.
.
.
The message coming from Americans despite our federal government’s fiscal problems and all the noise coming from Washington about how to bring down spending is that the public do not want their entitlements touched. This is the finding of a poll reported in the Washington Post on April 20.
According to the article the poll finds that most Americans want to keep Medicare just the way it is, and do not support cuts in Medicaid or the defense budget either. The only idea out there that enjoys solid public support, the poll found, is President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. While that is a politically popular idea, everyone seems to acknowledge that at best it would only make a small dent in the trillions of dollars national deficit.
This same poll found that 58% disapprove of how Obama is handling the budget deficit. But, it is even worse for Republicans in Congress – 64% disapprove how they want to deal with it.
We are hearing a lot these days about the need for shared sacrifice in order to address the burgeoning federal deficit. This poll shows that the public is not even close to ready to consider that. Cut the other guy’s benefits and services – maybe – but mine? No way!
It appears the public, just like its elected representatives, does not really know what to do to effectively deal with the federal deficit. Making other people pay for it – such as those labeled rich – is o.k., but that won’t do the job.
Perhaps the answer the public would support is to create a federal program called Somewhere Else. Then apply all necessary budget cuts to that program alone. This would probably be a popular approach, but of course it would do no good. The “we want our cake and eat it too” philosophy that permeates our society remains strong.
We have a fiscal conundrum on our hands, and until some kind of consensus can be developed we as a people do not want to grasp the wide-ranging and painful solutions that appear necessary. Is it any wonder then why our politicians, when dealing with government budget matters, act like they do?
“Don’t Touch My Entitlements!!”……… Hmmm
Do you mean: Don’t Touch My Junk!!?
“The only idea out there that enjoys solid public support, the poll found, is President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. While that is a politically popular idea, everyone seems to acknowledge that at best it would only make a small dent in the trillions of dollars national deficit.”
It depends on what you mean by a “small dent.” As the very wealthy are now paying less in taxes than ever before, and control more of the country’s wealth than ever before, the revenue would be significant and they would not suffer in any tangible way. It’s part of the picture that has to be considered. Then a massive cut in Pentagon spending — after that, look at healthcare.
Don’ know where you are getting your facts rapscallion but the top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 85% COMBINED. Bottom 47% pay zero.
You should be more careful for a guy who likes to call Nancy Pelosi a “liar” with such thin justification. Bottom 47% pay no INCOME taxes. Bottom 47% pay Puh=LENTY of other taxes.
Vern, while I agree that nomenclature is important, if you use non income tax numbers, the burden slants much further toward high income earners paying even more. By the way, anyone earning $67,000 or less pulls FAR more out of the public till than they put into it.
Wow, I never agree with you Over. You have hit the heart of the problem. Everyone selfishly and myopically wants “their’s” but wants spending to go down. I really feel it would be useful to throw all of the money the government spends have require each citizen to go through the exercise of creating a balanced budget. I think there might me some appreciation for the scope of the problem.
One nit, can we stope calling them “entitlements” since no one is entitled to them?
I don’t like calling them entitlements either, for the opposite reason – the word makes us sound selfish and spoiled, as in the adjective “entitled.” These are programs our parents and grandparents fought for us to have, and as Americans we need to keep fighting for them so our kids and grandkids can have them. Social Security, Medicare – not too much to ask, and part of being America instead of … say, Somalia.
No one “fought hard” for those government benefits. There was no “entitlement” movement. This was all part of FDR’s failed socialist programs that avoided immediate colossal failure because WW Ii saved his butt.
That’s quite a bit of historical revisionism, GW. Check the history and you’ll see massive pushback against the new deal — and it leads all the way to the Koch Brothers today. Also, the terms “failed” and “socialist” are used in a vague and ambiguous manner — many would say that SS and Medicare are the prime reasons we have a civilized country, but as you are in some sort of bubble you don’t quite see that. The term “socialist” is also ambiguous — isn’t the VA “socialist”? And, if so, what’s wrong with a safety net for the poor (and rapidly growing numbers of them)?
Back to your agonizing over the suffering of the rich, no matter how much they are paying proportionately to the rest of the population, they are controlling greater and greater amounts of the nation’s wealth. The revenue has to come from somewhere, so it’s going to be from them. Too bad — there may be a fewer islands and jets bought, although I doubt it.
I would agree with you comrade Vern to the extend that our parents and grandparents did fought for Brown’s obscene contracts like one for the politically powerful prison guards union which will bankrupt us and will do exactly the opposite what they fought for.
That is offensive to me as is the APE Obama to you.
Geoff, your budget balancing exercise worries me because in my experience the so-called “average citizen” can’t even balance their own checkbook. And, of course, you overlook the army of non-citizens.
In the end it will not matter. Because if we do not reduce the gap between income and outgo no programs will survive.
Niether will most of the income for many of the wealthy, an inflationary depression the likes of which the world has not seen since 1920’s and 30’s Germany will likly be the result at some point in the future.
A balance approach of revenue increases and across the board cuts including entitlements is the only politically possible option.
Increasing taxes enought to cover the shortage would kill the economy, cutting only will create conditions that most of the people would not accept without massive protests.
It is in everyone’s interest to give up what the can so we can all get it back together.
And we must get off the imported oil to ever have an chance to put ourselves out of this.
Yes, we are going to need to raise taxes. I like the Bowles-Simpson formulation of about 75% cuts and 25% tax increases. This is something that rational minds not only interested in making an ideological point should embrace. One of the main contributors to the ballooning deficit is unemployment. Once we get unemployment down AND the deficit is eliminated, THEN we can talk about lowering taxes again.
It’s too bad there are not many rational minds in the current administration. If you think our President and the Demcrats would agree to something so “rational” as you say when they’re whining over the tiniest budget cuts, then you’re the crazy one.
They’re called “entitlements” because everyone gets the benefit whether they need it or not. We don’t need to cut everyone’s benefit, just cutoff those who don’t need it. Why should we pay taxes to cover Warren Buffett’s social security benefit?
Also, no one has ever paid enough taxes into the system to cover 99 weeks of unemployment but everyone unemployed thinks they’re entitled to a 99 week benefit.
If you look up from the trend lines you’ll see real people, very obese people, who will never live to get a Medicare of SS benefit so those programs will stay solvent for a long time. But this will cause most employers to dump their medical benefits as they’ve already done with their defined benefit retirement plans.
Why should we pay taxes to cover Warren Buffett’s social security benefit?
Well, Warren probably agrees with you there, he’s a real reasonable and generous billionaire.
But still, didn’t he pay INTO the social security fund?
And I suspect that the conservative politicians who want to cut or privatize social security are not just aiming to do that to the rich, but to all of us. Are you kidding? The rich are their constituency.
“didn’t he pay INTO the social security fund?”
So what!! I pay into the DOD funds and nobody asks me who to shoot.
The object of taxes is to raise money, not to treat everyone fairly, so of course you have to go after the rich – who else has money?
Well, I sure won’t argue with you about raising rates on the rich. It’s just that I think of social security as separate from the rest of the budget, it’s got its own dedicated income source. But if reducing SS benefits for billionaires is on the table, I guess I wouldn’t complain. Is it?