WASHINGTON — Massachusetts Democrats in Congress are digging in against cuts to benefit programs as part of any deal to avert an impending fiscal crisis, reflecting the difficult calculus facing President Obama as he negotiates with Republicans.
Members of the Bay State’s House delegation — all Democrats — said they are wrestling with conflicting impulses. They want to avoid the blow to the economy that would result from hitting the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the spending cuts and tax hikes that automatically kick in at year’s end if lawmakers cannot come up with a better plan.
Comments
With both sides digging in then its over before it starts...
I sure wish I could disagree with you on that one, but that would be a denial of the examples of history.
The reform of entitlements needs to be done, but a more pressing concern is that spending cuts from the discretionary budget be decided upon. Doing so would lead to the symbolic victory of raising the top marginal rate to 39.6%. The tax hike will do little, only slow the economy, but if it gets the Dems to agree to spending cuts, it will be a good price to pay.
So, it's all back to being the Democrat's' fault. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will go down in history as obstructionists. What a waste of time. I work with people who retired and then were forced bak into the workforce because of an economy Republicans clearly created. How many "cliffs" did we go over before Obama even ran for president?
How many cliffs?...hmm, none that I know of.
Boehner said that he was disappointed with the Democrats but I think that the American people will have to show how disappointed we are with Congress as a whole. Over the years, they have insulated themselves from the problems that affect the average taxpayer. Entitlements and spending are out of control and have been for years. Everyone knows that but is unwilling to give in for the common good. The "common good", by the way, doesn't affect congress as they have positioned themselves above the fray. I can see it all now, at the eleventh hour they will strike some sort of half-hearted deal, have a big press conference, and pat each other on the back for their part in standing up for the American people. During WW II, when submarines would return to port after having used all of their torpedoes, they would tie a broom to their mast, indicating a clean sweep. That is what we need in congress, a clean sweep and a new beginning with men and women who are in Washington to serve the people, not just their own best interests.
entitlements are not out of control, they were deliberately sabotaged by Reaganomics whose plan all along was to create deficits so large that we would have to dismantle the New Deal which they have always opposed. It took us decades under Reaganomics to get to this point and it's going to take a long time to get out of this mess, but we need large tax increases on the wealthy and even bigger cuts in our military. Plus more investment in our infrastructure to improve our competitiveness, and grow jobs, the economy and tax receipts as as result.
The first step in fixing social security: every Congressman and Senator should have social security as their one and only retirement system, and Medicare as their one and only health plan after they reach age 65.
I'm not holding my breath for that one to pass.
But Congress should act as if that were the case. Right now, some of them don't seem to know how normal Americans live.
How sad that these "representatives" don't understand the meaning of the word "compromise" or the message that has been repeatedly and clearly sent to them ALL. They are still playing the same old tired game.....pathetic.
why does compromise mean screw the people of this nation by cutting back on the few social benefits we have but not tackle the huge waste of the military and subsidies to mega-rich corporations or meaningful tax reform that makes the ultrawealthy 1% actually start paying their way as they used to several decades ago? It's ridiculous that we are starting off from a place where the repugs wants to give even more tax cuts to the 1% and the Dems simply want to restore it to the way it was under Clinton. How about we go back to the way it was before all these deficit were created starting under Reagan. It's amazing Reagan ran under the banner of controlling deficits and blasting Carter for supposedly running them when his administration ran up exponentially higher ones than Carter ever did.
rwc2: Do you have any idea what percentage of total income taxes is paid by the top 1% of earners. I didn't think so.
Why is defense spending on the table. Half of the squester was cuts to defense spending, but now all they talk about is Medicare. Maybe we should worry more about the financial and health requirements of Americans and less about trying to control the whole world. How about for every dollar we talk out of Medicare, we take two dollars out of defense.
Interesting, I have also heard no discussion about possibly raising the payroll tax for Medicare. What if it raises fro 1.5% to 2%? Does that put Medicare in a much more solid position. Half a percent is not enough to cause major problems for most people, but if it makes the system viable, then it is worth considering. Maybe cut a little and raise a little more revenue for the problem. That is the kind of deal that might have been possible in years gone by, but unfortunately, such compromise is a thing of the past.
exactly, but the establishment in this nation (Dems and Repugs) don't even consider the obvious. Heck, they're all screaming the sequestration accord will cut $100 billion out of the military over a decade as if that is some great calamity. We need to cut way more than that out of the imperial military budget on an annual basis. We now spend $750 billion a year, as much as the rest of the world combined and exponentially more than the next largest military, China, which spends $70 billion a year. Close most of the foreign bases, focus on simply defending ourselves and not imposing our will around the world, which is not only counterproductive but which we simply can't afford any more. If we cut our military budget in half we would still have by far the most powerful military in the world and would save $375 billion a year, or $3.75 trillion over a decade. Now that would really make a difference in the deficit!
