Debt reduction panel does not deal with the real problem

Quite honestly, this debt commission theater is just that … theater. It will not solve the primary issue we have which is the size and scope of the federal government. It’s too damn big, and they are not addressing that problem at all.

Hot Air Green Room contributor J.E. Dyer says exactly what I’ve been thinking when it comes to this stupid bi-partisan panel. Sure, they are tasked to “reduce the deficit and debt” but all of their approaches and suggestions have to do with funneling more cash to the federal government so they can pay for more stuff. Sure, they have some token plan to reduce government spending back to 2008 levels and demand measured increases in spending, but federal spending even at 2008 levels was totally out of control … so we get nowhere fast.

Eliminating the mortgage deduction – even just for mortgages over $500,000 – and raising the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon will have their biggest impact on middle-class households. So will delaying eligibility for Social Security, and means-testing to determine the level of benefits. So will taxing employer-provided health insurance as income. So will reducing Medicare benefits. Each of these measures by itself digs deeper into a household’s current income; added together they are likely to begin limiting many Americans’ lifestyle options, in such basics as the ability to own a home and send children to college while saving for retirement and medical expenses. They have the power to change what it means to be “middle class” in America.

Simply said, they think more taxes are needed – from everyone – to keep the federal government going. The goal is to make this the new standard of living, with a constantly growing and burdensome federal government that controls much of our lives.

I’ve frequently referred to symptoms of the disease, and in many ways this panel is looking to help create and expand more symptoms, instead of dealing with the disease itself. Vicious circle it is I tell ya.

8 replies
  1. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government sounds like a "nice" slogan (like cutting fraud and waste). When it comes to making reductions (which can REALISTICALLY be made), we get back to generalities, or eliminating departments (not likely) or letting the states do some of the things done in Washington. I agree that the Federal Government is too big and takes too many resources, but until I start hearing that the people are going to give up something I'll keep saying we are simply going around a circle.

  2. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Steve, I truly respect you and you are right about the size of Govt. However, I watched Neil Cavuto's interview with Erskine Bowles and one part that was not mentioned by either Jim or in your recap was that the Debt Commission is recommending to reduce the Federal Income tax rates at (10% I think need to play back tape) 14% and 28%. That will be a 95% make up to removing the mortgage deduction and gas tax, ALSO it will be changing our income tax levels to more realistic levels. Furthermore with the change to income tax laws they recommend, it will make the 1% of population that because of foundations (like Kennedy and Gates) and now only pay 16% income tax due to loopholes have to pay the highest rate of 28%. I'm sorry if the highest level for the rest of us is 35% now, this 1% is only paying 16%. Th Debt Commission is leveling the playing field.

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Steve, I can't write this stuff any shorter. Also, the Debt Commission is saying they know this may not be enough, but Paul Ryan new head to Budget Committee has promised to build on this and do what else is needed. We need to get this is place first. Please play the whole tape of Cavuto's interview, I am going by my sieve-like memory. Anyways, I side with Cavuto, Jim and the Debt Commission. I can't say I side with Matthews just yet.

  4. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    By nit-picking like this, we are only dealing with the symptoms. If someone makes a billion dollars and then puts their own money away to be used by their family for generations to come, who are we to say we want more of that money taken from them? They earned it (at one point) and they paid taxes on it (at one point). If they feel they have it too good, they can send a check to the IRS … they accept them no questions asked. But interestingly, Gates and the like don't give the funds to the federal government, they give it away to foundations and charitable organizations. That should tell you something. Also, it's wishful thinking to think those billionaires will not be able to find tax havens to 'hide' their own money.

    Concerning sammy22 wondering if people would be willing to 'give up' something… I've always said I would be happy to compromise … for every dollar we take away from the feds, the states would be required to raise revenue needed to cover the so-called 'shortfall' when we – as an example – close the Department of Education. That is if the state residents want those services. That's moving the power back to the states, and that must be the goal or we're kidding ourselves.

  5. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Steve, At least you didn't yell at me for writing too long. These complicated issues are hard to write short pithy answers. I use history to light my way. John Adams wanted slavery to be addressed in the Constitution and it was voted out by the majority, it took years but he got his way in the Constitutional Amendments. Before you yell I am getting off the subject, think of it as a moral of the story.

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I am also willing to compromise, such reducing the size of the Federal Government by closing say half of the military bases we have around the world. I don't know how one would go about "requiring the states to raise revenue needed to offset what they would not be getting from the Feds". Moving power back to the states is far easier said than done, I believe.

  7. David R
    David R says:

    It just seems so American to defend the right of the little guy to make billions, and pass it on to his/her deserving offspring, post mortem. It also seems American to defend America, which must have a functional distribution of wealth inorder to achieve a just and prosperous society. By functional distribution of wealth, I am referring to what is needed to maintain an educated public, skilled workforce, health and environmental security, public safety, and upward mobility for the creation of additional wealth.  Let's not forget that the millionaires/billionaires opportunity to acqurie wealth didn't come out of thin air, but was  created and defended by millions of ordinary Americans. How can we rely on the poor and middle class to pay the ultimate tax: risking the lives of their sons and daughters, and not expect the wealthy to do their share?

  8. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    David R, Right on! The point should be Fair, Same, Equal! I'm not dumping on the 400 who are rich and have a foundation that gives to charity, but they should not ONLY pay 16%. Everyone wants to give to charity and have money for their children and grandchildren, best we can do is in a Trust. If the highest tax bracket is 36%, than that is what they should pay. If the highest bracket goes down to 23% they should only pay that, BUT NOT 16%. Frankly I believe in a VAT or flat tax, but stupid Congress would add that on to to income tax. Bottom line is cut spending, but I'll take a tax break for right now.

Comments are closed.