn't that hard.
I disagree with the editorial in that I don't believe both sides are
equally to blame. Everyone should agree that the Federal Government needs more
revenue and John Boehner has offered the President more revenue but that's
not all he wants. Obama also wants 50 billion in additional "stimulus
spending" (which would of course be added to budget baseline) and for
Congress to relinquish it's authority to increase the debt limit. That
hardly seems reasonable to me and yet the Obama water carriers in the MSM
won't point out the audacity of asking for more spending when we are in the
midst of a debt crisis. They can only demonize Grover Norquist. Eight of
the ten wealthiest counties in America voted for Obama so I don't
understand why Republicans are called "the party of the rich".
We're not. So I say give Obama the meaningless rate hikes on "the
rich" he's asking for- it won't help the economy and it probably
won't generate any more revenue but have at it if it makes unhappy people
happy because someone else is punished.
Truthseeker,Agree, that the president could not implement the
plan.But, he could have, and in my opinion, should have, been
forceful in garnering support from both the democrats (had all committee dems
voted for it, it would have moved forward) and from the American public.Obama could have done much more than he did.I am confident
that it would have died in the house, as most things do.
"rate hikes on "the rich" he's asking for- it won't help
the economy"Well, Red, if we discount anything that
"only" nets $80 Billion per year, nothing will get done.I agree though, that we need more spending cuts than revenue increases.I am hoping for about a 3 to 1 deal.
Re:JoeBlowWell, clearly Obama either didn't feel he could bring
the Democrats along, and/or he himself had problems with it.Jared
Bernstein, former Chief Economic Advisor to V.P. Joe Biden (now at the Center of
Budget and Policy Priorites) stated: “I mean, as much as we
all love Bowles-Simpson, there were and are some big problems with it. They
capped spending at 21 percent of GDP. I think that’s unnecessarily
restrictive. And they cut much more deeply into Social Security than I think the
president was comfortable with.”(The Fiscal Times Nov 2011)
@Joe Blow- the Obama's upcoming vacation to Hawaii is expected to cost
taxpayers 3,639,622.00. There are 226 White House staffers making over 100 grand
per year including the President's dog Bo's dedicated and personal
handler. Where's the outrage from the left? This is the alleged party of
the common man?They're not exactly showing solidarity with the middle class
and the needy. I wish I could afford to take my family to HI for Christmas but I
can't. If we can't trim one thin dime from this bloated Federal
bureaucracy then everyone needs to start paying a lot more in taxes. We're
getting a lot more Government than we're paying for and the "rich"
aren't going to make up the difference. The President has made it pretty
clear that the "balanced approach" he campaigned on doesn't include
spending cuts now that he's been reelected. So let these so-called
Americans who re-elected him start paying for the big government they voted for.
Bowles-Simpson is a start. Taxing the rich is eye wash and is a bone thrown to
the far left. "What is my income doing in your pocket?" The president
must present something and stop hiding in the grass only to criticize Ryan or
the commission. The real issue is that the president does not believe the
deficit is a problem. Paul Krugman and others believe that additional borrowing
and spend is the solution. Keyensian economists and Fabian socialists, of which
the president has all the earmarkings, are their guiding light.
Redstate,Just because you can find it on the internet does not make
it true. Oh, and you forgot about Bo's private plane. I have little doubt that Obamas vacations cost taxpayers money.But, without doing research, I would be willing to bet that the costs are for
secret service time, meals and lodging.As they would be with any
vacation, even Crawford Texas.Let me ask you. Do you have any
figures about Bush's vacation costs to compare? If not, why not. It is
obviously important to you.
4601:"Paul Krugman and others believe that additional borrowing and spend is
the solution."Not true.Krugman believes austerity
measures implemented now before the economy and employment fully recovers (as
Europe is doing) will only harm the economic recovery. Once the economy and
employment recovers, Krugman believes spending and deficit problems should be
Other countries have coalition governments where a minority can pull out causing
a collapse. We don't have that type of system but we act like do. Its time
we stopped trying to placate the fringe elements in both parties. We're
sorry you're not happy about cuts in entitlements or higher tax rates but
both are going happen one way or another by New Years.
