Interesting summation.
US debt deal: What do the numbers mean?Inevitably, the answer is complex and open to multiple interpretations. That, of course, is partly deliberate.
..."The cuts come in two parts. First, as soon as the package becomes law procedures step in to cut government spending by around $900bn dollars.
"Putting off the misery"....further cuts to come in November when it is all put back on the table. They must be approved by congress or there will be consequences.
If that does not happen, an automatic mechanism applies that reduces spending by $1.2tn. Powerful incentives are built in to persuade the legislature to cut a deal.
Under the automatic mechanism, half the mandated cuts would hit the defence budget - something few Republicans want to happen. The other half would include reductions in benefit entitlements for the poor, sick and elderly - payments dear to Democratic hearts.
Wonder who put that last half on the table? Hmmmm....
The article goes on to say that cuts in "aid for the less fortunate are expected to take more subtle forms that may be easier to defend politically."
That is so true. I love the way they are saying the Medicare cuts will only be to providers. Do they think we are stupid? The providers will pass those cuts along by taking no new patients, or by catering to those who have more resources.
And we should not kid ourselves. The cuts to Social Security have already started under another name.
Payroll tax cuts "rob the poor to feed the rich"...will harm those already on Social Security.Make no mistake: This is a bipartisan effort. It started back in December, when President Obama capitulated to the GOP on a budget deal by cutting the payroll tax, which funds Social Security. Advocates for the program pointed out then the shortcomings of this approach: It was targeted inefficiently and unfairly, skewing to the upper middle class and hurting lower-income families in comparison with the Making Work Pay tax credit it replaced.
Even more troubling, it blew a hole in the financing mechanism for Social Security by reducing payroll tax revenue by roughly $110 billion for the year. It was plain then, as it is now, that once you've cut a tax, it's ever harder to restore it.
More:
"This 2 percent payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it," said the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which is led by former Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, D-Conn. "Worker contributions have successfully funded the program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
