Mr Milbank notes that Economist Jeffrey Sachs was at the announcement and concludes with this paragraph:
So, if Obama is on the right, where does that leave the left? “This proposal is in the center,” Sachs maintained. “We have the far right, we have a president that is to the right of center, and we have a broad center that is represented by this proposal.”A little later the President spoke. The President quickly made the point that the budget is the execution of the agreed strategy to achieve the nation's vision of the future.
What we’ve been debating here in Washington over the last few weeks will affect the lives of the students here and families all across America in potentially profound ways. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page; it’s about more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future that we want. It’s about the kind of country that we believe in. And that’s what I want to spend some time talking about today.Here is the President's big picture:
So this is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax expenditures -- spending in the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, protecting our commitment to seniors, and protecting our investments in the future.From The New York Times (Blog) we have Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman talking about Medicare reform and "death panels" (his words). The President calls for enhancing the role of the Independent Payment Advisory Board in controlling Medicare costs.
As I understand it, it would force the board to come up with ways to put Medicare on what amounts to a budget — growing no faster than GDP + 0.5 — and would force Congress to specifically overrule those proposed savings. That’s what cost-control looks like! You have people who actually know about health care and health costs setting priorities for spending, within a budget; in effect, you have an institutional setup which forces Medicare to find ways to say no.That there would be medical providers outside "the system" would be a good thing, but would "single payer" allow it? The Progressive Budget calls for "Single payer".
And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for. And compare this with a voucher system, in which you have insurance company executives, rather than health-care professionals, deciding which care won’t be paid for.
All this in reaction to the US House of Representatives Budget Plan (Rep Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee).♠ Here is the US House web page with all the extra data, as the Majority sees it. Here is the Minority web page, with their own Budget Plan. And here is the President's 2012 Budget.
The aforementioned The New York Times gives us what it sees as a side-by-side comparison of the House (Ryan) Plan and the President's Plan.♥
Finally, a link to the heretofore ignored Bowles-Simpson panel, the 2010 Presidential National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Senator Everett Dirksen
US politician (1896 - 1969)
Regards — Cliff
♠ Here is the expanded Committee Print, with Minority views.
♥ Maybe I am growing cynical in my old age, but do you think that table came from the budget analysts at The New York Times or from some other source?
13 comments:
There is no specific reference to any requirement that members of the "independent" panel controlling Medicare health costs must be or will be health care professionals, know anything at all about health care, or health care costs, other than as a consumer. These members will be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate....so there goes "independence." Moreover, what Obama DOESN'T manage to reveal is that he is also pushing the Senate to change the rules on Senatorial confirmation of Presidential appointees.....in order to "streamline" the system. In other words, Obama gets to pick and appoint whoever he wants and that is the end of it. The really scary part of this is that the Senate is apparently all for the change. One more abdication of responsibility by the Legislative Branch that has become little more than an Executive Branch lapdog and opportunity for lifetime employment and benefits for a selected few.
Medicare IS out of control and it is out of control because of years of giveaways by politicians selling votes. There are hundreds of recipients that get there in hundreds of ways, and Medicaid only makes it more costly. When you watch the TV ad telling you that all you need to do is pick up the phone and call for your free scooter (Uncle Sugar will pay 100%)if you need a scooter to propel your overweight butt around the house or keep from straining your emphysemic lungs because you smoked your whole life and probably still do. And you can bet the farm that those scooters have price tags like the legendary $850 toilet seats the AF bought for the C-5 fleet. You don't even have to pay for a cane. In fact, if you have the right DRG, you get a cane, a walker, a gimp sticker for your car, and a lifetime supply of pity pills...all paid for 100% by the government. I almost had to get into a fist fight with the medical equipment guy who showed up in my room with all the "aids" I would need for recovery from my new hip. As it turned out, the need for the walker lasted 3 days, the crutches about 4 days, the crutch about 1 week, and I never ever needed a cane. I figure, remembering the GSA and military supply price lists I used in the Service, I probably saved myself as a taxpayer around $2000 by rejecting the free goodies all paid for by Medicare.
We don't need to kill people. We need to kill the fat unnecessary programs invented to ostensibly take care of people but which in fact only line a few pockets with gold.....like free condoms for 11 year old school boys in PA.
And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for.
I think this makes GOPer focus on abortion quite clear. And all this time, I thought it was about life.
But, of course, it is about the line item veto Congress wants to give to those that will decide what is paid for, with US $$, and what is not.
Duh!
PS. The VA is "single payer?"
The VA IS single payer, but the premiums vary and those who pay the highest premium don't use very much of the services provided.
Regards — Cliff
I suppose the VA is a single payer. I really don't know as I get no care from the VA. I actually paid for TRICARE which, although subsidized by the DoD is none-the-less a paid medical insurance policy. Of course, now I am on Medicare B by law after being told all of my AF career that if I'd make the AF a career, in exchange for low wages and many, many moves, I would receive free medical care for life...in a military medical facility of course. But, as we all know, the Federal government lied through its teeth up to and including claiming first that no explicit promises were ever made, and when that didn't work, claiming that those who made the promises had no authority to do so.
