LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks says the Paul Ryan Budget proposal is a bold step forward that is badly needed in this debate on health care, even though it has some grave weaknesses which need to be corrected. It is a bold step forward because he says Democrats say they want no middle class tax increases, or are not willing to say what kinds of tax increases they support, and yet they believe the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security programs are worth preserving. This is'nt based on reality. He cites the weaknesses, beginning with the one discussed in David Leonhardt's column in the New York Times on April 7, 2011. Too many Americans pay too little into Medicare taxes and expect to collect several hundred thousand dollars more in Medicare benefits. The example given in Leonhardt's column is from a study that shows 56 year olds with average earnings pay about $140,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes over a lifetime, and then go on to collect $430,000 in benefits. Middle class and affluent boomers can't get off paying their share like everybody else. Its just the right way for their children and the nation's children. Ryan's plan excludes older people reaching retirement in ten years. The other major weakness is that the cuts are too deep. Things like the Pell grants which Ryan proposes to cut back to 2008 levels need to be preserved, and more money has to go into science, education and research and early childhood education for the U.S. to be competitive with China and India. The Ryan proposal places cuts that would be required so that tax revenues need to be at 18% of GDP. The number where a larger consensus exists is for tax revenues at 20% of GDP (also supported by business and the Wall Street Journal's editorial columns). This would preserve programs that are most productive for the economic future of the U.S. Ryan's proposal lets the hope for reducing costs of medical care rest entirely on future retirees deciding how much medical care (tests, procedures etc) they consume through larger cost sharing. Yet a structure and framework is needed to manage these costs effectively, and some combination of incentives to retirees to control costs and an effective structural framework is needed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out that public workers receive lower salaries and higher benefits than private workers. They are being paid in the wrong ways. For example with health insurance coverage that require little or no co-payment, which lead to overuse of healthcare services that don't necessarily improve health. Politicians and unions appear to have accepted this practice over the years. Public sector unions have blocked efforts to improve efficiency and find better ways of doing things from the classroom to work in government offices. Reforms in states such as Indiana have produced some results. But even these improvements do not address the magnitude of the problems facing the U.S. which stem from the public's desire to have it all- from large defense spending, public services, low taxes and no changes to Social Security and Medicare. Polls show Americans want to reduce deficit spending, but the same polls show Americans unwilling to make some difficult choices.

LyrArc Article Gist
The failure of the Supercommitte in the U.S. Congress by the Thanksgiving deadline will not have any immediate consequences. This is because automatic spending cuts that are supposed to go into effect if the Supercommitte fails, do not go into effect till Jan 2013. This gives Congress another year in which to come up with necessary deficit savings. This is a major reason the two sides divided on major issues from the extension of Bush tax cuts and tax increases, and facing pressure from their party's interest groups and voter support groups, have no special incentive to reach a compromise. Such a compromise also means politicians taking the political risk of not being reelected. Another dynamic that is in play in November 2011 is that interest groups in the Republican and Democratic parties both now see the "sequester," as the automatic cuts are described, as a better alternative than any bipartisan agreement that cuts health and retirement programs. For anti-tax groups, the automatic cuts are better than a deal than includes tax increases. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) says: "We promised tax cuts. And I think we need to have cuts." For liberal groups, the trigger or sequester for the 2013 automatic cuts is better than a deal that cuts health and retirement programs. The trigger for automatic cuts will cut agency budgets, but spending for the poor and the elderly -including food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare- is exempted. Eric Kinson, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, says no deal is better than one that is flawed, the extra time gives the country time to pause and think about the alternatives....

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks on the candidacy for U.S. President of Senator Rick Santorum. He says Santorum genuinely represents the working class- a grandson of a coal miner and the son of Italian immigrants who has represented workers of the steel manufacturing region of western Pennsylvania. Santorum has pushed hard in this campaign largely ignored by the media. He has visited 370 towns riding in a pickup truck trying to cover as much ground as possible and talking with great conviction about his positions distant from the corporate and financial wings of the Republican party, about family, and communities. Bring someone like Sherrod Brown of Ohio together with someone like Rick Santorum and you have good representation of the working class across the political spectrum to win this election for the working class of America, says Brooks, who sees this as a lot better alternative today than Harvard Law.

