McCain's Budget Plan

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, John McCain's top economic advisor, says not to worry about the fact that John McCain's budget plan is out of balance by hundreds of billions of dollars, they have a plan to increase revenues and take care of the problem:

As Mr. McCain’s plan currently stands, The Economist magazine concluded that it “will not come anywhere close to paying for the tax cuts.” Most telling, I spoke over the past week with several other economists who admire Mr. McCain and have advised him over the years. None would defend his current fiscal package (or be quoted).

Mr. Holtz-Eakin says the mistake that people are making is treating the McCain platform as if it were a finished piece of work. “It’s April,” he said. “We have until November.” The campaign will later unveil “base broadeners” in the corporate tax code — that is, loopholes it will eliminate — that will pay for the faster investment write-offs, for example.

If you weren't paying a tax before, but you are paying a tax now because McCain broadened the base, that's a new tax. Isn't it? It's a new tax for somebody, even if taxes are lowered elsewhere. Wonder what happened to:

Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.

"No new taxes," the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.

O.K., in a technical sense, it's a tax shift, a tax cut one place, and a tax increase in another, and some shifts are desirable, others aren't. But does anyone doubt that Republicans would call this proposal a new tax if it came from Democrats? Cue the deep, scary voice: "Democrats have a plan to impose new taxes to pay for their wasteful spending. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, they want to take money out of your pockets -- they want to raise taxes on businesses, and that costs jobs and lowers economic growth. Republicans understand that, as times get tougher, Washington shouldn't be imposing new taxes that make it harder for people to keep afloat in this economy."

Here's more from the article:

Weighing a McCain Economist, by David Leonhardt, NY Times: When Douglas Holtz-Eakin took over in 2003 as the director of the Congressional Budget Office ... he walked right into a firestorm.

For years, Republicans had been pushing the budget office to change the way it estimated the cost of a tax cut. Rather than looking only at the revenue lost, they argued, the office should also consider how tax cuts would change behavior. With lower tax rates, businesses would invest more, workers would work more — and the government would thus get a tax windfall. This, in a nutshell, is supply-side economics. ...

Mr. Holtz-Eakin ... did indeed begin using dynamic analysis... Yet he used it as it should be used. What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton).

As Mr. Holtz-Eakin told Congress in 2003, a dynamic analysis of the White House’s tax and spending proposals made essentially no difference. ...

Today, Mr. Holtz-Eakin again finds himself in a firestorm. He is the top economic adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, and some fiscal conservatives have begun wondering what happened to ... the John McCain who was a fiscal conservative...

“We’ve been taking some hits,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin acknowledged.

Last week, Senator McCain laid out his economic vision... He talked about wasteful spending, but the newest, most detailed part of the speech dealt with a package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year. They would come on top of $350 billion a year in Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain wants to make permanent. To put these numbers in perspective, the Iraq war has been costing roughly $200 billion a year. ...

To deal with the deficit, Mr. McCain has said that he will get tough on year-to-year spending, both in military programs and domestic ones. Then he will try to remake Medicare and Medicaid...

The problem is that the campaign has been far, far more detailed about its tax cuts ... than its spending cuts... Mr. McCain has proposed the elimination of the alternative minimum tax (at a cost of $60 billion a year), new child tax deductions ($65 billion), a corporate tax cut ($100 billion) and faster write-offs for corporate investments in new equipment ($50 billion to $75 billion). ...

It’s easy to imagine how Mr. McCain could be laying the groundwork to run as a true fiscal conservative, now that he has locked up the Republican nomination. He could present himself as the one candidate who believes that the nation can afford neither Mr. Bush’s endless tax cuts nor the Democrats’ big new government programs. He has the perfect adviser to help him make that case.

But it’s not the case he’s making, at least not yet. Instead, when you add up the numbers that have been released so far, you’re left wondering...

I have a question. At first, John McCain was promising to balance the budget his first year in office, he said it was straight talk, so I guess he meant it. But then he said he really didn't mean it, now it's at the end of his second year [Update: I can't read, apparently - a year is not a term]:

Sen. McCain has backed off his earlier promise to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of his first term and now says it may take two terms.

Here's the question. If we are heading into or already in an economic recession, what kind of economic plan is it to cut spending and/or raise taxes by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars? How is that supposed to help the economy recover from its troubles? He can talk about short-term economic stimulus packages all the wants, but if he plans to balance the budget over a two year time-frame, with some of that surely coming in the first year, the talk of short-term stimulus is meaningless. The economy is not stimulated when spending is cut or new taxes are imposed, and that's what he says he plans to do. [continuing the update, the question, then, is whether he will increase the deficit his first year to stimulate the economy. If he does, it won't be on the spending side, he plans a one year moratorium on new spending which is a cut in real terms. And the talk of base broadeners, etc., is a way of denying that they plan to increase the deficit through tax cuts, though that denial is part of the reason the plan is not viewed as being credible.]

Of course, his promises aren't possible even in the best of times. He won't be able to cut as much from government programs as he says he will, and he claims he won't raise taxes. I can't think of any credible analyst who thinks his plan comes anywhere close to adding up. But he says it anyway, with his supposed straight talk, in the face of a potential recession, and nobody seems to mind, nobody seems willing to think hard about what this says about his character. After all, it's just the economy, it's not something important like only eating half your waffle.

Update: More from pgl and Brendan Nyhan.

Update: The Economist's blog, Free Exchange, adds:

Now, it's possible that Mr McCain thinks his critics are wrong, and that supply-side orthodoxy holding that tax cuts always raise revenues is correct. Whether or not this is what Mr McCain thinks, it's absolutely what he says. Brendan Nyhan has collected a long list of statements to this effect.

Of course, as Mark Thoma points out, now might not be the best time to seek a balanced budget. By the time Mr McCain gets around to crafting his first budget, economic conditions may be quite a bit different, but for now, at least, a package of tax increases and spending cuts is not what the economy needs.

