Poll:Deficit Commission Recommendations

[travelover]

“If you repeal the tax exclusion for individuals while maintaining the infrastructure of Obamacare — this actually enhances it in a few ways — then all you’re doing is accelerating the expansion of Obamacare,” he said. “You’re going to accelerate the dumping of people from employer-sponsored health insurance into these exchanges. The exchanges will grow and magnify far faster than [Congressional Budget Office] or anybody else anticipated.”

That's kind of the crux of any honest disagreement - no one knows for sure what will happen, but we all project through our own filter. It also highlights how interconnected the whole mess is and why piecemeal efforts haven't / won't solve the budget crisis.

 

[FinanceDude]

Looks like Congress is trying to lame duck some bad legislation through before there is a power swing...what bad can happen with that?

 

[samclem]

The politicians have reasons to vote against it, and the people have not spoken to vote for it, nor do I think they will have time.

One big problem is the way information is presented in elections (and the depth at which voters analyze things). If Congressman X votes for this package as written, his opponent's campaign ads practically write themselves:
(Start threatening music, go to unflattering B&W photos, begin authoritative baritone script- "Congressman X voted to SLASH Medicare and Medicaid . . .but held out for a cut in the tax rate for his friends in big corporations. He cut funding for national defense as we are engaged in two wars. He even wanted to increase the taxes paid by injured veterans . . .") The big picture hardly matters, the nuances of the entire package, etc. Few will listen to Congressman X's rationale, it will be drowned out in the deluge of negative ads.
One nice thing about a big, fairly high profile package like this one--voters can read it, see all the tradeoffs in context, and get comfortable with a "yes" vote by Congressman X ("Yep, I remember there was plenty in there I didn;t like, But Congressman X probbaly voted for it for the same reason I would have--it was better than what we were fixin to do, which was nuthin."). But folks have to take the time to read it.

 

[FinanceDude]

One big problem is the way information is presented in elections (and the depth at which voters analyze things). If Congressman X votes for this package as written, his opponent's campaign ads practically write themselves:
(Start threatening music, go to unflattering B&W photos, begin authoritative baritone script- "Congressman X voted to SLASH Medicare and Medicaid . . .but held out for a cut in the tax rate for his friends in big corporations. He cut funding for national defense as we are engaged in two wars. He even wanted to increase the taxes paid by injured veterans . . .") The big picture hardly matters, the nuances of the entire package, etc. Few will listen to Congressman X's rationale, it will be drowned out in the deluge of negative ads.
One nice thing about a big, fairly high profile package like this one--voters can read it, see all the tradeoffs in context, and get comfortable with a "yes" vote by Congressman X ("Yep, I remember there was plenty in there I didn;t like, But Congressman X probbaly voted for it for the same reason I would have--it was better than what we were fixin to do, which was nuthin."). But folks have to take the time to read it.

Seems this is the OPPOSITS of the Healthcare Bill, which was hurriedly passed BEFORE folks could read it, I guess we know why.........

 

[MichaelB]

Is there any surprise this LBYM, financially conservative group [-]of tightwads[/-] would vote their overwhelming support of this proposal?
You could probably get similar results with a "Do you like bacon?" poll...

Or the legalize marijuana poll?

Maybe the country would be better off if we passed both. Everyone would get upset - but then they'd just kick back, light one up - and everything would be all better.

Both measures should be put up for vote as a national referendum before 12/31/10.

 

[Alan]

Both measures should be put up for vote as a national referendum before 12/31/10.

I come from a different culture and believe that it is a mistake to have referenda on detailed fiscal policy. Obviously everyone on this forum is a macro-economics wiz kid, but the average voter doesn't have a clue. For details like this I've always believed that we vote for the big issues and the elected officials should [-]fight it out [/-]make the detailed decisions.

A referendum on the legalization of marijana I could accept as a reasonable thing to vote on.

 

[MichaelB]

I come from a different culture and believe that it is a mistake to have referenda on detailed fiscal policy. Obviously everyone on this forum is a macro-economics wiz kid, but the average voter doesn't have a clue. For details like this I've always believed that we vote for the big issues and the elected officials should [-]fight it out [/-]make the detailed decisions.

