Unless it includes lots of tax increases and sharing the wealth policies (though none of them have been willing to send a check to the IRS themselves)
(Politico) President Barack Obama may be thinking about a “grand bargain” to address spending and the federal deficit, but there’s a key constituency he has to persuade to come along.
The talk of any deal with congressional Republicans — and for now, it’s just that: talk — has liberals worried the White House will give in to changes to safety net programs including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. (snip)
One hundred and seven of the 200 House Democrats signed a letter to Obama threatening to vote “against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits — including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”
Instead, they want the White House to “rely on economic growth and more fair revenue-raising policies to solve our fiscal problems,” like getting rid of subsidies for big businesses and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
How are those Democrat/Obama policies on economic growth working so far? Even after dumping what will be over a trillion dollars (with the interest on the borrowed money) through the stimulus, all the small stimulus bill, all the pivots to jobs ever few months, the economy is in stagnation. It’s moribund. The US borrows 43 cents for every dollar it spends. Democrat policies are essentially against economic growth. And Dems aren’t willing to look at any entitlement reform, despite the $27-$180 trillion (no one really knows) in future unfunded liabilities.
A second letter, spearheaded by Reps. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and supported by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, simply states they pledge to vote against any proposal they see as a benefit cut.
The letter has been signed by 25 other members of the Democratic Caucus.
Many others are saying “no changes. Period.”And here’s Fauxahontas
“Chained CPI is just a fancy way to say, ‘Cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled and orphans,’” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Salon. “Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle-class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch.”
And what happens when SS and other entitlement programs are insolvent? Because that is coming. Anyone who fails to acknowledge the structural and fiscal defects is a fool. We cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity.
Nor do many of the GOP plans make sense. Here’s what Paul Ryan had to say in Sunday’s interview with Chris Wallace
WALLACE: In your last budget, you cut spending about $5 trillion over 10 years. How much do you cut spending in this new budget?
RYAN: Basically the same, about $5 trillion. Instead of growing spending at 4.9 percent a year, which is the average under the current path we’re on, we grow spending at 3.4 percent, each year, over the next decade. That gets us on a path to balance, and results in about a $5 trillion spending cut.
WALLACE: So, when you talk about cuts, you’re talking about cuts in the rate of growth, not actual, absolute cuts?
RYAN: Exactly. Instead of spending $46 trillion over the next 10 years, we’ll spend $41 trillion. That’s means we’ll grow spending on average 3.4 percent a year instead of growing it an average 4.9 percent a year, which is the path we’re on, which takes us from ever balancing the budget which produces a debt crisis.
With all due offense, Paul, that’s mule fritters, bat guano insane. All this does is slow the growth of spending increases, not reduce what the federal government is spending now. Nor does it reform nor tackle discretionary spending, wasteful spending, and spending that the government should even be involved in. If even one of the staunchest fiscal conservatives in Congress isn’t willing to make the hard cuts in order to reduce spending, America has a problem. Dems want massive tax increases. Republicans only want to slow spending growth. America is doomed.