Whatever is going on inside Mr McCain's head, it would be very helpful if he could begin elucidating one clear message, so that the public can weigh it against alternative proposals. As things stand, with the candidate preaching supply-side voo-doo to partisan audiences while his economic advisor maintains that it's all an election ploy or an episode of "misspeak," it's impossible to determine how good or bad an economic leader he might be.

And pity the economic advisor, whose official role is now seemingly to tell the world that his candidate is lying to get elected, and all will be well once he's safely ensconced in the oval office.

I wish I'd made the last point in reference to the character issue.

Comments

[pgl]

This Angrybear calls McCain's fiscal fraud "fuzzy math":

angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-fuzzy-math.html

[markg]

My question is why does McCain only look at one side of the fiscal position: taxes take money out of your pockets. What about the fact that spending puts money IN peoples pockets. First let me say I am NOT advocating more spending because the government does compete with the private sector for REAL resources. But I see nothing wrong with the government running a deficit that puts more money IN peoples pockets that it taxes back out of peoples pockets. I guess this is why some economist such as Abba Lerner and Nobel Laureate William Vickrey said budget deficits are an economic "necessity". Sure makes economics a fun topic when no two economist can agree on something as simple as the govt budget deficit being bad, good, or necessary.

[swells]

I know this is probably an inappropriate use of the comments section but I'm going to do it anyway because the situation is getting pretty critical. Food banks across the country are having a very, very tough time with the increasing price of food. Please, if you can give anything, pick a food bank and make a donation. Most are happy to get food items but donating money is probably better. We all talk about income distribution and what can be cone to correct things, etc. but this problem is pretty immediate and pretty right now.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"If you weren't paying a tax before, but you are paying a tax now because McCain broadened the base, that's a new tax."

Not really.

Congress has been playing these games for at least the 30+ years I've been surfing the tax code.

Neither party has much integrity on this, federal government accounting is a huge steam pile of fuzzy math.

[swells]

save the rustbelt, I think you are right about this. I don't think the folk at Enron were all that creative. I think they just copied government accounting practices in respect to off the balance sheet liabilities.

[bakho]

Republicans run very large deficits because deficits have the least political cost to them. The entire discussion about spending cuts is dishonest. Military, Health, SS and debt service. Those 4 are over 80% of budget and are the ONLY place to get large savings. The rest is chump change.

McCain is doing nothing more than pandering to the wealthy special interests that give him donations. Why should we believe he will be less corrupt than Bush? His plan (bottom line) is to raise taxes on those who don't support him and give tax breaks to those who do. This is exactly what Bush did. This is the K Street recipe used by Republican congressmen. Republicans can only stay in power with their unpopular programs by collecting a lot of special interest money for swift boating and negative advertising.

You don't keep the same level of troops in Iraq and cut costs. That is a recipe for increased military spending. There is a level of dishonesty here that the press refuses to pursue, instead going for trivial pursuits. Of course the media or their owners benefit from government handouts so they play dumb. GHW Bush ended up eating his Voodoo economics words along with read my lips. Reagan budget prescriptions were pure fantasy. GWBush budget plans were in tin foil hat territory and PK was the only major media figure to notice. The media are not a force for honesty and the public knows it.

Reform is a loser because everyone is in on the game. Politicians raise large donations by writing tax break legislation or handing out pork that is worth far more than the campaign donation. A reformer who complains will anger the powerful members of his own party and lose the election. One party cannot write off the large donors because their opponents will outspend them with negative TV ads.

[kharris]

Leonhardt has dug up one of the important events in H-E's time at the CBO that gave me confidence in him. Now he is selling the same trash that every campaign flack of the "tax cuts cure everything" type have long sold. It is as if he thinks honesty is an institutional feature - goes with the territory at the CBO, but is disposable when working for a campaign.

We can argue all day about what constitutes "a new tax" but I'm not sure its productive. Defining terms is a debaters trick. If you can manage to define the terms, you are well on the way to winning the debate. Getting at the truth is a different thing.

[anne]

"I don't think the folk at Enron were all that creative. I think they just copied government accounting practices in respect to writing off the balance sheet liabilities."

Remember, what is important is never ever to even begin to think.

[anne]

To deal with the deficit, Mr. McCain has said that he will get tough on year-to-year spending, both in military programs and domestic ones. Then he will try to remake Medicare and Medicaid....

John McCain and Douglas Holtz-Eakin as typical compassionless conservatives are forever concerned with destroying Medicare and Medicaid; the better to continue to insure that for the poorer infant mortality should rise and life expectancy should deteriorate.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/health/research/22life.html

April 22, 2008

Life Expectancy Is Declining in Some Pockets of the Country
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

Life expectancy has long been growing steadily for most Americans. But it has not for a significant minority, according to a new study, which finds a growing disparity in mortality depending on race, income and geography.

The study, published Monday in the online journal PLoS, analyzed life expectancy in all 3,141 counties in the United States from 1961 to 1999, the latest year for which complete data have been released by the National Center for Health Statistics. Although life span has generally increased since 1961, the authors reported, it began to level off or even decline in the 1980s for 4 percent of men and 19 percent of women.

"It's very troubling that there are parts of the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest health spending in the world, where health is getting worse," said Majid Ezzati, the lead author and an associate professor of international health at Harvard. It is a phenomenon, he added, "unheard of in any other developed country."

Counties with significant declines were concentrated in Appalachia, the Southeast, Texas, the southern Midwest and along the Mississippi River. Life expectancy increases were mainly in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast.

The researchers also compared the 2.5 percent of counties with the lowest life expectancies and the 2.5 percent with the highest. The disparity between those two groups rose to 11 years for men in 1999, from 9 years in 1983, and to 7.5 years from 6.7 in women.

The study found that from 1961 to 1983, there was little difference in average income for the counties where life expectancy rose at rates above and below the mean. But after 1983, life span rose with wealth. Race may also be a factor. In counties where life expectancy declined, the proportion of African-Americans was higher.