A referendum on the legalization of marijana I could accept as a reasonable thing to vote on.

You are right that detailed fiscal policy and public referenda do not mix. Fiscal and political dysfunction in California show just how bad it can end. I was thinking a single vote for the entire set of recommendations as a way to head off the entire gaggle of elected officials honking about and talking about what "the people" want.

 

[Alan]

You are right that detailed fiscal policy and public referenda do not mix. Fiscal and political dysfunction in California show just how bad it can end. I was thinking a single vote for the entire set of recommendations as a way to head off the entire gaggle of elected officials honking about and talking about what "the people" want.

Has the USA ever had a national referendum? I've lived through one or two in the UK I think, and the problem is that after many months of a media blitz, the average voter ends up completed confused - and that is just for simple stuff.

I did actually read most of the document that was linked to here, but how many folks would actually read it? They would have to rely on the advice given by whatever news feed they watched, or the commercials they see and hear on TV and Radio paid for by lobbying groups trying to save their patch from cuts.

 

[MichaelB]

Has the USA ever had a national referendum? I've lived through one or two in the UK I think, and the problem is that after many months of a media blitz, the average voter ends up completed confused - and that is just for simple stuff.

No, because there is no "national" election in the US, only a series of state and local elections.

I did actually read most of the document that was linked to here, but how many folks would actually read it? They would have to rely on the advice given by whatever news feed they watched, or the commercials they see and hear on TV and Radio paid for by lobbying groups trying to save their patch from cuts.

So we would have Fox, CNN, MSNBC and a bunch of radio l[-]unatics[/-] [-]troublemakers[/-] announcers [-]inciting[/-] explaining fiscal recommendations? That's funny. But not humorous.

 

[FIREd]

I did actually read most of the document that was linked to here, but how many folks would actually read it? They would have to rely on the advice given by whatever news feed they watched, or the commercials they see and hear on TV and Radio paid for by lobbying groups trying to save their patch from cuts.

Everyone can find something to hate in a document as complex as this one. Some will be ticked off by the changes in retirement benefits, some will be ticked off by the loss of tax breaks and, in the end, the big picture will get lost amidst the details. I personally doubt the Deficit Commission Recommendations would be backed by a popular vote. It's up to our politicians to make the hard decisions.

IMO, referenda work best with simple, one dimensional questions, i.e. should full retirement age be pushed back to 69? That's how the Swiss do it, one question at a time, and it seems to work well for them.

 

[Alan]

No, because there is no "national" election in the US, only a series of state and local elections.

Not sure what you mean. The presidential election is national is it not, even though he with the popular vote does not necessarily become President? When folks vote for their representatives to Congress they vote for their local state candidates which is just the same as in the UK except the electoral districts are much smaller. ~800 MP's representing ~60M people.

There are no national elections in the UK that I can think of. Only about 25,000 folks actually get to vote for the person who becomes Prime Minister. You can only vote for your local representative, who then becomes a member of parliament. The party with the most seats chooses the Prime Minister and it is not uncommon for the Prime Minister to change without any votes by the people. eg John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher when the party decided on a change of leadership, and the same goes with the UK's last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Like the USA the party that forms the government doesn't accurately reflect the percentage of votes passed because the party members are elected locally. ( they don't have proportional representation)


Anyway, you answered my question, no nationwide referenda ever in the USA.

 

[MichaelB]

Not sure what you mean. The presidential election is national is it not, even though he with the popular vote does not necessarily become President? When folks vote for their representatives to Congress they vote for their local state candidates which is just the same as in the UK except the electoral districts are much smaller. ~800 MP's representing ~60M people.

Alan, the US presidential election is the result of 50 state elections. The tally is a sum of states and a majority is needed. One vote in a less populous state (e.g. Rhode Island) carries much more electoral weight than one vote the more populous state (e.g.California).

Each state has its own unique electoral process to determine candidate eligibility. This is why candidates not affiliated with either of the two political parties are not able to compete effectively.

