Poll:Deficit Commission Recommendations

[Rustic23]

I did not put this in the political forum, because too many people, me included keep that on the ignore list. However, lets try to keep the politics out of it, by not claiming what the R's or D's will or will not do. I also put it as a poll. I understand it will be a simple up or down vote, so I made the poll Yes or No, as to how you would vote.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Edit: Tried to put as a poll. Didn't work, so I ask the Mods if they could change it to a poll.

 

[travelover]

What exactly does a yes or no vote mean?

 

[Rustic23]

Yes you would vote for the recommendations. No you would not vote for them. As I understand it, and this may not be right, they plan on an up or down vote. They either accept all or none of the recommendations. Of course, that does not mean they can't reintroduce parts for consideration at some other time. I think they are trying to do it like Base Closings. All or none.

I voted yes. While there are some things I did not like, such as using chained CPI, and their Medicare recommendations would cost me, overall it would not force me back to w*rk, and I think it would be good for the country.

 

[traineeinvestor]

The reductions in spending have to come from somewhere and there is not a lot of politically safe and universally acceptable low hanging fruit left to pick, so I would vote yes.

 

[HFWR]

Yes. Haven't read the entire thing, but if both parties hate it, it's probably good...

 

[Moemg]

I read the whole thing and would vote maybe with a few modifications .

 

[Rustic23]

My guess is everyone would vote yes with a few modifications. However, if everyone got their modifications, the results would be worthless.

 

[FUEGO]

I would vote yes. Tax simplification is good. Getting rid of or simplifying a lot of credits/deductions in exchange for cutting tax rates almost in half. Nice.

Increasing SS retirement age - a reasonable fix. I'll likely get mine on schedule but just by a hair. I wouldn't mind getting it a couple years later if that meant it would be more likely to be solvent.

 

[samclem]

I voted yes. Like everyone, I don't like everything in it, but if these changes could be enacted I think we'd be much better off than we are at present.

One tangential observation: The incoming Speaker of the House, Congressman Boehner, wrote an article a month or so ago against "comprehensive" bills, and said the 112th Congress would seek to avoid them in favor of incremental legislation. I understand where this is coming from (a reaction to the impenetrable health care law language), but I think it's a bad idea. Some needed reforms can only be passed as a comprehensive package because all the give-and-take and compromises are best put into one piece of legislation. The recommendations of this commission would be an example: If we spread the pain around, everyone gives up something, and most people agree that the package addresses a problem that cannot be ignored, maybe we can take our medicine. People are wiling to sacrifice, but nobody wants to "go first" with promises that others will give their pound of flesh later. I don't think there's any hope of getting there bit-by-bit.

 

[Rustic23]

Sam,
I think you are right. My guess, the lobbyist have not had much of a shot at it and the chance of this passing or even getting to Congress is slim and none, and that is too bad.

 

[BLS53]

Personally, I could live with the majority of the proposals. There is a provision to freeze COLA's on current military retirees until age 62, but it would only affect me for 3 years. There's been no COLA for 2 years anyway, so not much adjustment as far as my budget goes. I could see someone retiring now, and facing 20 years of no COLA, being unhappy.

SS changes look fairly painless. Slight decrease in CPI formula, and the age of eligibility increase. The age increase will have little effect on anyone that's now over 30. Even for the 20 somethings and below, it's only 2 years. If the proposal will make SS solvent, I say go with it. More draconian plans are out there, and this one requires less sacrifice for everyone.

Income tax proposal has little effect on me.

 

[Yipee-Ki-O]

While it doesn't have a snowballs chance of becoming law, I could live with the changes. I especially like the proposal to eliminate the deduction on mortgage interest.

 

[Koolau]

Didn't read the whole thing, but here is the issue I have with any sweeping reform which affects virtually every Federal spending program and tax scheme: We all expect that we will either pay more taxes, get less benefits or both. There's no other practical way to lower the deficit. Having said that, the sheer number of programs involved could make some real losers (and perhaps even some winners). If someone could say: Everyone is gonna get burned by about 10% (i.e., at the end of next year, each person will have either payed more or gotten less to the total tune of 10%) I could live with that. But, depending on your tax situation and the way you live your life, some may have huge effects while others will not. Unfortunately, it will be impossible to know all the effects until after the changes take place. If the changes materially affect some folks life-style (beyond the margins) I don't see this working. If we all feel about the same amount of pain, it could work.

 

[keegs]

Much of this would be solved if we addressed our out or whack healthcare costs. Fix that before you ask any more from me.

 

[chinaco]

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[/-]!

 

[Gone4Good]

I voted yes.

This isn't the only way to balance the budget and different trade-offs could be made, but it gets us a long way to where we need to go. Unfortunately the squeakiest wheels in our electorate on each side have no appetite for compromise of any kind. I'd blame the politicians, but in a Democracy, we get the government we deserve. I've seen the enemy, and he is us.

 

[REWahoo]

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...

 

[travelover]

Much of this would be solved if we addressed our out or whack health care costs. Fix that before you ask any more from me.

I think you are correct that ultimately, health care costs need to be contained because many of the out of control obligations are ultimately health care costs.

As has been discussed to death,here, Federal government pays for medicare, medicaid, government / military employees and retirees health care, and even takes a tax hit as employee provided health care insurance premiums go up.

Not that health care is the whole problem, but it is certainly key.

 

[Alan]

I voted Yes. It looks to be across the board so I don't think it has a chance of passing as-is, particularly since it includes an elimination of ear marks. How often has this been discussed in the past and how close has it ever come to being eliminated?

 

[samclem]

If someone could say: Everyone is gonna get burned by about 10% (i.e., at the end of next year, each person will have either payed more or gotten less to the total tune of 10%) I could live with that. But, depending on your tax situation and the way you live your life, some may have huge effects while others will not.

But how would it be possible to implement a scheme based on individual "contribution" vs "contribution" resulting from various categories a person is in? It's not even possible to quantify how much a person gains from various government programs (except for the very few programs that make direct payments) and harder still to determine who pays what (much of the taxes we pay are embedded in the costs of the things we buy, etc). If my paycheck comes from a company that gets government contracts, and they cut my hours by 15% because the govt is spending less, is that my contribution?
I think we'll need to stick with a system based on cuts and tax increases based on programs, not individual contributions. Some folks will "contribute" more than others, but that's unavoidable.

 

[Gotadimple]

I voted yes. We have to do something before our creditors do it for us. The proposal is better than any ideas Congress currently has (which is nothing).

-- Rita

 

[FIREd]

It seems like a sensible proposal. I voted yes.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

These are sensible recommendations. They say in the law that a settlement no one is happy with is a good settlement. That's what we have here.

 

[samclem]

I think you are correct that ultimately, health care costs need to be contained because many of the out of control obligations are ultimately health care costs.
. . .
Not that health care is the whole problem, but it is certainly key.

Rep Paul Ryan (R), who is on the debt commission, reportedly will vote against the plan because he believes it will increase rather than decrease govt health care expenditures.
Article

“I think it goes backwards,” Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the next chairman of the House Budget Committee, said at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
“I think it makes health care dramatically worse. And look, I’m trying to be guarded in my comments because I really respect what [commission co-chairs] Erskine [Bowles] and Alan [Simpson] have done. They should be commended. But they didn’t deal with health care.”

. . . “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.”
​

Note: This post is not in the Politics Forum and I won't make a comment on the info above. It is included to give context to the decisions being made by the Debt Commission.

 

[Rustic23]

Sam,
I think you have pointed out why this will fail. 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. Everyone can find something they don't like, and can build a case why that one thing is so bad they just can't support it.

My major concern was stated 'it is a comprehensive' program. That's what makes it work, yet that's what will also bring many unintended consequences. I am not sure how our politicians would ever craft this into a law, without 20,000 pages of lobbyist input.