From 1961 to 1983, no county had a statistically significant decline in life expectancy, and reductions in cardiovascular disease led to a generally increasing length of life for both sexes. But after 1983, life expectancy declined an average of 1.3 years in 11 counties for men, and in 180 counties for women....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html

March 23, 2008

Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — New government research has found "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.

One of the researchers, Gopal K. Singh, a demographer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said "the growing inequalities in life expectancy" mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers.

The gaps have been increasing despite efforts by the federal government to reduce them. One of the top goals of "Healthy People 2010," an official statement of national health objectives issued in 2000, is to "eliminate health disparities among different segments of the population," including higher- and lower-income groups and people of different racial and ethnic background.

Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found "widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy" at birth and at every age level....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html

April 22, 2007

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
By ERIK ECKHOLM

HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers....

"I don't think the rise is a fluke, and it's a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast," said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005....

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/04/falling_indicat.html

April 23, 2007

Falling Indicators of Human Development in Mississippi
By Brad DeLong

There are 2.8 million people in Mississippi. About 15% of the non-elderly population--make that 350,000--were on Medicaid.

Cut Medicaid enrollments by 50,000, by 1/7.

42,000 babies born in Mississippi each year.

For the share who die to jump from 0.97% to 1.14%... That's a less than 1/3000 chance.

That's worth saying.

[bakho]

An unhealthy workforce is a HUGE drag on any economy. Our health care spending is way higher per capita than other countries but outcomes are worse. There are definitely savings from health care reform, but it means fighting the special interests. For most politicians, it requires biting the hand that feeds them.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/health-insurance-the-unraveling-continues/

April 23, 2008

Health Insurance: The Unraveling Continues
By Paul Krugman

From the New York Times: *

"It is never a good thing if many of your customers can no longer afford what you are selling.

"The UnitedHealth Group, which announced disappointing first-quarter earnings on Tuesday, said the weakening economy was causing fewer businesses and employees to sign up for its health insurance. UnitedHealth, whose stock fell sharply on the report, also cut its overall profit outlook for 2008.

" 'We are clearly being impacted by the declining economic outlook,' Stephen J. Hemsley, the company’s chief executive, told investors Tuesday.

"While he acknowledged the company’s own missteps, Mr. Hemsley said that fewer employers — particularly small businesses — were offering health coverage to their workers, and that when they did, fewer employees were choosing to enroll."

Expect to see a significant deterioration in the health insurance statistics over the next year.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/23health.html

[hari]

@ Mark -

How dare you post such *garbage* as serious subject for comments? There must be better substitutes or are you pandering to the *true believers*?

[anne]

Actually here is the entire passage, which does not indicate a lessening of support for Medicare or Medicaid and with which I am more sympathetic....

"To deal with the deficit, Mr. McCain has said that he will get tough on year-to-year spending, both in military programs and domestic ones. Then he will try to remake Medicare and Medicaid so that, as Mr. Holtz-Eakin puts it, they no longer pay doctors 'based on what they do to people, instead of what they do to make people well.' It’s a fine idea."

[pgl]

On health care - Dean Baker (Beat the Press) has a radical idea. Less protectionism.

[DeadParrot]

A quick correction. You seem to have confused "years" with "terms". McCain is talking about balancing the budget after 1 (or 2) terms. That is 4 (or 8) years. Which is much more realistic than 1 (or 2) years.

> I have a question. At first, John McCain was promising to balance the budget his first year in office, he said it was straight talk, so I guess he meant it. But then he said he really didn't mean it, now it's at the end of his second year:

>>Sen. McCain has backed off his earlier promise to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of his first term and now says it may take two terms.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Just to clarify, the odds of McCain's plan actually working are slim and none, and slim just rode out of town.

That McCain can get economists on board is really interesting, really....

[save_the_rustbelt]

Give McCain a little credit, he went to Youngstown and told workers their jobs are never coming back and they should get over it.

Points for honesty.

But then he pulled out the old econo-crap about how job training would make their lives even better than before. He of course did not specify "training for what."

Minus points for dishonesty.

[swells]

anne said, "Remember, what is important is never ever to even begin to think."

It would appear to be the operative principle behind government accounting practices. Don't tell people clearly how bad the budgetary shortfalls really are and hopefully they won't think about it.

[acerimusdux]

Voters didn't seem to mind in 2000 when George W. Bush's numbers didn't add up. When he promised to take a trillion dollars out of SS, and then promised that the same trillion would be there to pay benefits, they didn't mind. When he budgeted more for tax cuts for the top 1% than all new spending combined, they didn't question whether that really added up either.

Will it be any different this time? Will voters have learned by now?

Probably not. This has been the same from Reagan to Bush to McCain. This is what most of that $9 trillion national debt is from, all of those budgets that didn't add up.

[pgl]

My AB post featured a nice WSJ article by Laura Meckler, which Holtz-Eaton decided to attack in the National Review (guess no one else would publish his attack). My take:

angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-fiscal-policy-douglas-holtz.html

[anne]

Swells,

"[This] would appear to be the operative principle behind government accounting practices. Don't tell people clearly how bad the budgetary shortfalls really are and hopefully they won't think about it."

The statement is fair as a political criticism, where there is often a denial of or over-emphasis on the importance of a deficit projection, but with limited short-lived general exceptions or exceptions for "security" government accounting practices have been transparent. Where is the problem in government accounting practices as such? What am I missing?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

The federal government does not use proper fund accounting as it requires (see GAO Yellow Book) for other governments.

Granted, the federal government is vastly more complex than even state governments, and the federal government can run deficits (most government units cannot), but it still doesn't add up very well.

[Chris C]

Lordy - if McCain's plan doens't add up - I don't want to even think about the Democratic plan.

[swells]

Anne, you asked "What am I missing?" I'm not sure you are missing much at all. However, I think you are the exception rather than the rule. I am pretty sure that the average citizen of this country is unaware of assessments such as the following:

"This partial-equlilibrium analysis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds."

That is one sentence quoted out of context from a paper by Laurence J. Kotlikoff in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July, August 2006, 88(4) pp. 235-249.