Would you expect anything else but their refusal to face the financial calamity of Medicare and look for meaningful, if unpopular solutions. Look at states controlled by Democrats. Massachusetts and its cities and town are already off the cliff. When actual pension liabilities are fully disclosed, not hidden by so-called reform that just limits annual costs increases to cities and towns, without regard to the actual costs incurred, towns will face much higher interest cost, massive cuts in services. It's the same old get as much as you can for as little as possible and kick the bill down the road policies that our representative support. With over 60 trillion owed on Medicare, social security and other unfunded liabilities owed today on top of the 16 trillion, the US is already bankrupt. Our only hope is raising taxes, making substantial cuts to programs, governmental reforms but most important getting the economy to grow. Obama growth of government regulations that are truly punitive and arbitrary coupled with his constant politicking for his supporters is putting the nails in the coffin. Romney would have been meeting with Senator and reps every day and he would ave compromised because, he knew what was needed. Obama will be happy with the expiration of he Bush tax cuts and the sequestering of funds that will raise billions more for his stupid investments with friends,, while the ship sinks. How that Arab Spring working out?
last I checked, Texas, owned lock, stock and barrel by Repubs for decades, had an even worse deficit problem than California, despite the fact that their social safety are in tatters or none-existent
Massachusetts is doing very well. Don't you remember the Presidential debates, where Romney was claiming credit for how well Massachusetts is doing?
If I were the republicans I would say fine to tax hikes on the"rich" and stand back and watch the Dems panic becuase they have no plan on the spending side
This might be a good time for both parties to put their detailed proposals on the table for the public to see. We only have a month to go before the "cliff." If we end up going over it, I would at least like to know why.
We are just about hanging in there and can not stand any more taxes . Any more could put us right out of our home. However I think the GOP has got to be put in their place with their fight to help the upper needy one percent. My advise to the President is to let it go over the cliff and on January one I would have a tax reduction bill for the 99 percent on the House speakers desk . Let the GOP turn that down and see what happens to them when their base sees what their really like. The self serving SOBzzz.
Of course they'll oppose any cuts in benefits - they think it will cost them votes. What a bunch of simpering whimps the voters of Massachusetts have elected to represent them. No guts and no leadership. Have they ever thought about doing what's best for the country instead of what's best for them? And yes, the Republicans who refuse to accept any increases in taxes for anyone are just as bad.
they should oppose those benefit cuts which are the bedrock of middleclass security. What's needed are higher taxes on the wealthy - not just the end of the Bush cuts, a huge whack out of the military budget, and the ending of subsidies for hugely profitable industries like oil and agribusiness. Also putting everyone on Medicare would save the nation and employers hundreds of billions in wasted health care spending, first and foremost the approximately 30% of healthcare dollars wasted on our private insurance based system.
This is the way that Obama likes it...if they can't reach a deal then he can just push through his plan in the end as an executive order...
you obviously have no idea how government works. Obama has no such executive order power that he can simply order tax hikes and or spending increases.
I'm thinking you got that BOGUS EMAIL that was going around before the election, claiming that Obama has issued 923 executive orders, when the REAL number is 138. The REAL numbers for every Republican former president from Nixon going forward was MORE than OBAMA'S total, including Nixon (346), Ford 169), Reagan (381), the first Bush (166) and George W Bush (291). If you go to snopes and search on executive order, you will see the FALSE email that was sent around to hundreds of thousands of people, and the fact that it is FALSE, along with what the true numbers are.
You might want to remember who sent that email to you, and not take everything they send you as the truth. There were a lot of false emails sent leading up to the election. That is not history, that is right wing fantasy.
The old Bell System had an antiquated accounting system. Rather than constantly updating an outdated system. They built a new system (Functional Accounting) while using the old system. When it was ready they converted to the new system. There were problems of course, but they was easier to correct than attempt to constantly update a system that had its birth around the turn of the 19th century with add ons and changes over a half a century. It had its problems but it stuck. I realize this is a much bigger task, but wouldn't it be better to "bite the bullet" now than to continue to spend money and resources to further complicate an outdated, dare I say, dinosaur.
Obama's offer - $1.6T in new taxes, stimulus and other spending. A verbal offer to "look" at spending cuts at some point. What? This is all on Dems now
Just a little reminder: Obama won, and 9 out of 10 Senate seats that were in contention were taken by Democrats. So the Democrats are negotiating from a position of strength.
Also, going into January without an agreement is OK for Democrats, because it will free the Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge (to not raise tax rates) to lower taxes for the 98 percent of us that don't make a quarter million a year or more. I think the best bet for Democrats is to do just that: no agreement until January.
If nothing is done, we all pay more taxes... which I guess we have to do, since we have a big debt to pay off.
Going "over the cliff" will change the equation in a positive way.
is that real Disposable Income declined by 0.1%: the third decrease in 3 months, confirming that on an inflation adjusted basis the consumer peaked in the summer, and it is all downhill from here. -ZeroHedge
How about doing something on the jobs front!
Social Security faces unfunded liabilities of $8.6 trillion over 75 years, according to its trustees. And today, Social Security contributes $165 billion to the overall budget deficit, thanks to the payroll tax cut, a slow economy and Baby Boomer retirements. It seems natural that Social Security might enter into any budget agreement, and indeed President Obama and House Republicans discussed Social Security reform as part of an aborted debt-ceiling package in 2011.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/10/03/social_security_never_added_a_dime_to_the_deficit_really_99912.html
make all income subject to SS tax and we not only make SS solvent forever (at least 75 years say actuaries who will not project beyond that point) but we can keep the current lower tax rate and boost benefits.
as long as Congress stops raiding it for other "priorities"
And Ed, lose the stupid haircut. Nobody cares how big your ears are.