So we hit the debt limit...

[Admiral Yi]

Probably the tax cuts.

His plan includes specified cuts to marginal rates and elimination of deductions sufficient to offset those cuts.  It's a little hard to see how that adds up to 4 billion in lost revenue.

[Razgovory]

Probably the tax cuts.

His plan includes specified cuts to marginal rates and elimination of deductions sufficient to offset those cuts.  It's a little hard to see how that adds up to 4 billion in lost revenue.

Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.

http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan.  Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.

http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan.  Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.

Ah, got it.  Fact Check is pointing out that Ryan's plan does not immediately reduce the deficit to zero, so they're spinning that as his plan increases the deficit.  Which is pretty spintastic. 

I thought Fact Check had a pretty good reputation.  That's pretty weak stuff.

[grumbler]

Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.

http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan.  Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.

Ah, got it.  Fact Check is pointing out that Ryan's plan does not immediately reduce the deficit to zero, so they're spinning that as his plan increases the deficit.  Which is pretty spintastic. 

I thought Fact Check had a pretty good reputation.  That's pretty weak stuff.

Not sure what kool-aid you've been drinking.  Fact Check talks about the debt increasing (which is true) and the deficit decreasing slightly (which is true).  Your spintastic substitution of "deficit" for "debt" is pretty spintastic, but not very honest, particularly when you use the substitution to then attack FactCheck.org's reputation.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure what kool-aid you've been drinking.  Fact Check talks about the debt increasing (which is true) and the deficit decreasing slightly (which is true).  Your spintastic substitution of "deficit" for "debt" is pretty spintastic, but not very honest, particularly when you use the substitution to then attack FactCheck.org's reputation.

Damn good point.

[Razgovory]

I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet.  My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.

[Admiral Yi]

I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet.  My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.

That's correct.

[Razgovory]

Oh good.  That was the definition I went with on Pdox, when the issue came up.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't you love it when that happens?

[Razgovory]

Don't you love it when that happens?

It's weird, and kind of frightens me.  Fortunately it doesn't happen very often.

[Admiral Yi]

A reporter on NPR insinuated that the smaller 2.4 billion number is associated with a stop-gap deal on the debt limit.  I.e., the limit gets nudged up now and needs to be revisited soonish.

On a very related note saw a political ad on TV from the American Hospital Association or somesuch asking viewers to prevent Congress from passing $100 billion in cuts to hospitals under Medicare and Medicaid.

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 6

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.


As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

"Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don't believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance," said a Democratic official familiar with the administration's thinking. "These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by."

Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation's population ages.

That would represent a major legislative achievement, but it would also put Obama and GOP leaders at odds with major factions of their own parties. While Democrats would be asked to cut social-safety-net programs, Republicans would be asked to raise taxes, perhaps by letting tax breaks for the nation's wealthiest households expire on schedule at the end of next year.

The administration argues that lawmakers would also get an important victory to sell to voters in 2012. "The fiscal good has to outweigh the pain," said a Democratic official familiar with the discussions.

It is not clear whether that argument can prevail on Capitol Hill. Thursday's meeting at the White House — an attempt by Obama to break the impasse that halted debt-reduction talks two weeks ago — will provide a critical opportunity for leaders in both parties to say how far they're willing to go to restrain government borrowing as the clock ticks toward an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit.

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president's proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama's willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.

Obama has already spoken to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) about the possibility of building support for a more ambitious debt-reduction plan, according to people with knowledge of those talks, who, like others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to shed light on private negotiations. The two discussed various options for overhauling the tax code and cutting entitlement spending, but they reached no agreement.

Chicken-playing beginning to break down.

[MadImmortalMan]

Chicken-playing beginning to break down.

More

WASHINGTON — Heading into a crucial negotiating session on a budget deal on Thursday, President Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit as Speaker John A. Boehner has signaled new willingness to bargain on revenues.

Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.

The president's renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.

The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.

Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private party luncheon on Wednesday.

House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

"Depending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview. "I think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it."

Officials said Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of $1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for corporate jets.

But those changes would fall far short of the revenue goal, and the source of the rest of the money would, under what they described as Mr. Boehner's proposal, be decided by Congress through a review of tax law changes. One official said some revenue could be generated by allowing Bush-era tax cuts for affluent Americans to expire at the end of 2012, which would produce hundreds of billions of dollars, though those savings would be offset by the costs of retaining lower rates for those below the income threshold.

Aides to Mr. Boehner said that no tax increases were on the table and that he had not agreed to the expiration of any tax cuts.

One source familiar with the talks said the speaker had put forward options on how to proceed, including making a commitment to a tax code overhaul that would lower rates while closing loopholes, ending deductions and instituting other changes to generate substantial new revenue. Mr. Boehner has in the past pushed tax simplification as a way to help the economy.

Democrats were distrustful of Mr. Boehner's idea, saying such an approach raises the prospect that future tax and revenue changes could be blocked by Republicans after Democrats had already agreed to the detailed cuts. They sought assurances that all the elements of any budget deal would be enacted simultaneously.

"We want as robust a deficit reduction deal as possible," said David Krone, chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who would serve as point man for moving any agreement through the Senate. "But it has to be balanced between spending and revenues, in terms of timing, specificity and dollars."

Democrats are not just worried about the substantial policy issues at stake; they are also concerned about the political implications of any deal as they try to hold control of the Senate next year and win back the House.

To the degree that any deal wins bipartisan support on slowing the growth of Medicare, for example, it would deprive Democrats of what has been one of their most potent arguments heading into 2012: their assertion that Republicans would gut the traditional Medicare system and leave older Americans vulnerable to rapidly rising health care costs.

Faced with the prospect that the federal government would default on its credit obligations, Democrats might indeed be cajoled into backing an agreement they did not strongly support. But at the moment, there is substantial private and public grumbling about what looms ahead.

Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, urged the president not to yield to Republican demands to reduce the deficit by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending. He said that "the president has got to demand that at least 50 percent of deficit reduction come from revenues," including higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations.

At the same time, Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and majority leader, said Wednesday that he would not accept any net increase in federal revenues, and that any money raised from eliminating tax breaks or loopholes must be offset by cuts elsewhere in the tax code.

"If the president wants to talk loopholes, we'll be glad to talk loopholes," Mr. Cantor said. "We have said all along that preferences in the code are not something that helps economic growth over all. But, listen, we are not for any proposal that increases taxes. Any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."

White House officials acknowledge the unrest among Democrats. But they argue that Democrats will be in stronger shape politically heading into November 2012 if they help enact a credible deficit reduction deal, allowing them to mount the argument that they protected Medicare from a much more drastic overhaul by Republicans.

In contrast, they say, failure to produce an agreement could bring unpredictable and unfavorable economic and political consequences.

The officials are convinced that a larger package — one that would demand deeper cuts and more taxes but put the nation on a sounder fiscal footing for a decade or longer — is more politically palatable than the $2 trillion-plus package that was being cobbled together in talks presided over by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

And not all Democrats see the push for a major package as a negative.

"We don't need a minideal," Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "We need something that speaks authoritatively to the world that the United States understands its deficit challenge and is prepared to make the hard choices to address it."

[crazy canuck]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

[MadImmortalMan]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

That's what we need the most. I don't know though. The tax simplification ideas in the NYT article do sound promising to me, but the way the budgets are built in the first place is one of the biggest problems IMO. I don't see it being addressed directly.



Edit: Oh, and Sanders is crazy to expect 50% of the deficit reduction to come from increasing revenues. Might as well write him off right now.