If this is even remotely close to being true, this should be front page news in every city in the land. The reason it isn't is because of poor reporting to the people of the United States the true status of governmental finances.

[Jay]

Anne:

The government does not use accrual based accounting for social security. Of course if it did it would become blatently obvious who gains and who gets screwed by social security.

[kharris]

Chris C,

Given you comment, I pretty sure you won't think about either of the Democrats' plans. That is more or less the point being made in this discussion.

[me]

I enjoy watching McCain debate himself more than the Clinton/Obama debates.

[Brooks]

I am increasingly disappointed in McCain re: fiscal policy. He and his advisors are talking down the importance of reducing the deficit. He seems to be all about making the Bush tax cuts permanent and adding big tax cuts on top of them (eliminating the AMT; corporate tax cuts; doubling the child tax deduction; etc.) and vague lip service on spending cuts that, as far as anyone can tell, won't amount to anywhere near the amount of revenue lost from the tax cuts. I've been hoping that his deficit hawk advisors (Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson, Concord Coalition) would win out over the tax cutting zealots (e.g., Kemp), and I thought Holtz-Eakin was closer to the former group, but it's looking like McCain is selling out on fiscal responsibility. Very, very disappointing so far. I hope something changes in a big way, but I'm not expecting it. As it stands now it's going to be yet another "hold my nose and vote" elections, since I have no fiscally responsible candidate to vote for. Wish I had McCain 2000 to vote for. I guess a general election candidate who actually thinks we can't keep spending money we don't have forever, even when we are obviously on an unsustainable fiscal course, is too much to ask for. As usual, it's a choice between a Democrat who wants to spend way too much and a Republican who doesn't want to tax enough to cover what he'd like to spend (not to mention enough to pay down debt in anticipation of projected entitlement growth).

[anne]

Understood, always understood, the point is always to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Nothing else matters. I have to always remember how continuous and perverse this is.

[Chris C]

My point is - no conservative is going to give a seal of approval to McCain. We know he is moderate to liberal on many issues. My understanding is he plans to run a populist campaign which will try to steal democratic voters.

But what other choice do I have? Vote for a socialist (Democrat) or a 3rd party candidate with no chance to win?

Unfortunately all we can do is try to pressure McCain to do what's right (and you know he is stubborn and won't listen)... because there are no other alternatives.

[Jay]

"Understood, always understood, the point is always to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Nothing else matters. I have to always remember how continuous and perverse this is."

Anne you asked how the government obscures things by using shady accounting and I pointed out an example. Just because your religion makes you believe that SS is a holy sacred institution that is immune to criticism doesn't mean the rest of us don't deserve a fair accounting of the revenues and payouts.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washington/23cnd-petraeus.html

April 23, 2008

Petraeus to Be Nominated to Lead Central Command
By DAVID STOUT

The decision to put Gen. David H. Petraeus in charge of military operations in the Mideast suggests that the Pentagon expects to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for some time to come.

[Social Security is fine, and Medicare and Medicaid are only in need of extending and refining coverage. The only budget problem we have, involves the tragedy of needless spending on war an occupation.]

[anne]

Since the initial budget of George Bush military spending has increased as a portion of national income while social spending has decreased as a portion of national income and has actually decreased in real per capita terms. Taxes have been cut, especially for the wealthiest. So, we have increased military spending while decreasing social spending and cutting taxes enough to produce a structural budget deficit.

Simple.

[swells]

Anne, might I ask a simple question? I'm seeing accounts of a fiscal gap that run between 40 trillion and 70 trillion depending upon who's figures are being referred to. Nowhere am I seeing assertions that there is no fiscal gap. So, is there or is there not a fiscal gap? If so is it of the magnitude being discussed? If there isn't, then why don't you put a paper together that describes where the premises and arguments these people make are deficient? I hope to gosh they are wrong but I don't think they are. If they are right, then the social programs you want will not be able to exist unless very dramatic changes are made pretty much now.

[swells]

Anne, Kolitkoff made it pretty clear in his paper that the tax cuts and deficits that Bush effected have greatly exacerbated the problem. But, that doesn't mean there is no problem. We are talking about fiscal gaps that are 13 to 20+ times the cost of the war if one assumes the war costs 3 trillion.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washington/23cnd-petraeus.html

"The decision to put Gen. David H. Petraeus in charge of military operations in the Mideast suggests that the Pentagon expects to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for some time to come."

Notice the wording of this passage and understand the implication that even a dramatic change in the Presidency or Congress may not matter. This has been precisely what I have worried about. The President has been setting in place general officers determined to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, while critical foreign affairs specialists are similarly determined, so that change of policy in another year will be politically difficult even with a President who wishes change.

The current needless always destructive campaigns against the supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, before Iraqi elections, are similarly going to insure an Iraqi government determined that American forces remain in Iraq.

[pgl]

'Mr. Holtz-Eakin says the mistake that people are making is treating the McCain platform as if it were a finished piece of work. “It’s April,” he said. “We have until November.” The campaign will later unveil “base broadeners” in the corporate tax code — that is, loopholes it will eliminate — that will pay for the faster investment write-offs, for example.' - NYTimes

While Holtz-Eakin says these base broadeners will raise $30 billion per year, others argue it is closer to $30 billion per decade. C'mon - adding $3 billion a year to revenues is not going to make up for all those other fiscal goodies coming from Team McCain. And to top all of this off, we had a $500 billion General Fund deficit for fiscal year ended 10/31/2007. Holtz-Eakin is not being honest with us at all. Wonder why?

[anne]

"We are talking about fiscal gaps that are 13 to 20+ times the cost of the war if one assumes the war costs $3 trillion."

I understand the sincerity, but the accounting is meaningless. I better understand that there is a massive and growing surplus for Social Security that will suffice for paying full benefits for another 35 years at the least. Somehow from Japan to Australia to Spain and France, developed countries varying in population composition are able to afford retirement protections and will continue to afford them because that is what is being politically demanded.