For the perfumed princes who inhabit the DoD and the marble halls of Congress, integrity and ethical behavior is really only a matter of personal convenience and political expediency.
Military people have long known that fact. The rest of the population thought that they were somehow above it.
Those chickens are arriving...and will roost soon.
BTW...that "free" medical care was not an entitlement...it was an EARNED benefit......but there are plenty of Americans today who will claim otherwise.
One other comment. Obama and his minions keep talking about cutting the deficit. It isn't the deficit that needs cutting. It is the DEBT!! We aren't paying interest on the deficit, but we're paying a ton of money on the DEBT! Getting so tired of hearing this misconception. Its like calling taxes "revenue." The Federal government doesn't "make" money, thus, they don't EARN revenue. They confiscate money. That is what they do and it seems only honest to say so up front. It is like putting lipstick and nice clothes on a pig and calling it a beautiful swine. Its a pig!!!
Going FURTHER into DEBT doesn't get you out of debt and it doesn't reduce the principal you are paying interest on. In fact, it increases the principal and the interest. Some economists, Krugman excepted if you want to call him an economist, say that by 2042 100% of tax receipts will go to paying ONLY the interest on our debt and may in fact not cover even that, which of course means interest penalties on the unpaid principal.
And YES, we will default on our debt, but it won't simply be a dunning letter to the WH from the Middle East mortgage holders, or China....because we simply won't exist any longer as a viable nation.
But....in 2042 when the Solicitor General stands up and declares US bankruptcy, some reporter or politico in the back of the room will intone ominously that it is ALL the fault of George W. Bush
Jack,
I know the Democrats can be more then abortion, but at the end of the day it's one of the few things they will ever defend. Most of my family is prochoice, but are disturbed that community health centers and programs like WIC, which even many fiscal conservatives agree with, were trimmed down. Each party has made deals with the devil, but the Democrats can't complain it's all the prolifers fault.
The Democrats value abortion providers to the point of shutting down government, over funds to feed the poor.
Sorry to be the messenger, but I don't think I'm far off from seeing it fairly.
Renee
Renee,
Nice twist, with the whole, " Democrats value abortion providers to the point of shutting down government.. ."
It's more about the Constitutional right to privacy, but please feel free to winnow it down, as you see fit.
"[T]he Constitutional right to privacy" is very much an important issue WRT abortion. On the other hand, for a whole bunch of folks, viability brings up a whole addition question of rights. If you follow Peter Singer those rights don't kick in until the child is much older, months past birth, better able to express a need for nourishment and to assist in that process. On the other hand, there are those who believe that such a life is well worth preserving and that while the health of the birth mother is very important, her convenience is not so important, after we reach that point of viability.
Cribbing from Wikipedia: The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
Regards — Cliff
I always find it odd when liberals and utopians proclaim that everyone should be treated with equal respect and dignity, especially if you are NOT WASP, but vehemently insist that a woman's right to privacy allows and encourages a billion dollar a year government recognized and FUNDED industry to kill unborn babies. Of course, there are the usual semantics that are employed to justify and rationalize it all. Oh, its not REALLY murder if the organism is, oh, say, younger than 19 months, or 3 weeks, or 6 years. It just depends on which "expert" sets the line in the sand, and how many liberal do gooders jump on board THAT bandwagon.
LIFE begins with a viable HEARTBEAT. Yeah..that is MY opinion and since I don't have a PhD in something biological, I am sure many will say I know nothing. Of course, those who do will quickly proclaim THEIR view as correct.
I just want one of these folks to explain to me, in scientific terms that are irrefutable, why, when the forceps are introduced into the skull of the fetus to crush it and the underlying developing brain, the mouth cries out...SCREAMS...silently. Oh...there is NO neurological causation since the brain has no FEELING...and yet....that silent scream at the moment of death.
Everyone is entitled to their view as am I and my view is that anyone who advocates abortion advocates murder, and at any age.
AND...it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution...or some right to privacy.
To be clear, I think there is a centroid of consensus in the United States for a right to abortion, but with reasonable limits. Earlier this week I tried this idea out on my Middle Brother, who sometimes comments here, but he has neglected to respond. My Youngest Brother is still knee deep in OCI issues and thus doesn't join these discussions.
.Regards — Cliff
Oh there is absolute consensus FOR abortion and the rules are fairly arbitrary, relatively speaking. And when a society is willing to kill some of its members, its only a consensus away from killing others. Fetuses are "inconvenient" products of "mistakes" or other "unplanned" events. But old people are inconvenient too, especially when they begin to become a "burden" on society. Same with people who have developmental or other functional deficits that render them marginally or completely unproductive. Why keep them around? And after all, isn't their disposal a matter of personal privacy?
When or if a society deems it appropriate to kill is simply a matter of defining that appropriateness, and that is all arbitrary.
Oh my! Yelling. I'm so convinced.
Try being pro-life, really, pro-life. As in "Thou shalt not kill."
Ever!
I'm done on this thread, btw, as I have a policy of not wasting my time with the static.
Easy for Jack to say. He is now a full fledged blogger, over at Left in Lowell.
Good on ya, Jack.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment