NYT Reports That Senators Are Working On A Fiscal Cliff Deal — And Paul Krugman Is Already Furious

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-of-senate-fiscal-cliff-deal-2012-10

?maxX=308&maxY=231

This sounds very hazy, but Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times says work has begun among some Senate leaders will hammer out a plan that would cut $4 trillion out of the deficit over 10 years, and avert the fiscal cliff/sequestration nightmare due to hit on January 1 of next year.

First, senators would come to an agreement on a deficit reduction target — likely to be around $4 trillion over 10 years — to be reached through revenue raised by an overhaul of the tax code, savings from changes to social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and cuts to federal programs. Once the framework is approved, lawmakers would vote on expedited instructions to relevant Congressional committees to draft the details over six months to a year.

If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obama’s fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.
There are so many hurdles for something like this, including the tax issue, not to mention trying to craft something palatable to the House.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-of-senate-fiscal-cliff-deal-2012-10#ixzz289NIXfSu

[n2doc]

1. If Obama wins and then changes SS and medicare

He will destroy the democratic party. The only thing we have right now is that we are more believable as protectors of those programs. Once both sides are seen as equal on that regard. Forget about the Dems taking any national office for a while. And forget 2014, it will be worse than 2010.

I somehow think that Obama winning big means that he will not allow the senate to kill his own party. At least I can hope so.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. Totally agree

[villager]

52. It will finally be time to form viable parties beyond the two corporate offerings...

n/t

[Hotler]

70. The cuts will happen on a Democratic watch. Remember two lines....

Obama: Wall St. did no wrong.
Pelosi: Impeachment is off the table.

[bluestate10]

71. The Senate after the election looks to be more democrat, if current events hold.

My guess is that a group of republican Senators are running around with their hair on fire trying to cut a deal. If democrats are smart, they will wait until January 2nd, change senate rules to get rid of the 60 vote rule, then formulate a plan that protects SS and Medicare and increase tax rates on wealthy people.

[pampango]

2. Here's Krugman's article.

Bowlesing Toward Betrayal

So, is my timing good or not? Right after I warn about the risk that Democrats, including the president, might betray the mandate they seem likely to get for preserving the safety net, we learn that Senate leaders are at work on a plan based around, well, you guessed it:

If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obama’s fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.

Just to say, this would be politically stupid as well as a betrayal of the electorate. If you don’t think Republicans would turn around and accuse Democrats of cutting Social Security — probably even before the ink was dry — you’ve been living under a rock.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/bowlesing-toward-betrayal/

[xchrom]

3. +1

[woo me with science]

10. +10000

[bullwinkle428]

18. HAMMER MEET NAIL. They're already accusing Obama of "stealing $700 BB from Medicare", so how

can anyone possibly think they won't "turn it up to 11" once this deal gets rammed through?

[WillyT]

33. + 1,000,000,000

[dawg]

4. I don't think Nancy and Harry will allow this to happen.

Once the President is re-elected, there will no longer be a political imperative to march lockstep behind him.

[Junkdrawer]

6. All eyes should turn to the Senate races....

They won't, of course.

[Junkdrawer]

5. So Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake was right....

Catfood Commission it was.

Knock me over with a feather.

[jsr]

7. We need to know more about this

[Jim__]

8. Krugman is right - the democrats would have to be absolutely insane to deal with the republicans.

[byeya]

12. Alexander Cockburn was right: He had never seen a President to eager so curry favor

with the inside-the-beltway greedsters.

End the wars; cut the military budget in half; end the subsidies to multinationl corporations; and
hands off Social Security and Medicare.

[Angry Dragon]

14. +570

[davekriss]

69. +100000!!

[woo me with science]

9. Secret meetings in Congress. Silence from the campaigns.

We are bought and sold. We are manipulated like fools. Say it isn't so.

Democrats are the ONLY ones who can stand between all of us and these assaults.

Obama and Biden and congressional Democrats have run this entire campaign on being the anti-Romney, the defenders of ordinary Americans and the vulnerable.

If Democrats turn around and assault the safety nets after spending this entire year proclaiming our party the defenders of the 99 percent....we will witness the most stunning bait and switch, the most cynical and deliberate betrayal of American voters in recent memory.

And it will be proof that our electoral system is theater by the oligarchy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1445641

[Jackpine Radical]

55. Permit me one small edit:

"And it will be [font color=red]further [/font]proof that our electoral system is theater by the oligarchy.

[woo me with science]

63. Well edited. nt

[woo me with science]

11. K&R Krugman is not the only one who's angry. nt

[Angry Dragon]

13. What the hell does SS and Medicare have to do with the deficit??

NOT A DAMN THING!!

[Junkdrawer]

15. By law, we lent the Treasury the money in the Trust Fund...

The wealthy and their lackeys in Government (read: almost everyone in Government) will do their damnest to pay as little as they can back. And that which will be paid back will be paid back with inflated dollars.

Yummm. Catfood.

[dkf]

22. No matter the wage level, status, retirement date, all are expected to receive far more in benefits.

In 2004, Urban Institute economists C. Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso created a Web-based Medicare benefits calculator.[92] Using this calculator it is possible to estimate net Medicare benefits (i.e., estimated lifetime Medicare benefits received minus estimated lifetime Medicare taxes paid, expressed in today's dollars) for different types of recipients. In the book, Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality, Joseph Fried used the calculator to create graphical depictions of the estimated net benefits of men and women who were at different wage levels, single and married (with stay-at-home spouses), and retiring in different years. Three of these graphs are shown below, and they clearly show why Medicare (as currently formulated) is on the path to fiscal insolvency: No matter what the wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a man or woman can expect to receive benefits that will cost the system far more than the taxes he or she paid into the system.

In the first graph (Figure 169) we see that estimated net benefits range from $108,000 to $240,000 for single men and from $142,000 to $277,000 for single women. Generally, the benefits are progressive. Note that women usually get higher benefits due to their greater longevity.[93]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#section_10

[Junkdrawer]

24. LOL: Estimated Benefits....Reality: Catfood money

Money for the Imperial Troops or Money for Retiring Boomers....

Who will win...Who will win?

[dkf]

25. Just as long as you understand you are not getting ripped off.

They would have to significantly cut benefits, more than half probably, to get to the point that you don't receive what you put in. Note these are constant dollars.

And it's not military vs seniors, it's that we can afford neither at expected levels.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Riiight. I'll watch food prices skyrocket while I'm told inflation is only 2%-4%

Catfood. If I'm lucky, it won't be full of melanine.

[dkf]

35. That's why it would be good to have assets that you can make sure keeps up with inflation.

Depend on anyone else and you could be sol.

At our debt levels, the eventual printing of money will be ugly.

[Fawke Em]

53. And that's what we thought we had by paying into Social Security.

Social Security SHOULD keep up with inflation and by taking OUR own money and putting it into Social Security, aren't we depending on ourselves?

It's our money and it has nothing to do with the deficit.

[dkf]

65. Well I hope it works out for you.

To me, the numbers don't work so I will plan accordingly.

[eridani]

77. And you know for sure your plans will work?

That's odd. In 2007, lots of people's plans failed to work.

[Kolesar]

56. I-bonds?

I am trying to figure out how to buy "inflation protected bonds" in my 401k. I don't think a bond fund is as good as the actual bonds.

I cannot depend on the stock market to protect my savings from inflation.

[dkf]

21. Medicare parts B and D are funded 25% by premiums and 75% from income taxes.

Part B is outpatient so doctors, tests, and the rest you get outside of hospitalization. Part D is drugs.

So Medicare is directly related to the deficit.

Only part A, hospitalization minus doctors has a trust fund that you paid in to. But that trust fund is also going to run out and faster than social security.

[Angry Dragon]

36. Thanks

[kentuck]

39. How much per year?

I haven't been able to find that info??

[dkf]

41. Best info is from Kaiser foundation.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

[kentuck]

42. Cannot open file.

Sorry. The reason I ask is for priority purposes. If we cut the defense budget by 50% and raise the taxes back to the Clinton levels, can we afford Medicare and Social Security for our citizens. I refuse to believe there is only one way to fix this problem.

[dkf]

45. Google MEDICARE SPENDING AND FINANCING 2011 and Kaiser

You need to change something about the trajectory of costs.

Also this...

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11guide.pdf

Keep in mind this phases out all the Bush tax cuts. I'm not sure if it takes into account sequestration.

Basically spending is going to be crowded out by interest on the debt. We barely cover our expenses. Look at the bump in Medicare and social security costs and the constant increasing line while defense gets cut and flatlines.

[dkf]

46. Wow the projections I posted showing increasing expenses in Medicare SS and Medicaid assume cuts.

5 The 2011 Medicare Trustees Report projects that, assuming full implementation of ACA provisions, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will remain solvent until 2024 under current law – five years earlier than was projected in the 2010 Trustees Report. The projected share of scheduled benefits that can be paid from trust fund income is 90 percent in 2024, declines to about 76 percent in 2050, and then increases to 88 percent by 2085. As for Social Security, under current law, the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to be exhausted in 2036, at which time the projected share of scheduled benefits payable from trust fund income is 77 percent, declining to 74 percent in 2085.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11guide.pdf

[kentuck]

47. That doesn't sound like a huge problem that can't be fixed.

Sounds like a lot of hype behind it, because some folks want to destroy the programs simply because they are against all government spending.