[Dirk van Dijk]

"But then he said he really didn't mean it, now it's at the end of his second year:"

Sen. McCain has backed off his earlier promise to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of his first term and now says it may take two terms.

A term is 4 years not one, so he is saying that it will take 8 years to balance the budget not 4. Given his/Bush's tax cuts, even 8 years is totally unrealistic. He only focuses on earmarks, which are a whopping 0.6% of the budget, for elimination. Probably 1/2 the earmarks are perfectly worthwhile and needed expenditures.

[swells]

Anne, as far as I know, those countries don't have fiscal gaps like we do and, if they don't, they don't because they are taxing at a much higher rate NOW rather than attempting to shift the costs intergenerationally.

I do have an objection to the current social security and medicaid systems and that is the intergenerational transfer aspect of it (along with coerced participation). If we want these things then WE should pay for them, not condemn the next generation to bear the burden for both themselves and for us which is exactly what we are doing.

It's rather like the debt slave system in India where future generations are enslaved for debts their parents took on.

[Mark Thoma]

It's time for me to take reading lessons. Not sure how I mixed that up (year=term) - I added an update.

Thanks to those who for pointed this out, that was a dumb error.

It now says:

[Update: I can't read, apparently, a year is not a term]:Sen. McCain has backed off his earlier promise to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of his first term and now says it may take two terms.Here's the question. If we are heading into or already in an economic recession, what kind of economic plan is it to cut spending and/or raise taxes by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars? How is that supposed to help the economy recover from its troubles? He can talk about short-term economic stimulus packages all the wants, but if he plans to balance the budget over a two year time-frame, with some of that surely coming in the first year, the talk of short-term stimulus is meaningless. The economy is not stimulated when spending is cut or new taxes are imposed, and that's what he says he plans to do. [continuing the update, the question, then, is whether he will increase the deficit his first year to stimulate the economy. If he does, it won't be on the spending side, he plans a one year moratorium on new spending which is a cut in real terms. And the talk of base broadeners, etc., is a way of denying that they plan to increase the deficit through tax cuts, though that denial is part of the reason the plan is not viewed as being credible.]

[donna]

Anne, you have to remember that many Americans have been convinced that "You're on your own" is the best possible thing for them. Reagan convinced them that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" was a joke and a lie. But then in a Republican administration, it's also the truth unless you've donated significant sums to elect them.

As to McCain's plan, it's the typical Republican message to their base that "of course we won't raise YOUR taxes in our plan!". All of McCain's staff, which seems to consist entirely of industry lobbyists, will see to that.

[bakho]

Republicans have NO problem with large budget deficits. Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter." Reagan tax cuts created large deficits. That was not a problem for Reagan. Bush 41 signed on to a deficit reducing tax cut and lost and election. The Dems passed a budget balancing tax increase and lost Congress. The deficit was only an issue to Ross Perot.

The NR piece is setting the stage for blaming the deficit on spending. Republicans don't care about the deficit per se. The deficit is merely a tool to invoke against increased social spending. Of course, military spending by the GOP will always trump the deficit. "How dare we not support our troops!"

Republican administrations are all about militarizing our budget and borrowing to pay for it. This is more of the same Reagan "borrow and spend" policy Republicans have pursued ever since.

[pgl]

"Update: I can't read, apparently, a year is not a term". Our host is being too hard on himself. D-H-E's $30 billion per year for those tax loophole closures is really $30 billion a decade. Term = 4 years (Mark's goof). Decade = 10 years - DHE's goof.

[acerimusdux]

On the subject of government accounting. The accounting requirements for government are generally quite sufficient.

The practice, however, leaves something to be desired. The Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 required all federal agencies to prepare audited financial statements annually by FY1996. It required audited government wide consolidated financial statements beginning in FY1997.

Now, after ten years, the Federal Government has still yet to receive an unqualified opinion on it's finanacial statements. A private company which was unable to pass an audit for 10 years, unable to properly account for large chunks of expenditures, or verify significant portions of it's claims, would have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining further funding. but, there seems to be no threat to funding, and thus not enough incentive to give the American people an accurate accounting of where their money is really going.

I should note though that not all government agencies have had a problem passing their audits. All social insurance programs, such as SS, medicare, medicaid, passed their audit. These programs are in fact accounted for on an accrual basis, as presented on the Statement of Social Insurance, which received an unqualified opinion. The IRS, SEC, and FDIC also all passed their audits. For the most part, 35 other agencies required to have independent audits had no material problems.

It turns out the largest barrier to the federal government passing it's audit seem to be mismanagement at the Department of Defense. There were other problems, with some federal lending programs, and also some tax collection (apart from the IRS), but DOD has persistently been the biggest obstacle--unable to properly account for property, plant, equipment, and inventories, or to "support significant portions of the total net cost of operations".

The GAO Auditor's report is available here.

[Jean]

Chris C, Democrats are SOCIALISTS? Democrats are considered right wingers in most of the world, esp. Europe, if you can believe the comments to this blog. Even Eisenhower would be booted out of his party; he'd probably be left of HRC and OB.
Democrats are bad enough, but the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths. Thirty years of Republican propaganda: homelessness, minimal insurance, huge debt. The war on drugs? Nixon. The war on terror? Bush2. Fear fear fear.
Thank you, Republican Fear Machine, for ruining my country.

[paine]

why look at pappy mccain's "plan" ????
like the latest
"i'll make u a starlet "
a pols plan
is meant to be traduced

[paine]

plans for closing loopholes
are the biggest loop holes of all

[paine]

"McCain is doing nothing more than pandering to the wealthy special interests that give him donations"

what in hell do u expect him to do ???

they aren't donating enough to him ...yet

[Dirk van Dijk]

Lordy - if McCain's plan doens't add up - I don't want to even think about the Democratic plan.

Posted by: Chris C | Link to comment | April 23, 2008 at 08:36 AM

Why would you say that? Historically the Dems have been far more fiscally responsible than the GOP (exception Ike).

