U.S. Politics 20

[Fez]

It's been pointed out that simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way towards deficit reduction, but that's a non-starter with Republicans. I hoping that, come 2012, Obama vetoes another extension. We shall see.

True. But I do agree with the logic that having the middle class all of sudden paying more taxes in the middle of an economic recovery is not the best way to ensure that the recovery goes smoothly. However those top 2% should have expired. Hell, that rate should've been flat-out raised beyond the Clinton-level. And of course I continue to advocate that there should be an additional tax bracket for those making $1 million a year or more, and perhaps another couple points for those making over $10 million.

[Shryke]

Well, Obama is still making some rumblings about wanting to repeal those tax cuts for the rich he extended to get UI benefits from the GOP.

He's also made some hints at wanting to head-on tackle a tax restructuring to lower overall tax rates while closing loopholes to raise the effective tax rate on higher income people and large businesses and the like. The general hints seem to say he's left this till now because it'll be easier to pass tax cuts through a GOP house then just about anything else.

Either or both of those would go a long way towards closing the gap between spending and revenue.

Shit, I'm pretty sure a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts would make his promise of cutting the deficit in half happen instantly.

[Guest Raids]

I would personally raise taxes also. Or I'd just vote for Fez.

Anyway, just to get some actual data out there, here are the actual historical budget tables, as put out by the White House. I refer you to page 27, wherein the deficit is reduced nearly by half by 2016.

[Fez]

He's also made some hints at wanting to head-on tackle a tax restructuring to lower overall tax rates while closing loopholes to raise the effective tax rate on higher income people and large businesses and the like. The general hints seem to say he's left this till now because it'll be easier to pass tax cuts through a GOP house then just about anything else.

Either or both of those would go a long way towards closing the gap between spending and revenue.

My final research paper (don't call it a thesis!) for my Master's program effectively is a plan on how to do exactly this. And it works so fantastically well at closing the deficit and being appropriately redistributive that it pisses me off to no end at how right-wing the overall debate is.

Or I'd just vote for Fez.

I don't know; are you really ready for the aggressively left-wing merit-based autocracy experience?

[Fez]

So hey, the House actually managed to kill (for now) the alt-engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's $3 billion saved, right there. And turns out, it was truly bipartisan:

In Wednesday’s vote, 123 Democrats and 110 Republicans voted to kill the engine.

[TrackerNeil]

True. But I do agree with the logic that having the middle class all of sudden paying more taxes in the middle of an economic recovery is not the best way to ensure that the recovery goes smoothly. However those top 2% should have expired. Hell, that rate should've been flat-out raised beyond the Clinton-level. And of course I continue to advocate that there should be an additional tax bracket for those making $1 million a year or more, and perhaps another couple points for those making over $10 million.

I agree. Honestly I was OK with the lame-duck deal mostly because I think concern about the deficit is untimely; the first order of business is getting economy going again, not paying down debt. I regarded the extension of the tax cuts as a small (and probably less effective) stimulus package, and since I supported the first one I backed the second as well.

To my mind, the most interesting thing about the fight over extending the tax cuts was seeing just how far Republicans were willing to go to preserve tax cuts for the rich. (After all, they rejected the chance to extend only the middle-class tax cuts.) There was alot of stuff in there that suited the Democrat agenda, after all. I'm thinking we might have gotten EFCA and a repeal of DOMA out of Mitch McConnell.

[Shryke]

The Economist with an interesting take on the whole budget thing:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/game_theory

EZRA KLEIN describes the game President Obama seems to be playing these days: The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion...

But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later.

The Obama administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushed—investment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line.

On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out.

I would expect neither Obama administration Jedi mind tricks or secret deals to yield real budget solutions. Explicit outside pressure, from bond markets, will yield deals. And that pressure is not yet forthcoming.

[Swordfish]

You know why I'm never getting elected to Congress (besides all the other reasons)? Because I would immediately propose that we solve the deficit from the other side; i.e. start raising taxes. Or more accurately eliminating a whole hell of a lot of deductions.

Its even better when you look at the amendments to HR 1 that were defeated yesterday, a whole lot of them were Defense cuts. Most couldn't even manage 100 yeas.

According to this article, it may not matter because Obama will veto any such cuts anyway:

“The bill proposes cuts that would sharply undermine core government functions and investments key to economic growth and job creation and would reduce funding for the Department of Defense to a level that would leave the department without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements,” the statement read. “If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49603.html#ixzz1E9G5LaBH

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Absofuckinglutely. The party that would say "no" to anything Obama did simply because it was him that was doing it was finally ready to make a deal because catering to the rich is by far and away their #1 goal domestically.

No, it's not. There's nothing wrong with arguing about the merits of various policies, but tossing around what amounts to nothing more than rhetorical sound bites isn't legitimate argument or discussion.

Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushed—investment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line.

It doesn't cross anyone's mind that we actually think those are a bad idea? My state is killing one such idea, and a good thing too. The arrogance of assuming that your policy preferences are so unchallengable that opposition to them must be in bad faith is just incredible.

By Klein's -- I'd call it logic but it just doesn't qualify -- reasoning, Republicans really do support expansion of rail, but are only opposing it because it's an Obama idea. But if that's the case, why didn't they push it when Obama wasn't President?

On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements....

To which proposal was Obama responding? The only thing out there is Paul Ryan's proposal, which is very explicit about cutting entitlements, and which was actually introduced in the last Congress.

by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out.

You've got to be kidding. Ole Ezra just can't help himself, can he? Again, the "scrambling" to which he's referring is Ryan's plan that has been out for more than a year. But hey, if Obama really is secretly playing reverse psychology, then he's won, right? He "tricked" the GOP into offering entitlement reform. Can't he now just come out and endorse Ryan's plan, say that he agrees with him that entitlements need to be cut, and declare victory via reverse psychology?

[alguien]

It doesn't cross anyone's mind that we actually think those are a bad idea? My state is killing one such idea, and a good thing too.

I'm curious, why would improving railways be a bad idea?

[Shryke]

To which proposal was Obama responding? The only thing out there is Paul Ryan's proposal, which is very explicit about cutting entitlements, and which was actually introduced in the last Congress.

Did you miss the House GOP's ludicrous proposal they released ... I think it was last friday?

As I remember, it included gutting what amounts to the entirety of government funding for science and research among other insanities.

No talk of touching entitlements though.

You've got to be kidding. Ole Ezra just can't help himself, can he? Again, the "scrambling" to which he's referring is Ryan's plan that has been out for more than a year. But hey, if Obama really is secretly playing reverse psychology, then he's won, right? He "tricked" the GOP into offering entitlement reform. Can't he now just come out and endorse Ryan's plan, say that he agrees with him that entitlements need to be cut, and declare victory via reverse psychology?

If you'd bothered to actually read it, you'd note that those comments are not from Ezra Klein. But please, why bother reading when you already know what your answers are gonna be, am I right?

Also, Ryan's plan included slashing ridiculous amounts from a ridiculous number of things that saves very little money and Obama has come down fairly firmly against slashing social security. Social Security needs some tweaks, but it's not the big issue. When you wanna talk about "Entitlements" that are costing shitloads of money, you are talking about M&M, and I don't mean the shitty candy. Lumping the 2 things together is ludicrous considering their vastly different structures and issues.

It doesn't cross anyone's mind that we actually think those are a bad idea? My state is killing one such idea, and a good thing too. The arrogance of assuming that your policy preferences are so unchallengable that opposition to them must be in bad faith is just incredible.

By Klein's -- I'd call it logic but it just doesn't qualify -- reasoning, Republicans really do support expansion of rail, but are only opposing it because it's an Obama idea. But if that's the case, why didn't they push it when Obama wasn't President?

Well, they opposed the stimulus then pretended they fought for that money when it came home to their states, except in a few instances where they canceled the projects anyway, thus losing Federal Funding and costing the state money for things that had already begun but now didn't have the funding to complete.

And you'd have to tell us your state for us to know how "good" an idea it was to kill what you are referring to.

[Guest Raids]

I personally think not investing in railway is a terrible idea, just because we don't have the market forces to drive it solely because the real cost of oil is not what oil costs. If we want to consider things like the future costs of global warming due to burning fossil fuels in automobiles, we're way overdue for high-speed rail. But because we don't, it's a Field of Dreams kind of scenario. We have to sell the public on why these things are not only convenient, but also responsible, which is hard to do to what might be the least communal most-privacy and personal space obsessed culture in history.

Not to mention the whole peak oil thing....the market is only as efficient or rational as the people acting in it.

By the time everyone's come around we're going to need yesterday. And it won't be there.

Having said that, I do think Republicans think it's a bad idea. I'm sure they're not opposed to privately built high-speed rail in any way whatsoever, but I'm sure they believe that the best way to ensure that we get a piece of crap rail system that's going to lead to a disaster of Ayn Randian proportions without providing the goal sought, i.e. efficient rail service, is to have it be funded by the government. Personally, I'd prefer some other kind of arrangement that retains natural market forces, like competition-driven efficiency, but with heavy incentives...

At any rate, I totally see their point, I just think on balance that point - which is valid - is outweighed by other concerns, namely the ones I put forth in those first couple of paragraphs.

ETA: For instance, it is so, so stupid that there isn't high speed rail between San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Houston. They are the perfect distance apart for that kind of thing and it would bring the huge markets and $$ from Houston and Dallas to the awesome tourist destinations (Riverwalk and Texas Hill Country) to San Antonio and Austin, both of which have totally walkable downtown destinations where it would make total sense to drop a train station.

[Shryke]

Yeah, some of the High Speed Rail suggestions are good and some ... just aren't.

They are trying to build one up in ... I wanna say Wisconsin that is just silly because the 2 cities it connects are an easy drive apart and both lack the public transportation system necessary to make Railway a sensible alternative.

[alguien]

I would frickin' love it if there was high speed rail from Chicago to Michigan.