LyrArc Article Gist
Congressional Budget Office projections show the difficult choices facing the U.S. - tackling the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cuts expire will lead to low growth. The alternative is growth with much higher deficits. GDP growth would be at about 2.3% in this fiscal year if the payroll tax cut is kept till December 2012. In fiscal 2013 if a number of tax cuts are permitted to expire and across the board spending cuts take effect as scheduled GDP growth would decline to 1.1%. Taxes would increase by $465 billion in 2013 over 2012 if tax cuts expire - individuals and companies would pay $2.99 trillion in taxes in fiscal year 2013 in that scenario. Spending cuts would take effect in Jan 2013 for $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The result- " a sharp fiscal contraction" in the words of CBO director Elmendorf. Unemployment would go up to 8.9% in 2012 year end and 9.2% in 2013 yearend from 8.5% today, if no agreement is made to extend tax cuts and block spending cuts. The risk of not taking the debt reduction actions is to let the debt grow to $11 trillion over 10 years, an unsustainable path, compared to about $3.1 trillion over 10 years if tax cuts are permitted to expire and spending cuts take place. This is the tough choice facing America in 2012, and comes when Europe is facing similar tough choices....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman puts it best when he says in the NYT that he's got a sick feeling in the pit of his stomach. Its just that the Republican challenge of not a single vote in the House for the $789 billion Stimulus bill just makes it harder to go back for more money which most definitely will be needed. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that over the next 3 years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and will actually produce. $789 billion won't be enough, and more so because the weightage shifted in the direction of tax cuts from the original version. And considering the accelerating nature of the crisis on the housing front and in layoffs and consumption, the absence of a clear action plan with specifics to deal with the bad debt in the banking system, is what gives this sick feeling in the stomach. Because as is stated on these same pages by experts from Japan on February 12, NYT, see the link, Japan went through this same soul searching, public anger, controversy, and political leaders were afraid to take strong action for years from the mid 1990's till 2003 after Koizumi's election. Each action or set of actions each year during that period before 2003 was behind the curve, and did not match what was needed. For the USA this has happened already for 2007, 2008 and is heading in that direction for 2009, with a lack of consensus for the strong action needed. Would 4 million new jobs be generated by the current stimulus if that is a measure of success, as Obama indicated at his first press conference? With less going into spending for education, infrastructure, energy and other green projects, in favor of tax cuts and the AMT, and the feeling that going to Congress for more money will be harder and a partisan affair, will this become difficult to achieve? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krauthammer says he favors the Boehner Plan because the two stage debt ceiling hike will give time for negotiations and public scrutiny of plans for entitlement and tax reforms. He is critical of the Reid Plan because more than half of the $2 trillion deficit reduction under the plan comes from not continuing surge spending in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 10 years, which he calls outrageous and fictional savings. The lack of Obama's own plan even after setting up and receiving the report of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission is a sore point for him and other observers, demonstrating a stark failure to lead. Tea party advocates will need a new mandate in 2012 where they control more than just the House of Representatives to push for their plan of aggressive deficit reduction and a balanced budget. Krauthammer sees the Obama stimulus, auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, and the current battle over deficit spending as a large Keynesian gamble which has failed to revive the economy. A choice on limiting government or a different set of policies should now be left to voters to decide....

LyrArc Article Gist
The results of the February 24, 2011, CBS/New York Times poll show strong support for public workers in schools, firefighters, police and other functions. On collective bargaining 60% opposes weakening the bargaining rights of public workers, only 33% support it. On reducing the benefits and pay of public workers to reduce deficits, 56% opposed cutting pay or benefits, only 37% support it. Are public workers overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. On this issue 61% -including over half of Republicans- say the salaries of public workers were either "about right" or "too low" for the work they do. So how are states to reduce their deficits? The people polled say they prefer tax increases over benefit cuts for public employees- only 22% chose to reduce the benefits of public employees, 40% said they would increase taxes, 20% said they would cut financing for roads, only 3% said they would cut financing for education. How this breaks down in politcal groups. 71% of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights, the opposition was also strong from Independents with 62% of Independents opposing weakening of collective bargaining rights. Followup interviews showed independents saying the public workers work hard and still struggle to have a home, saving for retirement, and sending their kids to college, with both spouses generally having to work, which is why they oppose weakening collective bargaining rights. Which segment of the populations support cutting pay and benefits of public workers? The one income group that showed support for cutting pay and benefits- those earning over $100,000 a year! There 45% said they favored cutting pay and benefits, even here 49% opposed it. On the intentions of the governors and state legislators trying to cut pay or benefits of public workers- 45% said they did this to cut the deficits, and as many as 41% said the saw this as an effort to weaken unions. Which takes one to the last question, so how are unions perceived in the U.S. in 2011? A far smaller number of people, 37% saw unions as having "too much influence" on American life and politics vs. 48% who said that unions had the "right amount" or "too little" influence....

LyrArc Article Gist
With the passage of debt ceiling legislation the focus turns to the super-committee that will have to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings for deficit reduction. Six Republicans and six Democrats will be selected in the next 2 weeks and are required to come up with proposals by November 23, 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Dionne cites comments by Bowles and Simpson saying the Paul Ryan U.S. budget proposal falls short of a serious bipartisan effort for deficit reduction for a number of reasons. The reasons cited by Bowles and Simpson are: The proposal exempts defense spending from reductions, does not apply savings from tax expenditures to deficit reduction, relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan, and at the same time making reductions in safety-net programs that could in their words "place a disproportionately adverse effect on certain disadvantaged populations." This should give moderates in this debate time for pause and reflection says Dionne.

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out a couple of problems with Paul Ryan's budget proposal for Medicare. He says Medicare recipients, with the exception of the very affluent, currently haven't paid enough for the benefits they receive. He cites a study that shows Medicare pays out several hundreds of thousands of dollars for the average retiree more than they ever paid in. Medicare funds go for hospital expenses, the rest for doctors bills come from general government revenues. Government borrowing increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels so that current retirees do not have to pay higher taxes, is simply shifting the burden to the next generation. He says the Ryan plan shields those who will retire in the next 10 years because they are a powerful voting bloc, making this more of a political calculation than a bold reform step, as this means younger people will have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden. The other part of Ryan's calculus is that it has proven extremely difficult to reduce the volume of medical care that is consumed in terms of tests, lack of preventive care leading to graver problems, and surgeries. Simply by shifting a larger share of the cost to future retirees this will have an effect on the volume of medical care consumed and put a lid on costs. This is something that needs to happen says Leonhardt, but at the same time all Americans need to share in the higher taxes that are necessary to fund Medicare, exempting 75 million Americans only creates an imbalance in contributions. The other problem with this is that the costs of this exempted group will postpone serious deficit reduction for ten years....