[acerimusdux]

The issue of the "fiscal gap" is real. But the role of SS tends to be greatly exaggerated. The present value of all future SS commitments is estimated at $40.9T, but $34.1T of that is already funded. The remaining gap of $6.8T is not too difficult to close with moderate tweaks at this point.

Barack Obama has offered a specific proposal which would effectively address this, by phasing back in SS taxes on incomes over $200,000. John McCain hasn't been too specific, but his rhetotic suggests he prefers benefit reductions to increased revenues:

"John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept." -McCain website

"They and others argue that the tax increase is necessary in part to finance Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, this claim only serves to remind us of Congress' consistent failure to repair both of these programs even under the best of circumstances." -recent McCain speech

Hillary has been less clear on SS. She offers her own plan for supplemental accounts, separate from SS (which would itself create future liabilities--apparently funded out of general revenue). But for SS, she has only said she would appoint a commission. I haven't yet seen where she's indicated any preference between benefit reductions and increased revenues.

The larger issue though is in health care costs. Current funding for Medicare Part A covers less than half of projected benefits, a $12.3T deficit. Parts B and D are even worse, with future costs four times as high as revenues, adding another $21.8T to the gap.

In total, of the $40.9T fiscal gap caused by social insurance, $34.1T is due to health care costs. Solve the problem of health care reform generally, and you suddenly have a far less serious fiscal problem.

Also, it is worth noting that many of these future costs are due to expected future advances, longer life expectancies, new treatments and cures, new drugs, which amount to expected future improvements in standard for living. Part of the question ought to be how much we should be willing to pay collectively for some of these things. What portion of GDP should we really spend there. But first we need to do a better job of getting our moneys worth for what we are already spending.

My own feeling is that I have no objection to there being "two health care systems". Let the rich pay for the best, if they wish, and get care than isn't available to everyone else. The fact that there are some with such means only helps to fuel innovation and development of expensive new treatments, some of the benefits of which may eventually trickle down. The problem right now, though, is that the system for everyone else is broken.

Basic care for everyone, especially preventive care which can help lower costs in the long run, should be a public expense. Get that in place, and then I think it is also reasonable to have some limits in order to control costs.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"Basic care for everyone, especially preventive care which can help lower costs in the long run, should be a public expense. Get that in place, and then I think it is also reasonable to have some limits in order to control costs."

Yep, get that baby at 6-8% of GDP for everyone, and we're looking at freeing up 7-9% of GDP for other more important things. It may not be the best money can buy, but it will be better than nothing, and at least allow people to seek basic treatment from a GP for ailments that we've been able to effectively treat for 40+ years with cheap, generic medicines.

[anne]

Donna:

"Anne, you have to remember that many Americans have been convinced that 'You're on your own' is the best possible thing for them. Reagan convinced them that 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you' was a joke and a lie. But then in a Republican administration, it's also the truth unless you've donated significant sums to elect them.'

Clever since the tendency was always there, and I think having culminated in these last several years and already being somewhat though not yet decidedly reversed.

[BJ Feng]

Although McCain has the right idea, let people spend their own money rather than the government spend it for them whenever possible, he has to make sure the debt/GDP ratio doesn't increase beyond the 62-66% range we are currently in.

McCain has to make substantial cuts, and I mean actual cuts to non-discretionary social spending. I don't know how he will get this pass Congress, and since this is an election year and Americans have been brainwashed to accept the vote buying tactics of Democrats (vote for me I'll give you more money through these programs) it's hard for him to say outright that he'll make cuts.

Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately. I've seen the premiums my grandmother has to pay and they are ridiculously low. The poor are covered by Medicaid. Long running problems that have shown little or no effect have to be eliminated, such as Head Start, and unemployment benefits curbed to 3 months max. Of course there is a lot of waste in the Defense budget, the whole Boeing tanker lease deal was a huge sham, and more scrutiny has to put on military purchases. This is of course the problem of big government programs, but there is no way out for Defense, we can't eliminate this department, it's one of the few that are truly necessary.

Deficits do matter if they get out of hand. What ultimately matters seems to be the debt/GDP ratio and the percentage of current revenues used to pay out interest on the debt. We've had low interest rates that have made it possible for the government to overspend, it's time to curb spending. These cuts should be made over time since we're in a downturn, but the most wasteful and costly programs should be cut immediately as well as my proposed reforms to Medicare (get rid of part D, at least double premiums for A and B).

[anne]

"Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately."

The point of a monster being a monster. The idea of crazed monsters always being moral destruction.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/health/research/22life.html

April 22, 2008

Life Expectancy Is Declining in Some Pockets of the Country
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

Life expectancy has long been growing steadily for most Americans. But it has not for a significant minority, according to a new study, which finds a growing disparity in mortality depending on race, income and geography.

The study, published Monday in the online journal PLoS, analyzed life expectancy in all 3,141 counties in the United States from 1961 to 1999, the latest year for which complete data have been released by the National Center for Health Statistics. Although life span has generally increased since 1961, the authors reported, it began to level off or even decline in the 1980s for 4 percent of men and 19 percent of women.

"It's very troubling that there are parts of the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest health spending in the world, where health is getting worse," said Majid Ezzati, the lead author and an associate professor of international health at Harvard. It is a phenomenon, he added, "unheard of in any other developed country." ...

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html

March 23, 2008

Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — New government research has found "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html

April 22, 2007

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
By ERIK ECKHOLM

HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/l26south.html

Infant Deaths: Shame of a Nation

To the Editor:

"In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South":

When my colleagues and I started a community health center in the Mississippi Delta in the 1960s, we estimated the actual black infant mortality rate in our area at nearly 60 per thousand live births.

The causes were abysmal poverty, wide unemployment, crumbling shacks, outright malnutrition, contaminated water and lack of transportation.

We addressed those problems, in addition to providing desperately needed medical care. The infant mortality rate dropped sharply.

Those causes persist, now worsened by deep cuts in Medicaid and welfare.