[Ganja Ninja]

49. Medicare part D was a huge give a way to big pharma by the GOP

That can be fixed by amending it to allow the government to negotiate with drug companies.

[Octafish]

16. Austerity for America!

Welfare for the Wealthy!

[ProSense]

17. Krugman should be pissed, but

that NYT article reads like it's pushing Simpson-Bowles than actually reporting on any plan or anything current. It strings together a whole bunch of previously known information.

It quotes Reid, but that's in relation to not extending the Bush tax cuts, which is really curious.

With both sides awaiting the outcome of the election, negotiators will not even try to determine how much money would come from the three components until after the voting, when, presumably, the victorious side would emerge with new leverage.

<...>

House Republicans, favored to retain control regardless of the presidential and Senate results, have not been part of the Senate talks so far and could be difficult to sway to back a package with significant new revenue even if it wins bipartisan Senate support.

Democratic leaders are already signaling a major stumbling block: they will accept no deal that extends Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, even for six months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/senate-leaders-at-work-on-plan-to-avert-fiscal-cliff.html

That makes no sense. First, if they're waiting on the "outcome of the election," why would they be working out a framework?

Secondly, that part about House Republicans seems to imply that Republicans are going to do something different if they retain the House.

Thirdly, the Bush tax cuts expire automatically. Discussing what the new Congress would do about it is ridiculous.

Lastly, this:

The two parties will have only weeks to reach an agreement between Election Day and Dec. 31, and they remain far apart on some fundamental issues besides tax cuts for the wealthy. House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio says he will not accept any deal that raises tax rates or “decouples” the Bush-era tax rates by extending some but allowing others to expire.

What's the rush and how does this fit the waiting for the "outcome of the election" claim?
If they're going to be working with the same Congress, why would the negotiating position change? The tax cuts automatically expire. It's not a bargaining chip for Republicans. They have nothing to bargain with.

[gkhouston]

44. ^^ This. Looks like someone wants to make this "agreement" seem inevitable before election day.

We don't seem to have any good information about how the House races are polling, but every now and then, we hear that some Republican candidate is not doing as well as would have been expected a few months ago. I think we're going to re-take the House, and that others fear it and want to set up this "deal" to poison the well for the next Congress.

[magical thyme]

19. imho, they are allowed to make one single change to SS. And only this one.

Lift the cap.

There was a period of years when I actually hit that cap. I was surprised to suddenly have my taxes freeze there. It was nice but I didn't need it and I knew it. It didn't change my spending or savings habits one bit.

LIFT THE FUCKING CAP. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[ProSense]

20. "A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security "

Do Not Cut Social Security

September 20, 2012

A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal. "We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package," the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse and Al Franken, who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.

Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or to the national debt, the senators said. The program that benefits more than 50 million retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled Americans has a $2.7 trillion surplus and, according to actuaries, will be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.

"Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing," the letter said. "Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working and paying into the system," the letter added.

Social Security has not contributed to deficits because it has a dedicated funding stream. Workers and employers each pay half of a 12.4 percent payroll tax on the first $110,100 of a worker's wages. The tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.

To read the letter, click here »

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=066FB085-5798-4E6C-ABA2-85549D84DFA6

When I see a letter signed by everyone from Harry Reid to Carl Levin to Joe Manchin, I'm thinking nothing is going to happen. Eleven more Senators and that's a filibuster. President Obama cannot change Social Security singlehandedly. That change would have to go through Congress. I doubt there are going to be Democrats, especially those up for re-election in 2014, who are going to put their careers on line.

Paul Ryan's reception by the AARP should be an indication that Social Security is still a political third rail.

Signatories:

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)

[adigal]

23. If Obama changes Social Security, I would support his impeachment

By Democrats!!!!! I am 51 years old, and I have been paying into this fund since I was 13 years old, with the exception of 4 years. Don't touch my Social Security!!!

I hope this is BS.

[Junkdrawer]

27. But he'll REALLY hate to do it....

and he'll win back a concession or two.

Bill Clinton told you he was a political pragmatist who works with both parties. And you sure wouldn't want the troops fighting those terrorists (who just happen to be sitting on all those lovely minerals) to go without the latest in drone weapons.

[ProSense]

30. Again,

"If Obama changes Social Security, I would support his impeachment."