[RWHamel]

Ha Ha!

[TrueMetis]

Yeah, some of the High Speed Rail suggestions are good and some ... just aren't.

They are trying to build one up in ... I wanna say Wisconsin that is just silly because the 2 cities it connects are an easy drive apart and both lack the public transportation system necessary to make Railway a sensible alternative.

I would love to see more rails built in Canada to, specifically ones that go to the Northern territories. Make getting food up their a lot easier.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What is the rhetorical soundbite? That their priority is to cater to the rich?

"catering to the rich is by far and away their #1 goal domestically

alguien:

I'm curious, why would improving railways be a bad idea?

I don't want to generalize to "improving railways". I'm talking specifically about the high-speed rail proposals by the President. And I think they're a bad idea because they would cost more in capital investment, maintenance, and operating costs than they are worth.

Raids, I understand your arguments regarding the externalities of the cost of oil. However, I don't think they figure into the rationale for high speed rail unless that high speed rail means we'd no longer be invested in Mideast oil, or would otherwise make a meaningful dent in global warming, and therefore could save all those external costs. But somehow, I don't think building HS rail means we'd actually be abandoning the ME or using less oil. We'd still have all those externalities for the oil that we buy, plus the expense of an otherwise inefficient HS rail system.

Shryke:

Did you miss the House GOP's ludicrous proposal they released ... I think it was last friday?

Oh, you mean the quickie one for the rest of 2011? The one they released and specifically said they'd be releasing a full proposal including entitlement reforms in March or April, but since they have over 80 new members and had been in office barely a month couldn't finalize before then?

Yes, I saw that.

Also, Ryan's plan included slashing ridiculous amounts from a ridiculous number of things that saves very little money

:shocked:

You must have the same math instructor as Barack "Revenues will match expenses when we're still running a $600B deficit" Obama.

When you wanna talk about "Entitlements" that are costing shitloads of money, you are talking about M&M, and I don't mean the shitty candy.

Sure, but then you know Ryan has been specific about that as well. His plan -- which is exactly the right concept -- is to convert Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. So then, since you apparently are aware of that as well, why doesn't Obama come at and claim a "reverse psychology" victory on that point, and call Ryan's "bluff" on Medicare reform?

And you'd have to tell us your state for us to know how "good" an idea it was to kill what you are referring to.

You missed the point. I don't care if you think it's a good idea or not. I'm simply saying that myself, and a lot of other folks, don't think it's smart use of money, and would oppose it regardless of who proposed it in the first place.

[alguien]

I don't want to generalize to "improving railways". I'm talking specifically about the high-speed rail proposals by the President. And I think they're a bad idea because they would cost more in capital investment, maintenance, and operating costs than they are worth.

Interesting. I've always high-speed rail is the ideal to strive for but I admit I'm not very familiar on the subject. Also, since I don't own a car and have lots of family back in MI, I've got more of a personal vested interest in such improvements. Do you know of any articles or sources that helped you come to this conclusion?

[Shryke]

Shryke:

Oh, you mean the quickie one for the rest of 2011? The one they released and specifically said they'd be releasing a full proposal including entitlement reforms in March or April, but since they have over 80 new members and had been in office barely a month couldn't finalize before then?

Yes, I saw that.

It's the only one I know of recently but maybe he's referring to something else. Regardless, what they released so far was fucking terrible and I'd heard nothing about a newer proposal coming down the pipe. When did that announcement come out?

:shocked:

You must have the same math instructor as Barack "Revenues will match expenses when we're still running a $600B deficit" Obama.

You just must never have learned to read. One can slash a large amount of programs by a large amount as Rand Paul suggests and still save very little money. Turns out gutting science and arts funding and foreign aid kills the programs good but saves almost no money.

Sure, but then you know Ryan has been specific about that as well. His plan -- which is exactly the right concept -- is to convert Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. So then, since you apparently are aware of that as well, why doesn't Obama come at and claim a "reverse psychology" victory on that point, and call Ryan's "bluff" on Medicare reform?

Actually that's a terrible fucking idea since it doesn't solve the issue of the rising costs of Medicare that are causing it to cost so much. It just makes the program mostly useless. Which is probably why it's being ignored if Obama is, in fact, playing a reverse psychology game of some sort.

The whole idea from the person at The Economist is that Obama cannot be first seen to be supporting something he wants done because the GOP will always oppose it, regardless of how much they might want to do it or might previously have supported it. They have staked their chances on opposing Obama at every turn after all.

That doesn't mean he's got to agree with the GOP's shitty ideas, it just means he can't be seen to be too supportive of things he wants done.

[Tempra]

The Tampa to Orlando high speed rail would have made no sense. It takes approximately 90 minutes to drive from downtown Tampa to Orlando. If you figure it takes 15 minutes to get to the rail station station and 60 minutes on the train, you're saving ~15 minutes. Of course, once you arrive in Orlando/Tampa, you have no car and are pretty much screwed because both cities lack decent mass transportation. How would this railway have been a good idea?