The consequence of shredding the social safety net is more dead black (and white) babies. No health service can overcome the effects of social policies that devastate the lives of the poor.

This is not just a health problem; it is a measure of our moral commitment to a fair chance for survival. We should be enraged, and ashamed, that these preventable excess deaths continue, and increase, among us.

H. Jack Geiger, M.D.
Brooklyn, April 25, 2007
The writer was a founding member and national coordinator of the Medical Committee for Human Rights.

[Patricia Shannon]

Swells,
Thanks for the reminder about food banks needing help.
I have posted my Hunger Walk song at
www.myspace.com/patriciashannonsongs
I hope that it could be used by organizations that want to promote hunger walks, eg., church choirs, and musical groups that perform along the walk routes.
It has the lyrics, and mp3.
The mp3 is not great listening, but can be downloaded to learn how to sing it. The melody will be familiar to many, as it turned out be the tune to the Thanksgiving hymn "Come, Ye Thankful People, Come." A neat irony that was not planned, it just started coming to me during a hunger walk for the Atlanta Food Bank.

[Patricia Shannon]

BJ Feng says...

Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately. I've seen the premiums my grandmother has to pay and they are ridiculously low. The poor are covered by Medicaid. Long running problems that have shown little or no effect have to be eliminated, such as Head Start, and unemployment benefits curbed to 3 months max.

I'm getting close to the point where I will stop wasting my time reading your ridiculous comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start

According to Datta (Datta, 1976 & Lee et al.,1990) who summarized 31 studies, the program showed immediate improvement in the IQ scores of participating children, though after beginning school, the non-participants were able to narrow the difference. Children who attended Head Start are, relative to their siblings who did not, significantly more likely to complete high school, attend college, and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties. They are less likely to have been booked or charged with a crime.[4] Head Start is associated with large and significant gains in test scores. Head Start significantly reduces the probability that a child will repeat a grade.

You right-wingers keep saying that education is the key to a better life. There is plenty of research that shows that the earlier years are the most influential in terms of academic success. So what do you want to do? Kill Head Start!

[Patricia Shannon]

Georgia Medicaid eligibility limits

Family Size Income Limits
1 $235 per month ($2,820 per year)
2 $356 per month ($4,272 per year)
3 $424 per month ($5,088 per year)
4 $500 per month ($6,000 per year)

So you think that if your grandmother had an income of $236/month she could afford to pay for her medicine by herself?

You are totally out of touch with reality. You thoroughly deserve an Anne rant.

[bakho]

The substantial cuts need to come from the military budget which is totally out of whack from unnecessary high tech weaponry to occupying a foreign country of 20 million people. We at least need to back the military budget down by a couple of hundred thousand from $600 billion to the $400 billion range. That would take a huge bite out of spending. There are ways to save health care dollars but it means cutting out the perks and no-bid contracts for the special interests like the insurance companies, and putting the money instead into expanding low cost primary care.

The deficit spending costs over $400 billion in debt service. (Some of this goes to SSTF but it is still a real cost).

A militarist like McCain is NOT going to do what needs to be done to cut defense spending. Claiming ignorance of economics is a dodge to give him the future excuses he needs to give perks to the wealthy special interests. We need to take back our country from these out of touch elites like McCain.

[bakho]

McCain is not straight talking. He is giving us bait and switch. I heard him on the radio today. McCain thinks we are stupid.

BJ Feng hits on the dilemma Republicans face. They are always willing to talk in vague terms about spending cuts but never admit to specifics. Any politician with half a brain knows the votes are not there to make major cuts. No matter how much McCain might want to cut non-discretionary (basically SS and Medicare/aid) the votes are not there to make it happen. McCain is smart enough to not outright say he will cut SS because that would be a sure election loser.

Instead McCain talks about cuts that save a million here or a million there. Even when reporters call him on this B&S BS, he keeps on. This is called bait and switch. Insinuate big spending cuts, but promise nickel and dime. Many people are fooled by this non-sense because a million seems like a lot of money. However even a billion is indistinguishable from zero on a bar graph of total federal spending of $3 trillion.

McCain is baiting the voters with a promise to balance the budget by cutting spending. Then he switches to nickel and dime. Bait and switch. PT Barnum would be proud.

[BJ Feng]

The limits here in California are much higher.

"Eligiblity for Medi-Cal through SSI

To qualify for SSI, your monthly income and assets cannot exceed certain limits. In 2008 (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009), your monthly income cannot exceed $870 for an individual or $1,524 for a married couple. You can have up to $2,000 in assets as an individual or $3,000 in assets as a couple. These numbers change every year on April 1st.

Eligiblity for Medi-Cal through the Aged and Disabled Federal Poverty Level program (A&DFPL)

California law allows those whose incomes are above the SSI limits to qualify for full Medi-Cal coverage under a plan called the Aged and Disabled Federal Poverty Level program. These limits also change April 1st of each year.

To qualify, a single person's monthly income must not exceed $1,097 and assets must be at or below $2,000. For married couples, the monthly income limit is $1,524 and the assets limit is at or below $3,000. Note: the SSI and A&D-FPL income amounts for couples will go up to $1,558 in June 2008.

Eligibility for Medi-Cal with a share of cost

If you are not eligible for regular Medi-Cal because of your income level, you may still be eligible for Medi-Cal with a "share of cost." A share of cost functions like a deductible. You must pay or promise to pay your share of cost in any month you incur medical costs. Then Medi-Cal will pay the balance of your medical bills. (A share of cost is not a monthly premium; it is met only in the months you have medical costs.)

Your share of cost is determined by your monthly income. Medi-Cal allows you to keep a certain amount of your income for living expenses. If medical bills leave you with less than $600 per month for living expenses as a single person or $934 per month as a married couple, then you qualify for this program. These figures are known as the "maintenance needs level" (MNL). Your assets must be at or below $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple.

In order for Medi-Cal to cover your medical expenses after you meet your share of cost, you must use providers that accept Medi-Cal.