...the President cannot singlehandedly change Social Security, and he has states his position on Social Security many times.

Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021390402

From his DNC speech:

<...>

Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done. But when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well, what did Bill Clinton call it -- you do the arithmetic. (Applause.) You do the math. (Applause.)

I refuse to go along with that and as long as I’m President, I never will. (Applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut. (Applause.)
I refuse to ask students to pay more for college, or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor and elderly or disabled -- all so those with the most can pay less. I’m not going along with that. (Applause.)

And I will never -- I will never -- turn Medicare into a voucher. (Applause.) No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity that they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care -- not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. (Applause.)

And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention

[zipplewrath]

37. Also on the public option

He stated in front of congress twice that any health insurance reform would have to include a public option.

He'll cut any deal he thinks will advance his agenda.

[ProSense]

43. Facts:

Senators Reject Pair of Public Option Proposals

By ROBERT PEAR and JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — After an intense debate that captured the essence of the national struggle over health care, a pivotal Senate committee on Tuesday rejected two Democratic proposals to create a government insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

The votes, in the Senate Finance Committee, underscored divisions among Democrats and were a setback for President Obama, who has endorsed the public plan as a way to “keep insurance companies honest.”

The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no.

The votes vindicated the middle-of-the-road approach taken by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Mr. Baucus voted against both proposals, which were offered as amendments to his bill to expand coverage and rein in health costs.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/health/policy/30health.html

Blanche Lincoln voted against both, which was why the unions opposed her re-election.

Senators Send Reid A Letter Urging Inclusion Of Public Option In Health Reform Bill
By The Public Record
The Public Record
Oct 8th, 2009

Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, circulated a letter Thursday to show depth of support for public option among Senate Democrats.
Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.

The letter, which was circulated by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), was signed by Brown; John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).

“Support for the public option runs deep in the Senate,” Brown said. “Health insurance reform is all about lowering costs, improving care, and increasing choice for consumers. In too many parts of the country, one or two insurance companies control the majority of the market. This isn’t good for consumers, businesses, or taxpayers. As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn’t forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option.”

The Senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.”

- more -

http://pubrecord.org/politics/5710/senators-letter-urging-reid/

Watch: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002490841

It basically states that the bill's passage depended on getting the votes of Democratic Senators who sided with the insurance companies. From the clip:

They killed the public option to appease Lieberman and others (not mentioned is that Blanche Lincoln voted against both versions of the public option in committee).

They lowered proposed taxes for medical device makers to appease Evan Bayh.

They expanded Medicaid to appease Ben Nelson.

What's fascinating is that those three Democratic Senators (and others) voted to pass the Senate bill after the public option was dropped.

Then once Democrats lost the 60th vote, they still had to rely on reconciliation to pass the Conference Report. Three Democrats bailed: Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and, surprise, Ben Nelson.

The health care law was the biggest positive for low income Americans since Medicaid was implemented
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021441139

[zipplewrath]

78. Fact

He went to congress TWICE and said it "must include". So I don't really trust any of his "musts" or promises. He'll cut whatever deal he decides he needs to cut to get what he wants to get and his proclamations to the contrary not withstanding. So he can swear up and down right now that he won't do various things with SS or Medicare or Bush tax cuts or whatever. It means absolutely nothing because in the end he'll do what he decides he wants to do and anyone who disagrees will be "sanctimonious" and "drug addled".

And Prosense will be around to defend whatever promises he breaks.

[WillyT]

73. And His "Place" In History...

Ironic, no ???

[WinkyDink]

32. It wouldn't be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor."

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Not that surprising RE: Simpson/Bowles.......

I've seen several op/eds touting it as the "compromise" position on SS and general deficit reduction. Fuck that shit. I'm a commie, I say take the money back from the fuckers who stole it from us for their tax breaks and funds these programs fully.

[DCBob]

29. It sounds the sequestration/fiscall cliff scenario is going to be undone no matter what...

and the whole issue of cutting the deficit kicked down the road at least another year.

"Once the framework is approved, lawmakers would vote on expedited instructions to relevant Congressional committees to draft the details over six months to a year. If those efforts failed..."

[Purrfessor]

31. Sounds like a Karl Rove plan to discourage Democratic voters...

All I see in the article is Senate leaders are working on a plan. GOP leaders only, possibly? Then they leak to the press a plan that does not include any new revenue, only cuts to social and other programs. Democrats, feeling sold out, decide not to vote. Karl Rove in action.

