From the Washington Blade: Debt Deal Could Jeopardize HIV/AIDS Funding. Yes, when it comes to the ballooning U.S. budget deficit, if you take entitlements off the table, as the Democrats demand, and rule out tax increases, per the GOP, then defense and so-called discretionary spending are going to take the hit.
In my view, big tax hikes would choke off what little recovery there is, draining money away from private sector investments where permanent, meaningful (not “make work”) jobs are created. That leaves entitlements, where the lion’s share of the unfunded deficit lives, and which keeps growing at an unsustainable rate. Medicare and Social Security will eventually have to be restructured and, to some extent, scaled back. But if Democrats run on “Mediscare” and dig in their heels, as it looks like they’ll do, the day of reckoning will only be delayed, and made worse. And discretionary funding, including HIV/AIDs and everything else, will by necessity suffer.
16 Comments for “Something’s Gotta Give”
posted by Mark on
“If Democrats(!!!) run on ‘Mediscare?'” I seem to recall the midterm 2010 elections when the Republicans, to devastating effect, wooed the 65-plus crowd by repeatedly attacking Obama for cutting Medicare.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks for the republican dogmatism. It had been three whole seconds since one of the cable networks screeched it into my ears.
If the republicans are so fiscally concerned, I wonder why they trashed fiscally responsible Clintonomics, the most successful system of our generation.
It meant minor tax increases on the rich (to pay for government but also leave enough capital for private investment), trimming government waste, strategic tax breaks to encourage consumer spending in important sectors, and strategic investment in key industries and infrastructure. It worked like a charm, and we know why it worked.
Yet you guys keep repeating the same tired cliches. And I have to think that you’re not interested in solving the problem. You’re ‘big tax hikes’, that no one has asked for, shows that you’re only interested in zero tax hikes, and hoarding every damn dime you can.
Please Mary. Learn the basics of adult citizeship. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and those who obsess over them look ignorant and vulgar.
posted by Jimmy on
The hyperbolic use of the word “hike” is all over the place, on MSNBC even. You’re right, no one has asked for anything that can be termed as a hike, but talking heads can only use the most overwrought verbiage. A couple of percentage points can not be called a hike.
posted by Jorge on
Please Mary. Learn the basics of adult citizeship. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and those who obsess over them look ignorant and vulgar.
Did you just call Stephen Miller an Aunt Mary?
Really??? And at the same time you gave a snarky comment about adult citizenship, civilized society, and people looking ignorant and vulgar?
And just who do you think you are to arbitrate what is acceptable and not acceptable for gay people to think and say? Does that make me an Aunt Mary, too? It certainly does! But you know what, it’s none of your business what all-or-nothing tests I flunk, it’s not your business to know why, and it’s not really my concern what you happen to think about it. Not if you’re gonna automatically going to label someone who thinks maybe certain economic policies are the better way to go as some kind of community traitor to be marked and derided. That is unacceptable.
You owe him and the rest of us an apology. We are consumers of a product that is about finding a path toward self-advancement that does not depend on rigid command ideology or fall victim to the axes of shrill prejudice and ignorance. That path is not easily found and of late most of this country has fallen victim to an increasing schism between right and left. Many people here perceive the schism on this site turning to imbalance. That is not the responsibility of one man alone, and you are not exercising your responsibility to correct that imbalance toward a better direction.
posted by Wilberforce on
You’re right. I regret my snarky tone, although the word Mary is part of an ancient gender bending tradition, a way of asking people not to take gender too seriously. I would never guess that someone on a gay blog would object to it. It’s not meant unkindly.
But I am very off my game with this site and probably should not come here. It bills itself as trying to forge a gay mainstream, which in the real world means moderate gay liberalism. We are the gay mainstream.
Yet the site is filled with far right cliches. Mr. Miller can be as polite as Mary Poppins (oops, did it again), but he still deals mostly in crude distortions of the far right. And I sometimes get put off by that.
The snarky tone was wrong. But the economic analysis was not. Nor was the reference to high conservative values of social responsibility.
I think your focus on the tone may be a way to avoid the serious content.
posted by Jorge on
Well, if you’re willing to go that far, I apprciate it. I will answer your question.
I just want you to “tone” it down. I called it as I saw it, and I am seriously not in a position where I can let stand an attack against someone who is less nonconformist than I am.
