It's a game of chicken. Those in the Republican Congress - well, most of them - know that, especially with tax cuts they favor, entitlements will have to be "reformed," i.e. cutback in some way, in order to balance the budget and to eventually start paying the national debts. That's why they refuse to say what cuts need to be made. They want the national Democrats to take the heat.
On the other hand, most in the Democratic Congress and the Biden Administration know that, even with workable tax increases on those making more than $400,000 a year, entitlements will have to be somehow curtailed in order to balance the budget and start paying the debts. Even if they take the President Clinton approach by matching tax increases on the wealthy with targeted budget cuts - some or most in the automatic increases in spending - AND raise the income cap on social security and Medicare withholdings, they only will be pushing back the day of reckoning. With the current demagogic climate and the current Congress, they could not get such a plan passed into law even if they wanted.
Years ago, in the waning GW Bush years or the early Obama years, a Congressional committee formed to address this issue. It concluded the obvious: we can’t tax our way to fiscal responsibility, and we can’t cut our way out. Long gone is the golden opportunity President Clinton handed to President GW Bush. Our fiscal problems are now more dire.
I don’t have a specific answer. But we’re going to have to be pragmatic, not moralistic. We need to find a workable solution. It has to be an all-sided approach. Targeted budget cuts will have to be made. In addition, maybe taxing social security payments for those above a certain income in addition to targeted tax increases on the wealthy. Another possibility is to enact a 1% national sales tax, perhaps exempting food - as I recall, a proposal Bill O'Reilly once favored. This would bring in tax revenues from those working under-the-table. These are just working ideas. We need to find a plan that works and go with it.
Those screaming “class warfare” and the battle tested “we’re picking winners and losers” are sticks-in- the-mud. Bernie is on record as saying that he opposes tax increases on the wealthy even if those tax increases will help to balance the budget, i.e. he’d rather see our nation default than enact tax increases on the wealthy. We have to face the fact that we're predominantly a consumer economy. Raising taxes on the middle class takes away from the economy.
Getting moralistic in this manner is a luxury we cannot afford. But to counter the forementioned war cries, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from a healthy economy. So, they should pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, especially to avert a fiscal crisis. We can heap praise on the wealthy, if that helps.
At some point, either we’ll either wake up and smell the coffee or our nation’s economy will slide into the toilet.
We see the “kill Social Security and Medicare” tactic without context. The idea was to replace it with private at-risk investment schemes - essentially backed by market forces. Although a novel idea - it too is bad given that those who need it can’t assume that risk. The inevitable outcome will be higher taxes and reduced benefits using what we have now - Perhaps even a needs based criteria. “... If you have an alternative income- you’re out..”
Kicking the can down the road seems to have become a national pastime.
Actually doing something, but only when faced with an imminent disaster, is always someone else's problem.
It's a game of chicken. Those in the Republican Congress - well, most of them - know that, especially with tax cuts they favor, entitlements will have to be "reformed," i.e. cutback in some way, in order to balance the budget and to eventually start paying the national debts. That's why they refuse to say what cuts need to be made. They want the national Democrats to take the heat.
On the other hand, most in the Democratic Congress and the Biden Administration know that, even with workable tax increases on those making more than $400,000 a year, entitlements will have to be somehow curtailed in order to balance the budget and start paying the debts. Even if they take the President Clinton approach by matching tax increases on the wealthy with targeted budget cuts - some or most in the automatic increases in spending - AND raise the income cap on social security and Medicare withholdings, they only will be pushing back the day of reckoning. With the current demagogic climate and the current Congress, they could not get such a plan passed into law even if they wanted.
Years ago, in the waning GW Bush years or the early Obama years, a Congressional committee formed to address this issue. It concluded the obvious: we can’t tax our way to fiscal responsibility, and we can’t cut our way out. Long gone is the golden opportunity President Clinton handed to President GW Bush. Our fiscal problems are now more dire.
I don’t have a specific answer. But we’re going to have to be pragmatic, not moralistic. We need to find a workable solution. It has to be an all-sided approach. Targeted budget cuts will have to be made. In addition, maybe taxing social security payments for those above a certain income in addition to targeted tax increases on the wealthy. Another possibility is to enact a 1% national sales tax, perhaps exempting food - as I recall, a proposal Bill O'Reilly once favored. This would bring in tax revenues from those working under-the-table. These are just working ideas. We need to find a plan that works and go with it.
Those screaming “class warfare” and the battle tested “we’re picking winners and losers” are sticks-in- the-mud. Bernie is on record as saying that he opposes tax increases on the wealthy even if those tax increases will help to balance the budget, i.e. he’d rather see our nation default than enact tax increases on the wealthy. We have to face the fact that we're predominantly a consumer economy. Raising taxes on the middle class takes away from the economy.
Getting moralistic in this manner is a luxury we cannot afford. But to counter the forementioned war cries, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from a healthy economy. So, they should pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, especially to avert a fiscal crisis. We can heap praise on the wealthy, if that helps.
At some point, either we’ll either wake up and smell the coffee or our nation’s economy will slide into the toilet.
We see the “kill Social Security and Medicare” tactic without context. The idea was to replace it with private at-risk investment schemes - essentially backed by market forces. Although a novel idea - it too is bad given that those who need it can’t assume that risk. The inevitable outcome will be higher taxes and reduced benefits using what we have now - Perhaps even a needs based criteria. “... If you have an alternative income- you’re out..”