Friday, July 25, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 54 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

GOP leaders offer 'fiscal cliff' counterproposal

By Andrew Taylor

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 11:29 a.m. HST, Dec 03, 2012

WASHINGTON » House Republicans today proposed a new 10-year, $2.2 trillion blueprint to President Barack Obama that calls for increasing the eligibility age for Medicare and lowering cost-of-living hikes for Social Security benefits.

The proposal from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans comes in response to Obama's offer last week to hike taxes by $1.6 trillion over the coming decade but largely exempt Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts.

The GOP plan also proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the decade but it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts — including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama — in place for now.

Boehner said the GOP proposal is a "credible plan" for Obama and that he hopes the administration would "respond in a timely and responsible way." The offer comes after the administration urged Republicans to detail their proposal to cut popular benefits programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

"After the election I offered to speed this up by putting revenue on the table and unfortunately the White House responded with their la-la land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate and it was basically the president's budget from last February," Boehner told reporters.

The Boehner proposal revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically controversial ideas like raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.

Obama today did not respond to questions from reporters on his reaction to the Republican counteroffer or whether he had seen the proposal. He was asked about the offer during an event in the Oval Office with the Bulgarian prime minister.

The clock is ticking closer to the end-of-year deadline to avert the fiscal cliff, which is a combination of the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that are the result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.

Many economists say such a one-two punch could send the fragile economy back into recession.

GOP aides said the plan was based on a plan floated by Erskine Bowles in testimony to the special deficit "supercommittee" last year — in effect a milder version of the highly controversial 2010 Bowles proposal that caused both GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress to recoil.

By GOP math, the plan would produce $2.2 trillion in saving over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes; $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare; $300 billion from other proposals like forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions; and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.

Under the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.

Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit.

In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.

Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.

The GOP plan is certain to whip up opposition from Democrats opposed to any action now on Social Security, whose defenders say should not be part of any fiscal cliff deal. And Democrats also are deeply skeptical of raising the Medicare age.

Both ideas were part of negotiations between Boehner and Obama in the summer of last year.

In a letter to the president, Boehner and six other House Republicans insisted that the November election that returned Obama to the White House and the GOP to majority control in the House requires both parties to come together "on a fair middle ground."

"With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks," Republicans wrote.

One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree to is a framework that would make a "down payment" on the deficit and all or most of the extend expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.

Republicans dismissed the notion of raising tax rates and said flatly they would oppose them. Instead, new revenue would come from tax reform, closing loopholes and deductions while lowering rates, according to the Bowles plan.

Signing the letter was Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the unsuccessful GOP vice presidential candidate. Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Conference chair, also signed the letter.

In a scathing attack, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said, "if the president is serious about joining us in an effort to reduce the deficit and protect the economy, he'll get off the campaign trail, drop the left-wing talking points, and instruct his staff to negotiate a solution in good faith based on actual written proposals. In short, he'll begin doing what leaders do: Lead."