Focusing on highly suspect red herrings is something that I do and encourage in order to challenge someone’s credibility. The effect is to prune highly suspect red herrings and make me feel that my own citizenship is validated as equal to anyone else’s. Buuuut, in this case, I really thought it necessary not to let it stand.
posted by Houndentenor on
If we are truly serious about reducing the deficit (and I’m not sure that many truly are, in spite of what they say), we will have to increase revenue AND cut spending. I am not hearing any mainstream person calling for tax HIKES. But we currently have historically low federal revenue (15%) and historically high (24%) spending. Some of that would correct itself if the economic growth were better (more income = more income taxes paid; lower unemployment = lower expenditures). The idea that cutting taxes would pay for themselves in taxes on profits has never worked out. EVERYONE is going to have to pay a little more and EVERYONE is going to have to see cuts in programs they like. The big lie is that we can do this only by raising taxes or cutting spending. It will take both. The corollary lie is that we can only cut spending that benefits other people but not me. I don’t see that spirit of self-sacrifice for the common good.
posted by JohnAGJ on
Trouble is that many folks, myself included, have completely lost faith in Congress to do both at once. Given their poor track record I want to see concrete and substantial cuts in place before we even begin talking about tax increases. They have lied and spinned for temporary selfish political gain too much to trust otherwise. We all know that the Bush tax cuts are going to expire in about a year and probably will not be renewed so anything beyond that must be justified AFTER cuts are done.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, it’s worked out rather nicely when one looks at revenues.
But really, Obama Party members — and thus the gay and lesbian community — are only interested in punishing “the rich”, which to them is anyone who makes more money than they do, so they adamantly refuse to stop or in any way reduce spending and use government to punish those who are successful and productive.
posted by Doug on
Stephen, when are you going to drop the mime that increasing taxes is going to hurt the economy. Clinton raised taxes and we had the best economy, 20 million new jobs, in decades. Bush cut taxes and there was no big boost to the economy and only a couple million jobs created. And look where we are today despite the Bush tax cuts.
What are you conservatives smoking anyway.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but you see, Doug, that’s a lie; you don’t want to restore the Clinton tax rates.
Want to see why? Here’s the historical tax tables. Let’s look at an example.
FY 2000 (Clinton’s tax structure) – single
$0 – 26,250 in income = 15%
$26,250 – $63,550 = 28%
$63,550 – $132,600 = 31%
$132,600 – $288,350 = 36%
$288,350 and above = 39.6%
Now, for 2003, which is the first full year of the tax cuts:
$0 – $7,000 = 10%
$7,000 – $28,400 = 15%
$28,400 – $68,800 = 25%
$68,800 – $143,500 = 28%
$143,500 – $311,950 = 33%
$311,950 and above = 35%
You see, what this is all about, Doug, is the fact that Obama supporters like yourself want to use the government to punish people who have more money than you do. But people realize that gay and lesbian people like yourself who whine about paying their “fair share” also support tax cheats and welfare frauds like Charles Rangel and John Kerry who dodge and do everything possible to avoid paying their “fair share”.
posted by Doug on
First, NDF you have no idea who I support and secondly you have no idea what my income is and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.
Secondly, there is nothing illegal about using the existing tax laws to minimize your tax bill. That’s why we need reform and higher tax rates.
posted by Jimmy on
He puts the ‘ass’ in assume.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sure I do, Doug; it’s right here.
Next up:
Secondly, there is nothing illegal about using the existing tax laws to minimize your tax bill.
Ah,. we see you’re a hypocrite. According to you and your fellow gays and lesbians in the Obama Party, everyone should seek to maximize their taxes and doing anything else is tax-dodging.
posted by dalea on
With Medicare, the solution is not to raise taxes but to lower the eligibility age which would bring in younger and healthier people whose payments would not require as much care. This is so simple that only the ‘left’ proposes it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Except for the fact that younger and healthier people are already paying Medicare “premiums” in the form of the Medicare tax on income.
That alone shows you how pathetic Medicare is; even though it collects from virtually every working person in the United States and provides coverage to only a tiny fraction of the population, it’s STILL completely insolvent.
If the secret to lowering costs for medical care is to put seniors into risk pools with younger and healthier people, that’s what privatizing Medicare would do.