 

[Alan]

Alan, the US presidential election is the result of 50 state elections. The tally is a sum of states and a majority is needed. One vote in a less populous state (e.g. Rhode Island) carries much more electoral weight than one vote the more populous state (e.g.California).

Each state has its own unique electoral process to determine candidate eligibility. This is why candidates not affiliated with either of the two political parties are not able to compete effectively.

Yes, I understand that completely, but I don't understand why that makes a referendum so difficult. Even with a presidential election everyone votes on the same day with the same choices and the system knows nationally exactly how many votes were cast for which candidate. The fact that the popular vote is not the method for choosing the president is the same sort of twist that the UK has in that the members of parliament are not representative of the numbers of votes cast.

For the US to hold a referendum they would need to implement exactly the same procedure as for a Presidential election, except use the vote count instead of the state count. Does the Constitution not allow referenda?

PS - I'm only asking since you mentioned a referendum and in my 23 years here I realized I've never seen or heard of one outside of local/State propositions.

 

[keegs]

Yes, I understand that completely, but I don't understand why that makes a referendum so difficult. Even with a presidential election everyone votes on the same day with the same choices and the system knows nationally exactly how many votes were cast for which candidate. The fact that the popular vote is not the method for choosing the president is the same sort of twist that the UK has in that the members of parliament are not representative of the numbers of votes cast.

For the US to hold a referendum they would need to implement exactly the same procedure as for a Presidential election, except use the vote count instead of the state count. Does the Constitution not allow referenda?

PS - I'm only asking since you mentioned a referendum and in my 23 years here I realized I've never seen or heard of one outside of local/State propositions.

My understanding of it is that we have referenda to amend our national constituion.

 

[samclem]

My understanding of it is that we have referenda to amend our national constitution.

Nope, we have no national referenda on anything. To amend the Constitution:

To Propose Amendments

• Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

• Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

A national referendum would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution. They deliberately steered us well clear of direct democracy and the passions of the masses.

 

[keegs]

I didn't know that Sam..thanks.

 

[Alan]

I didn't know that Sam..thanks.

+1

 

[Rustic23]

From what I understand the reason the second option has never been used is that convention can do more than amend the constitution, I have heard they can re-write the whole thing, and congress will never allow that to happen. i.e. they will pass an amendment.

 

[samclem]

From what I understand the reason the second option has never been used is that convention can do more than amend the constitution, I have heard they can re-write the whole thing, and congress will never allow that to happen. i.e. they will pass an amendment.

Yes, I've heard that too. Rather than open up the whole Constitution to revision, Congress would more likely pass a proposed amendment just strong enough to take the wind out of the sails of any attempt to convene a convention.

OT: The latest proposed constitutional amendment was introduced just 2 days ago as House Joint Resolution 102.

Proposed text of the amendment:

‘Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several States, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.’.

Known as the "Repeal Amendment", its proponents see it as a way to return some power to the states, allowing them to refuse federal mandates etc if enough states agree.

It's (deliberately) hard to amend the Constitution, which is why it remains concise and relatively elegant (to this eye) in comparison to most state constitutions.

 

[BLS53]

On the surface the recommendations seem to be even handed. But it is difficult to know what it really means.

It will be debated and hopefully there will be a common sense non-partisan solution [-]wishful thinking[/-].

It is unfortunate... but (I believe) we will only get more of the same from both parties... "How can I game it to get my benefactor what they want" as opposed to "Let's create a balanced solution".

The problem will be that the different factions will want someone else to shoulder the burden. A few of the really bold opportunist will try to game it in some way to gain.

Ultimately, this is going to be a fight about who pays and how!

Even spending cuts equate to who pays. Large segments of Corporate America feed off of govt dollars and will fight hard to keep the money flowing.

It would not surprise me to see it end up being something like... dramatic cuts in SS and Medicare.... get rid of any notion of fixing health care (not broken anyway... status quo is just fine). Everything else should stay the same.... why ruin a good thing [-]for the politicians and their money paying benefactors[/-]!

I think if politicians had that much power to dramatically cut SS and Medicare, they would've done it long before now. Bush tried a power play with the private accounts in 2005, and that went nowhere. What you're missing, is that many of the benefactors you speak of, are SS/Medicare advocacy groups.

 

[M Paquette]

You just know what's going to happen, though. Somewhere out there is some schmuck whose entire retirement, or working capital for his business, is tied up in synthetic mortgage interest deduction futures backed by securitized tax return refund anticipation loan notes, and Passage of This Plan Dooms his retirement/small business hiring plans, so We Can't Possibly Allow This. Some 2012 campaign is probably already planning on introducing America to Sam the Schmuck.

That's OK, though. If we just crank up the interest rates high enough, we can get Kreblakistan to put it's entire treasury into 2 Year US Treasuries, and, why, we'll be right as rain!

Bah.

It's a perfectly good plan. We just have to wait for The Process to be completed. That's the process whereby lobbyists and their pet congresscritters pee in the legislation until they like the flavor.

 

[Gone4Good]

Wow, from this story, it looks like they're one vote shy.

Deficit Panel Proposals to Go Down to Defeat

Really, one lousy vote? That's pretty frustrating. I can't help but think this was reverse engineered so the maximum number of pols could say they voted in favor of a serious debt reduction package without actually getting a passing tally. Grrrrr.

Meanwhile, the earlier comments are spot on about people picking miscellaneous stuff as a reason to vote no. Here's Max Baucus on why he's a no vote . . .

The recommendations “paint a big red target on rural America,” Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Finance Committee, said in a statement yesterday. While reducing the deficit is “imperative,” he said, plans to increase the gas tax “would hurt folks in rural states like Montana where we often have to travel long distances.”

At least Ryan's criticism is substantive, regardless of what you think of the merits. But the gas tax? It works out to be a $300 annual hit to someone who drives 40,000 miles per year (that's three times the national average). So the message is, reducing the deficit is "imperative", just so long as it doesn't cost anyone more than a couple hundred bucks per year.

 

[samclem]

One thing to keep in mind as we hear about this or that package and the ratio of spending cuts to new taxes: Because of the spending orgy over the past 2-3 years (both parties did it), we are starting from a very skewed point. Most folks say the present proposal has $3 in cuts for each $1 in new taxes, but others note that the the ratio is reversed: we'd have $2 in new taxes to $1 in spending cuts if we use the situation of just a few years ago as a more normal base case. These folks want more spending cuts.

The arguments will continue. I hope we actually do something at some point.

 

[MichaelB]

Yes, I understand that completely, but I don't understand why that makes a referendum so difficult. Even with a presidential election everyone votes on the same day with the same choices and the system knows nationally exactly how many votes were cast for which candidate. The fact that the popular vote is not the method for choosing the president is the same sort of twist that the UK has in that the members of parliament are not representative of the numbers of votes cast.

For the US to hold a referendum they would need to implement exactly the same procedure as for a Presidential election, except use the vote count instead of the state count. Does the Constitution not allow referenda?

PS - I'm only asking since you mentioned a referendum and in my 23 years here I realized I've never seen or heard of one outside of local/State propositions.

Apologies if my prior post sounded condescending – didn’t mean to.

Samclem answered the process needed for federal constitutional amendments. Just a few more comments.

Even with a presidential election everyone votes on the same day with the same choices

Not really. The choices are not the same. Every state determines individually which presidential candidates are eligible, if ballot measures qualify, which citizens are eligible to vote, how voting should be conducted, how votes should be counted and what date the vote should be held.

Only half the states allow ballot measures or referendum.

A national referendum would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution

The founding fathers were immensely distrustful of any two word term that included the word “national”.

 

[SunsetSail]

As with most others I agree there generally are good recommendations in here. But...

Does anyone else have a major problem with calling tax deductions and exclusions 'spending' by the government? This label implies that all of your income belongs to the government and anything less than 100% taxation is 'spending.' Maybe it really is just poor semantics or I'm paranoid, but I certainly don't like reports that even remotely imply all my income is part of the collective until it is distributed to me through the grace of the omniscient federal government.