 Print   Email   Comment | View 54 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
CriticalReader wrote:
"if the president is serious about joining us in an effort to reduce the deficit and protect the economy, he'll get off the campaign trail, drop the left-wing talking points, and instruct his staff to negotiate a solution in good faith based on actual written proposals. In short, he'll begin doing what leaders do: Lead." The words and tone of a desperate Loser with little bargaining power. Intelligent America ain't buying it, Mitch. Now's the time to get pragmatic. Save your prsopects as a candidate in the next election, save the candidacy prospects of the GOPers you pruportedly "Lead", and refrain from ruining this country. The GOP needs pictures of Norquist in a dress with make up on, flirting with a farm animal. Maybe then they can gracefully turn their backs on him.
on December 3,2012 | 10:17AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Did you miss the part above about the GOP proposal including a revenue increase, the same amount, in fact that Obama campaigned on? Did you, as an "intelligent American" include "war savings" in your calculation. LOL. Why, using that principle we could just declare the savings from no longer fighting WWII and wipe out our entire $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities! Nothing in the president's proposal comes close to addressing our great fiscal problems. While the democrats are definitely doing a crafty job of politics, at the same time,they're doing a disgraceful job of governance.
on December 3,2012 | 11:22AM
CriticalReader wrote:
No, I missed the part about a tax rate increase for the top 2% in the GOP proposal, which Obama has made clear is non-negotiable. My guess is that, in the end, the lack of tax revenue through ending of the Bus tax cuts for the top 2% will equal mystical math in the GOP proposal. GOP Senators and House members ought to wise up and realize the fact that Boehner, Mitch, the radio lunatics, Norquist, and what's left of the Tea Party are all going to send them back to the private sector unless they wake up.
on December 3,2012 | 12:07PM
Pacej001 wrote:
The House revenue proposal IS a tax increase on the rich, high earners and it is almost EXACTLY the amount of revenue increase Obama campaigned on (the CBO estimate was $82billion/year, which yields $820 billion over 10 years). So, now, the question is will Obama stick to his tax rate demand when the Republicans are agreeing, in effect, to raise taxes on the "rich" by the same amount through reducing deductions. Hard to see rationale for that. After all, if rates go up, the "rich" can just find more tax sheltered deductions, but there's no place to hide from a cap on deductions. Do you think Obama will allow taxes to go up on everyone just because he wants to quibble about how we sock it to the rich? Don't think so.---------- This said, the truly disgraceful nature of Obama's negotiating position, spending increases, not decreases, and no attempt to control entitlements, our greatest problem, reflect the lack of leadership and character he's displayed from the start.
on December 3,2012 | 12:32PM
kainalu wrote:
Let me guess what their counterproposal is: to make President Obama fail by any means necessary. Just like the past 4-years. And how did that work out?
on December 3,2012 | 10:26AM
SteveToo wrote:
Although he did get re-elected, he did FAIL to do anything to help the country.
on December 3,2012 | 10:53AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Why guess. You can read it above. Revenues up (tax increase) spending cuts to include some control of entitlements.
on December 3,2012 | 11:23AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Well, our economy still sucks, but we avoided bankruptcy, so far. So how'd that "work out"? I'd say pretty good, considering what could have happened.
on December 3,2012 | 11:28AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Found your humanity and sense of reason, huh hawaiikone?
on December 3,2012 | 12:09PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Hey reader, you missed my point. Obama could have taken us over the edge already if it hadn't been for the opposition. You know, the same 47% of us that voted republican, the ones you enjoy ridiculing. So, like I said, I think we've done what we've had to do. Now it's up to Obama to get real, and quit grandstanding.
on December 3,2012 | 03:14PM
CriticalReader wrote:
"Found your humanity and sense of reason, huh hawaiikone?" Alas, guess not. But, I see hope for you to the extent you acknowledge that Obama DIDN'T take us over the edge in the way the GOP was claiming for the past year, AND, that he's "grandstanding" as opposed to "lying" (you have moved off that position, right?). And, I ain't ridiculing the GOP. I feel your pain over the loss. I lived through 8 years of Bush and his VP Satan. So I know what it's like to disagree with, not like, etc. the President. But, to me, it's time to actually get smart and pragmatic. Our nation needs to step forward as opposed to being mired in gridlock. And, the politics/power configurations simply do not justify letting the GOP have its way. My personal view on that is all the more staunch because of the sophistry the GOP employs, and my physical aversion to whining. crybabying. and the vacuous (thank goodness I got rid of her) girlfriend approach to getting one's way. And that too ain't ridiculing. That's how I see it in real life terms. If I wanted to ridicule, you couldn't handle it.
on December 3,2012 | 04:05PM
hawaiikone wrote:
We're over the edge? Says who? Not me, obviously. And his lies are documented. No change there either. We're waiting for Obama to get to the table, not Air Force one. What I read from Boehner sounds like a good starting point. Hopefully Obama has more respect for those on the other side of the fence than you do. By the way, enjoyed the "handle it" thing. After a tour in Nam I'm not too worried about a sarcastic typewriter.
on December 3,2012 | 04:57PM
CriticalReader wrote:
My suggestions are all in the vein of suggestions of how they can save their political lives. While the result may also be something I agree with, the bottom line is that we're watching GOP congressional leaders commit political suicide.
on December 3,2012 | 06:26PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Well, it may indeed wind up that way. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. Hopefully whatever the deal turns out to be, it gets us moving forward.
on December 3,2012 | 08:02PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Sorry, but we haven't avoided bankruptcy at all. We haven't even put it off. We're $60 trillion in the hole (unfunded liabilities), $86 trillion if you add all Federal retirement/healthcare obligations. We're in the deepest of deep kimche. And guess what? We've just reelected the guy who's constitutionally and intellectually unable/unwilling to do anything to stop/slow/prevent this slow motion fiscal train wreck. Sad and pathetic. There was a glimmer of a chance with Ryan's budget proposals and VP run, but that's gone. Instead we have the same cast of characters who were elected by a constituency more interested in birth control and Bain Capital than the fiscal survival of the nation. Sad to say, but it's as if the near majority of the public just can't and won't get the level of trouble we're in until it falls on us like a ton of bricks. With the administration and this group, it's party until the utilities are cut off.
on December 3,2012 | 12:40PM
hawaiikone wrote:
When the supply of borrowable money is cut off, due to no one believing we have even a chance of paying it back, then we'll be bankrupt.
on December 3,2012 | 03:16PM
CriticalReader wrote:
We lend money without ever expecting to get it back. Other countries lend money without ever expecting to get it back. It will continue.
on December 3,2012 | 04:07PM
Pacej001 wrote:
It's not our lending that's the problem. It's our BORROWING. And how many historical examples of national fiscal collapse, and the consequences, do we have to see? Weimar Republic. Argentina. Greece/Spain/Europe? It can happen here with us. Unrestrained, it would happen with Obama's policies.
on December 3,2012 | 05:00PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Dude, those are all BAD historical examples. All high debt to GDP ratios. Sophistry and fear mongering. Responsible approaches are necessary. But, your doomsday predictions are nothing more than weak attempts at justifying a dogma that just won't hunt (eh, did anyone ever come up with that before? That's pretty good to me. I'm cracking myself up).
on December 3,2012 | 06:23PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Drop the thesaurus and read the CBO alternate scenario.
on December 3,2012 | 06:38PM
CriticalReader wrote:
You've convinced me. Obama's tax proposals are wrongheaded. The tax on the top 2%, but in any case the top 1% should be much, much higher to make sure the unfunded liabilities and retirement/heallthcare obligations can be adequately met. How much more would that take? Probably wouldn;t actually hurt the top 2% THAT much. Plus, they're so smart and industrious, they'll just go out an make more to compensate. After all, necessity is the mother of innovation, right? They may be irritated, but especially here in Hawaii, we would understand that without much sympath. After all, gotta pay to live in paradise. Probably the same should be true for living in the US.
on December 3,2012 | 05:10PM
Pacej001 wrote:
The entire wealth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans is $1.7 trillion. Take it all and you balance Mr. Obama's budget for about 1.6 years. And what has our leader's response been to this massive and growing unfunded liability? four years without a national budget, no plan to control entitlements,and a politically motivated tax proposal that won't even scratch the paint on one year's deficit.
on December 3,2012 | 06:23PM
JPC wrote:
All of the funds we are relying on for the train build is still being gathered by Uncle Sam. I'm hoping he will still have any funds left over to complete our first twenty miles of our glorious train.
on December 3,2012 | 11:57AM
hapaguy wrote:
Obama campaigned on and was relelected on the promise of raising taxes on the top 2%. What part of that doesn't the right wing understand? The people have spoken! GOP: include a tax increase on the top 2% and then lets talk!
on December 3,2012 | 12:12PM
SteveToo wrote:
Do you really think that people that make say $275,000 a year are "rich"? Small mom and pop businesses could fall in this catagory and they DON'T need higher taxes. Me, I'm way below that but I don't begrudge them.
on December 3,2012 | 12:19PM
hapaguy wrote:
SteveToo this argument has been all hashed out already. The "tax increases on the top 2% will hurt mom and pop businesses" argument is a red herring pushed by the wealthy to scare ordinary citizens like you and me.. The Treasury Dept. analyzed the data and found that less than 2.5% of small business would have to pay more taxes....But to my point: Obama was re-elected on the promise that he would raise taxes on the top 2%. The people have spoken. Raise taxes on the top 2%, enact entitlement reform and let's get on with the business of getting our economy moving forward!
on December 3,2012 | 12:35PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, you're wrong. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" will cost us about 200,000 jobs. The accounting firm, Ernst and Young puts the overall losses in job growth at over 700,000. So, the economy will survive, but with even slower job growth than we have now. Great. Raising this tax now makes no more sense than it did two years ago when, guess what, Obama stated that doing so would hurt the economy.
on December 3,2012 | 01:16PM
hapaguy wrote:
The Ernst & Young report that you cite from this past summer that was commissioned by the right leaning Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB has been largely discredited by independent economists because it did NOT take into account the positive effect that the additional revenue will have on deficit reduction or the positive effect the additional revenue will have on investment in infrastructure and education. Taken that into account there will be a net gain in jobs independent economists agree. You need to get out of the right wing bubble......
on December 3,2012 | 03:01PM
Pacej001 wrote:
I'll take a look at the Ernst and Young critics, but still, the CBO report (haven't heard a take down of that) says 200,000 jobs lost and some loss of GDP growth. I don't know what independent economist think, but I'd find it hard to believe one who told me economic activity would be increased by a tax increase. However, more to the point, during Obama's campaign, his only economic idea was the tax increase on the rich. That would, according to CBO, bring in $80 billion/year. This is chicken feed compared to our annual deficits, debt, and huge unfunded liability. So, if this piddly tax increase is going to make virtually no difference in terms of our debt and if Obama isn't making any serious spending cut proposals (he isn't), why is he so insistent on a rate increase? Answer: This is about forcing the republicans to break their tax pledge and fracturing their base. The one thing it isn't about is a "balanced approach".
on December 3,2012 | 05:18PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Did you miss the mention of the GOP being willing to raise revenue, $800 billion, in the form of higher taxes (on the wealthy) in the form of reduced tax deductions? Their offer is on the table. A rate increase, Obama's solution, is aimed at exactly the same group and nearly an identical amount of increased revenue.
on December 3,2012 | 12:43PM
hapaguy wrote:
The $800 billion that you speak of is through the elimination of UNSPECIFIED tax deductions and loopholes which, wouldn't you agree, should be done in ANY event. That is NOT a rate increase!
on December 3,2012 | 12:51PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, no, it isn't a rate increase, but it is a tax increase. Let's say you have a mortgage and interest payments which you deduct from your taxable income. If that deduction was taken away, meaning you had to pay tax on more of your income, you'd have to pay more in total taxes. That is what I'd call a tax increase. Better still, if sticking it to the evil rich is the goal here, a cap of deductions is harder for them to avoid what with all their tax lawyers and high priced accountants with tax avoidance schemes and tax shelters. ----- Note: all this is pretty much a meaningless discussion since the tax increase Obama talked about during the campaign (and the current GOP proposal) would have brought the annual deficit down from $1.1 trillion to $1.02 trillion, in other words, we won't even scratch the paint on our debt.
on December 3,2012 | 01:09PM
hapaguy wrote:
Nobody said anything about "sticking it to the evil rich". No one can deny that through this economic downturn only one group has gotten richer: the top 2%. Can you explain to me why you and the GOP are so adament about retaining historically low tax rates for the top 2%? Especially in light of your own comments about us being in deep kim chee? Please don't say it's because we can't tax the job creators because the top 2% have enjoyed record low taxes on their bracket and where are all the jobs they were supposed to create during their unprecedented income propsperity?
on December 3,2012 | 01:57PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, we can stand to raise rates at some point. Given our unfunded liabilities, we have no choice. However, raising them now, with around 2% of GDP growth, is stupid, gains nothing, and could be the feather on the camel's back that will send us back into recession (the National Bureau of Economic Research indicators of a return to recession are already blinking). My other objection is that this tax increase will solve nothing, that Obama has no plan for dealing with runaway entitlement and discretionary spending. In fact he proposes to raise spending. So, If this tax increase isn't going to affect the big picture and has some negative economic penalty, why do it? We're back to politics and sticking it to the rich. Note: when Clinton got these rates passed we had near or over 4% GDP growth.
on December 3,2012 | 05:25PM
Pacej001 wrote:
And another thing: Harry Reid has the gaul to say that there's absolutely no problem with Social Security. His number 2, Durbin, says that SS hasn't contributed one dollar to the national debt. These two are the most brazen liars on the planet: $160billion was paid out of the general fund THIS YEAR to Social Security. Social Secuirity is in the red now, permanently, and will continue to suck up tax revenues as the pieces of paper the democrats call a "trust fund" have to be redeemed to pay current SS beneficiaries.
on December 3,2012 | 06:43PM
Pacej001 wrote:
In negotiations, you start with the general and work to the specific. The GOP has put a serious proposal on the table, Obama hasn't.
on December 3,2012 | 01:11PM
hapaguy wrote:
Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the top 2% and was re-elected on that promise. The people have spoken and so has Obama! He has stated many times in no uncertain terms that any proposal that does not raise taxes on the top 2% will be rejected. What part of that statement does the House Republicans and you not understand? It's not a serious proposal if your proposal starts from that premise that what your opponent has campaigned on, was re-elected on, and has publicly said many, many times is totally disregarded.
on December 3,2012 | 02:05PM
Pacej001 wrote:
The entire house was reelected and remains in Republican hands on the promise to control spending and limit tax increases. News for you: He is not King. The constitution gives congress the purse strings. Their counter is serious. Obama is offering nothing.
on December 3,2012 | 05:26PM
hapaguy wrote:
News for you: Republicans lost ground in the last election and will lose the House in the next election if they continue to buck the will of the American people and keep up their ridiculous fight to keep historically low taxes on the richest few Americans. With regards to the House Republicans "serious offer", let me put the shoe on the other foot: If Obama had put forth an offer that had tax increases on the rich and billions of dollars of cuts to the military with no entitlement reform you guys would be screaming to the high heavens. No Obama is not king but let me paraphrase George W Bush after he won his re-election: Obama earned political capital in his re-election and now he is spending it....
on December 3,2012 | 06:08PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, they still have a strong majority in the House. They MAY lose that majority, or they may not. They AREN"T bucking the will of the people whal, I'd wager, will be just as happy with more taxes on the rich thru limiting deductions as they would be with a rate increase. Common sense test: more tax on the rich equals more tax on the rich.-----Don't get the shoe on the other foot analogy. However, I do know what happened to Geo. Bush right after that statement about having political capital, he got his A $$ handed to him because of his suggestion that Social Security should have a private funding component. That's called overreach, going beyond what the politics of the day will handle, and that's what Obama is doing. He's trying to pretend our national debt hasn't more than doubled since Bush's first term began, that the public will just sleep through his fiscal malfeasance. Seems to me they won't, since the tea party revolt is simmering, and that if the republicans handle it right, they can build on their House majority in the next election.
on December 3,2012 | 06:35PM
Ripoff wrote:
Still cleaning up Bush's trash..
on December 3,2012 | 12:19PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Wow, it start's all over again...
on December 3,2012 | 03:22PM
hapaguy wrote:
*sigh* I agree. Let's not bring up Bush anymore please.......
on December 3,2012 | 03:41PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Learn from history. Especially bad, catastrophic history. The lessons of Bush must be constantly reinforced.
on December 3,2012 | 04:12PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Yeah, let's do learn from history: It's FDR and LBJ's fault for sticking us with entitlements that they knew weren't sustainable in the long term. (Bush as well for his unfunded Medicare drug benefit, although a similar plans by the dems would have been worse). Well, the long term is here right now and the free ride is almost over. Unless, of course we're willing to increase total tax revenue by, at the very least, 50% (more like 80%) and just see what happens to our economy.
on December 3,2012 | 06:09PM
hapaguy wrote:
FDR on Republicans: http://youtu.be/SUZGkNAUSvY
on December 3,2012 | 06:45PM
Pacej001 wrote:
I'd rather look at what FDR did as opposed to what he said: created SS in a way that is unsustainable, in the long run, and he knew it. Tried to pack the Supreme Court in order to ram his socialist, centralized economic control policies through. Proposed amendments to the constitution which would have destroyed the founders efforts and left us with a deformed socialist state.
on December 4,2012 | 06:05AM
tinapa wrote:
The Republicans' counter proposal lacks the characterestics of good faith compromise; it is more like an economic extortion to the detriment of the middle class. Apparently, they are still licking their wounds from their resounding defeat. but there is not much time left; the fuse of the fiscal cliff time bomb is getting shorter and it will soon explode right into their faces if they continue to reject reality. We just had an election in which their candidate ran as the candidate by, for and of the one percent; he argued for lowering tax rates for the rich and trickle down economics and were resoundingly rejected by the voters; whereas Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and investing in areas vital to the future and the voters concurred with him. Republicans, which part of "wake up" don't you understand.
on December 3,2012 | 02:09PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Compromise with what? Obama has put forward double the tax revenue increases he campaigned on, increased spending, fake cuts in spending from not fighting wars that weren't going to go on indefinitely, and zero adjustments to entitlements, the true driver of our terrible debt problem. Talk about rejecting reality! The republicans have, with this proposal, have agreed to raise taxes and control entitlements. For Mr. Obama to stick to his "rates must go up" proposal is fairly childish.
on December 3,2012 | 06:17PM
rfosfcpa wrote:
Congress should not balance the federal budget by reducing or delaying Social Secuirty benefits. All of the recipients of Social Security Have paid adequately into the system and these retirees had nothing to do with the high spending that seems to be a problem today. Most retirees, also, cannot adjust to any cuts or delsys in the payment of their hard earned benefits. Reductions or delays in the payment of Social Security benefits also reduces or delays money being pumped back into our economy, since the benefits are necessary for the support of most retirees. Why take it out reiirees? A better idea and one that would show our congressmen as not being self-serving is for the Congress to cut their own pay and also the pay of all nonelected officers of the federal government!
on December 3,2012 | 04:55PM
64hoo wrote:
this whole thing is simple obama wants to raise taxes and spend money where the house repubs want to just cut spending so it dos'nt get way out of control cutting spending will help bring the defecit down.
on December 3,2012 | 08:05PM
64hoo wrote:
plus this so called fiscal cliff is just a made up word no such thing as a fiscal cliff its just some stupid word that the politicians and news media made up.
on December 3,2012 | 08:09PM
st1d wrote:
raise the minimum wage to $80 an hour. that will lift working americans out of poverty. tax revenue stimulated by the increase in minimum wage can then be used to support those on welfare entitlements. a win - win for all.
on December 3,2012 | 09:38PM
Pacej001 wrote:
and pass a law allowing the average citizen to print his own money at home.
on December 4,2012 | 06:06AM
Breaking News