[DCBob]

34. I think this story is real.

Many on both sides of the aisle are fearing this "fiscal cliff" scenario come Jan 2013. They should be because its serious. It could easily send us back into a recession or worse. I also think the news yesterday about the WH "guidance" to defense contractors not to worry about the big budget cuts also adds credibilty to this story.

[Purrfessor]

38. I think so, too....

but it's still right up Rove's alley.

[villager]

51. Glad the defense contractors don't have to worry. As for people? Fuck 'em.

n/t

[DCBob]

61. There are quite a few "people" who would worry if they were sent layoff notices.

Defense contractors probably wouldnt actually "worry" much. They will make their obscene profits regardless.

[villager]

62. And far more people who'd have jobs if we didn't all squander it providing socialism for "defense"

...contractors.

[DCBob]

67. true.

but I think the concern is more about the short term and keeping the economy from tanking again.

[villager]

75. May be. But always glad when there's a chance for us to break bread on the "bigger picture" items!

[bluestate10]

74. I agree 100%.

What would hurt democrats more than implications that democrats are working on a deal to screw SS and Medicare recipients? This has Karl Roves dirty fingers all over it, cause a distraction that drains democrat's support, then attack with truck loads of money to win Senate races. The democratic senatorial campaign organization had better quash this fucking rumor right now, tonight!!!

[kentuck]

40. This is a real damper on the enthusiasm...

of many Democrats.

[MadHound]

50. Let me guess,

Social Security is going to see a benefit reduction through the back door with a chained CPI and a hike in the retirement age. Other social program are going to take a hit as well. Military spending will, at best, take a token hit, if any.

There's a reason why they put off dealing with the fiscal cliff until after elections, they don't want to suffer the consequences when the American people realize just how badly they're going to get screwed.

[MzNov]

54. We'll see him compromise just as much in his 2nd term

and Simpson-Bowles will be in place by the beginning of 2013.

"Senate leaders" ? Now there's a contradiction in terms.

[pa28]

57. The "fiscal cliff" sounds so scary doesn't it?

In fact, we'll all have to pay a little more in tax and the economy will slide into a short recession. As a result the budget will be nearly balanced by 2015 without making major changes to Medicare and Social Security. Nobody is going to fly into a ravine and die in a ball of flame.

To me that sounds better than a "grand bargain" (AKA selling out the principles at the core of our party). I hope President Obama wins re-election and just plays golf for the rest of his term.

He'll leave office with a balanced budget.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Isn't this what Republicans basically wanted?

They spent all of last year screaming about "deficit reduction". Now that they're getting it (partially because of their own obstinacy), they're upset? They agreed to the cuts (remember how Boehner said that he got 98% of what he wanted?) if the so-called Super Committee failed and they essentially ensured its failure by refusing to deal on revenue, so now here we are.
Part of me can't help wondering if this whole "fiscal cliff" business isn't just another way for the wealthy (and their Congressmen and Senators) to cook up a new looming crisis that's going to end in disaster for most of us. Did.they.not.see.this.coming when they made the deal that led to the BCA? I agree that we need to get our fiscal house in order but I don't trust the Republicans in the House or in the Senate to agree to anything reasonable and/or equitable.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. K&R

[woo me with science]

60. Kick

[kentuck]

64. The hard truth of the matter is that somebody has to bite the bullet...

We can have the wealthy, who have harvested the wealth of the last 3 decades contribute a little more, or we can have the poor and middle-class surrender some of their unearned assistance from the government? It should be an easy choice for the Democratic Party but it isn't. They are politically scared to death to raise taxes even a penny on anyone. They will probably hesitate about putting the paycheck tax back in effect? Which it should never have happened in the first place.

Sometimes our Party acts as if taxcuts are the solution to everything that ails this economy. It is sickening sometimes. On top of that, to even discuss cuts in Social Security and Medicare, while spending a trillion dollars a year on a defense budget and fighting wars that are not necessary to fight, should be an abomination against everything we believe as Democrats.

Maybe it is a losing argument for Democrats to argue differently?

[bluestate10]

76. My guess is the rumor is a desperate attempt by republicans to get democrats

dirty on SS and Medicare cuts. I am a loyal democrat, but if Harry Reid and his leadership team is falling for this, Harry Reid should become minority leader come January 1. I can't see democrats stepping into this shit-pile with stronger control of the Senate just ahead of them. Democratic candidates must distance themselves from this rumor immediately and point out that they will fight for SS, Medicare and tax fairness.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

66. How about

CUTTING THE FUCKING WAR MACHINE BUDGET!?????????
This outrage is directed at the article not the OP

[woo me with science]

68. kick

[WillyT]

72. K & R !!!

[woo me with science]

79. Kick