@Truthseeker and Joe Blow- obviously you missed the point of my post which was
that if we're going to have a "money no object!" approach to
Government then let the citizenry pay the commensurate cost. And Truthseeker- I
stick by my facts and I never said Executive branch largesse started with the
current administration. The point is that Abe Lincoln presided over the Civil
War with a staff of barely a dozen but now it takes close to 500 people to
preside over a stagnant economy going nowhere? Aren't we allegedly living
in a Republic with allegedly limited government? But the President can't go
out amongst the people without a forty car motorcade? That doesn't strike
either of you as odd? I know it's 2012 and the world has changed.
Let's all pay the bills for this largesse. Tax productivity, savings and
investment more- that's a path to prosperity. Reward inactivity. Pay
retired public sector employees full salary for 30 years in retirement. Food for
thought: the Federal Reserve currently buys 70% of all debt issued by the
Treasury. How does that end well?
4601Oh, if it were only true that President Obama was a Keynesian.
We'd be out of this mess by now. Alas, he seems to be buying at least some
of the austerity argument. And we know that won't work; look at Europe.
@Red State - "The point is that Abe Lincoln presided over the Civil War
with a staff of barely a dozen but now it takes close to 500 people to preside
over a stagnant economy going nowhere? "You are absolutely
correct. There was no CIA back then, no FBI, No Air Force, No Home Land
Security, No TSA in response to terrorist acts, No NASA that had visited the
moon and invented most electronics we now enjoy, No FDA, No EPA (love canal
hadn't happened yet), No Federal Railroad Administration, No SEC, and the
list goes on and on and on.... because we didn't need those things yet. We
hadn't had a cold war, we didn't a DoE that to regulate and managed
nuclear capabilities because we didn't invent that stuff yet. In fact we
didn't even have an FAA yet, because aviation didn't exist.So what are you proposing? The the current government crawl back into a time
be before aviation, global terrorism, and nuclear weapons. Sounds nice, not
very realistic. 'But the President can't go out amongst
the people without a forty car motorcade? ' Please revisit your Lincoln
comments, theres your answer.
The DesNews is dead wrong on this one.If simple math could cure
problems, Simpson Bowles' solution might have a chance. But the dynamics of
raising taxes, as they propose, is this. As Ronald Reagan found, though promised
spending cuts by Dems, he found they didn't keep their promise. And the
experience of all those who have kept track of raising taxes have found in the
US, withOUT exception, that SPENDING ALWAYS RISES WHEN TAXES ARE RAISED, no
matter what anyone promises.Bean counters, or accountants, often
make this mistake. But they don't take into account human dynamics. When
people think they have more money, whether they do not, they spend more, and
then even some more yet! This is true in a household, and it is just as true in
government.This time would not be any different.Editorial Boards often are people who have little real world experience
themselves. That is why, IMO, they make what seem like intellectually smart, but
in truth, foolish suggestions.Though Simpson is/was a Republican, he
almost makes Jon Huntsman look conservative by comparison. And Bowles is/was a
Democrat. Both are more liberal than conservative.
"As Ronald Reagan found, though promised spending cuts by Dems, he found
they didn't keep their promise. "Give me a break. Reagan
had final say on all budgets. Sign them, or veto them. Pure and simple. He
showed he was willing to pursue his convections in his dealing with the air
traffic controllers. He showed he would do extreme things to support what he
thought was right. So lets not pretend poor Mr. Reagan was tricked by anyone
to do anything. He new the game, he played the game (very week),
and won the game very often. He knew what was in those budgets. You may not
like it, but it was what it was. Reagan simply spent more than he took in...
its really simple.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments