3 ms·

I don't understand your last paragraph. Of course we should make good on what we can but if Medicare and/or Social Security (mostly the former) need reform to r

I don't understand your last paragraph. Of course we should make good on what we can but if Medicare and/or Social Security (mostly the former) need reform to remain solvent, then why is it stupid to make the cuts that keep them solvent? A working less-than-ideal program is better than a not-working ideal program, no?

scarmig 15y ago
They need reform on the scale of decades, though, not years and definitely not months. Large super-majorities of the public oppose cuts to SS and Medicare. This, by the way, includes self-identified conservatives and Republicans. In large part this is the public being ignorant and wanting something for nothing--if the public had their way, we'd balance the budget and double Medicare and SS benefits by cutting foreign aid payments. That said, for something as important and widely supported as these two programs, we should be discussing solutions to their long-term funding issues as a standalone debate. Cutting them after a month of backroom negotiations while using the credit worthiness of the USA as a hostage strikes me as very inappropriate and not politically sustainable. Edited to add: the reason these cuts are stupid is because many of them would come into effect immediately, which would be disastrous for our already weak economy. The size of the cuts are appropriate if projected into the future and not the immediate present.
- freerobby 15y ago
  I'm not persuaded by public polling on these issues for the very reason that you point out: the hypocrisy in their demands. The public super majorities that you speak of are also much too casual observers of the political process to understand what any of this means in isolation. Hell, over 60% of the public doesn't even _want_ the US to raise the debt ceiling (I forget the exact number cited in the press conference, but it was in the 60s). This is despite the fact that the leadership of both parties has acknowledged it needs to happen to avoid disaster. I'm also not sure the cuts are as immediate as you say. I can't find any details on what is being negotiated (both leaderships and Obama have refused to give specifics), but on the revenues side for example, Obama said today that even the tax increases that are being talked about wouldn't come into effect until 2013. If they are talking about raising the retirement age or restructuring Medicare, I wouldn't rule out that it would take place over time or have a grandfathering period. I agree that the debt ceiling and deficit reduction discussions should be separate, but the ship sailed on that a while ago, so all of the above is written from the perspective of dealing with this stuff in the present context.

scarmig 15y ago

They need reform on the scale of decades, though, not years and definitely not months. Large super-majorities of the public oppose cuts to SS and Medicare. This, by the way, includes self-identified conservatives and Republicans. In large part this is the public being ignorant and wanting something for nothing--if the public had their way, we'd balance the budget and double Medicare and SS benefits by cutting foreign aid payments. That said, for something as important and widely supported as these two programs, we should be discussing solutions to their long-term funding issues as a standalone debate. Cutting them after a month of backroom negotiations while using the credit worthiness of the USA as a hostage strikes me as very inappropriate and not politically sustainable. Edited to add: the reason these cuts are stupid is because many of them would come into effect immediately, which would be disastrous for our already weak economy. The size of the cuts are appropriate if projected into the future and not the immediate present.

freerobby 15y ago
I'm not persuaded by public polling on these issues for the very reason that you point out: the hypocrisy in their demands. The public super majorities that you speak of are also much too casual observers of the political process to understand what any of this means in isolation. Hell, over 60% of the public doesn't even _want_ the US to raise the debt ceiling (I forget the exact number cited in the press conference, but it was in the 60s). This is despite the fact that the leadership of both parties has acknowledged it needs to happen to avoid disaster. I'm also not sure the cuts are as immediate as you say. I can't find any details on what is being negotiated (both leaderships and Obama have refused to give specifics), but on the revenues side for example, Obama said today that even the tax increases that are being talked about wouldn't come into effect until 2013. If they are talking about raising the retirement age or restructuring Medicare, I wouldn't rule out that it would take place over time or have a grandfathering period. I agree that the debt ceiling and deficit reduction discussions should be separate, but the ship sailed on that a while ago, so all of the above is written from the perspective of dealing with this stuff in the present context.