With share of cost Medi-Cal, Medi-Cal will still pay for your Part B premiums — even in the months you do not incur medical expenses."

I don't know what apartment rents are in Georgia, could anyone even rent an apartment for $235? How is anyone supposed to qualify? Thanks to Federal SSI, everyone gets more than $235 a month, if they are going to eliminate their State program, then they should just do it instead of pretending.

I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left, after all this is a program created by George Bush, the evil ultimate conservative--and you wonder why conservatives don't consider him a conservative.

It's almost impossible for anyone to reduce the deficit to the level I would be comfortable with unless non-discretionary spending cuts are proposed. The Republican base is very dissatisfied because the opportunity to make changes are now gone; despite huge, overwhelming electoral wins, our representatives would not do what was asked of them and what they were put into office for. McCain is now running in the general election and no longer needs to put up details until he actually faces a challenger. That won't be for quite some time. No, McCain closed out his bracket early so he gets to rest and wait.

[Cyrille]

"The limits here in California are much higher.

"Eligiblity for Medi-Cal through SSI

To qualify for SSI, your monthly income and assets cannot exceed certain limits. In 2008 (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009), your monthly income cannot exceed $870 for an individual or $1,524 for a married couple. You can have up to $2,000 in assets as an individual or $3,000 in assets as a couple.
"

That's still unbelievably low.

[anne]

"I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left...."

Notice the deceiving hate-mongering language.... Medicare provides a relatively expensive, but still a life-saving means of obtaining drug care for millions of our grandparents and parents. There are however monsters who would deny our parents and grandparents such care without crippling them financially or simply killing them.

[anne]

Medicare provides our grandparents and parents or even us a basic human right, a civil right, the right to life. Medicare is a mark that we are civiliized, but there are monsters who would deny Medicare, who would deny life, to those who have cared for us or to those of us who have cared for others through a lifetime.

The use of the expression "Part D" or Part X or Y or Z is only a monster's deception, masking the provision ofr life-saving drugs for our parents and grandparents.

[anne]

"Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately."

"I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left, after all this is a program created by George Bush, the evil ultimate conservative--and you wonder why conservatives don't consider him a conservative."

Notice the deceiving viciousness of the monster, who would destroy our grandparents and parents, who would deny them a basic human right, who would deny them the right to life.

[Patricia Shannon]

BJ Feng says...

The limits here in California are much higher.

So what? Good does that do people elsewhere?

It is my understanding that the cost of living in California is very high.

Are you suggesting that poor Georgians all move to California?
============================
To propose limiting unemployment benefits to 3 months when the country is in recession, which there is reason to believe will be severe, is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly evil, or both.

[Patricia Shannon]

That should be

So what? What good does that do people elsewhere?

[Icarus]

Anne...no one is trying to kill your grandparents. We'd just prefer if you pay for their needed services.

[anne]

"Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately."

"I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left, after all this is a program created by George Bush, the evil ultimate conservative--and you wonder why conservatives don't consider him a conservative."

Notice the deceiving viciousness of the monster, who would destroy our grandparents and parents, who would deny them a basic human right, who would deny them the right to life.

[Icarus]

Anne...with your logic, should we not be paying for global medicare/aid? What difference does it make if the recipient of medical care lives in a shany town in Indonesia or Bangladesh, or, is a US citizen? Is "Nation" the only arbiter of handout dispensation?

The thing is...some of us care about your grandmother equally as much as we care about that shanty town dweller.

And again...just take care of your own grandmother, and spare society that burden. Is it not your duty as a family member?

How did we devolve into expecting our relationship with the State to be the source of basic needs?

And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is pro-zionist. Monster.

[anne]

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is pro-_______. Monster.

Notice the crazed anti-Semitism. Curious such anti-Semitism, actually, as though absolutely impossible to contain however crazily revealing.

[anne]

"Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately."

"I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left, after all this is a program created by George Bush, the evil ultimate conservative--and you wonder why conservatives don't consider him a conservative."

Notice the deceiving viciousness of the monster, who would destroy our grandparents and parents, who would deny them a basic human right, who would deny them the right to life.

[anne]

"And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is pro-_______. Monster."

The point is intimidation, and the technique is to use anti-Semitism. Medical care is however a human right, no matter the attempt at anti-Semitic intimidation.

[BJ Feng]

Patricia, are the numbers you posted about Georgia's eligibility requirements accurate? How much does it cost to rent an apartment, a single, in a poor neighborhood in Georgia? I don't see how anyone can quality in Georgia.

Cyrill, the income limits are meant to be low because they are meant to help the poor, not the rich or middle class. $870 can get you a decent one bedroom apartment in Los Angeles and still leave you with $300+. That's in expensive Los Angeles, and if you opt for a single, you can get those for around $400 a month. Plus there are other ways to qualify with even higher limits, read on further and you'll see there are two more programs with higher limits "just in case".

My easily spends less than $300 a month, thanks to us, her family. She lives with my mother, and grandma doesn't eat very much. I know this is shocking to a lot of people like Anne, but it used to be common practice for family members to watch out for each other and provide for the older generation instead of the government. I'm sure I'll be called a monster for daring to suggest that family members have a duty to care for their mothers and grandmothers in old age.

For the very very few that have no family, there are programs that already exist to make sure they can live decently. We're all covered already, there is no need for additional government services.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, if you're going to be ridiculous, then I'll claim that the right to keep one's wages is a basic human right that only a monster would dare deny. It's a fundamental human right for people to keep what they earn, all of it, and only a slaver bent on restoring slavery would dare suggest otherwise.

[anne]

"Medicare Part D has to be eliminated completely and Medicare premiums should at least double if not more immediately."

"I didn't know Medicare Part D was so popular with the left, after all this is a program created by George Bush, the evil ultimate conservative--and you wonder why conservatives don't consider him a conservative."

"It's a fundamental human right for people to keep what they earn, all of it, and only a slaver bent on restoring slavery would dare suggest otherwise."

Notice the deceiving viciousness of the monster, who would destroy our grandparents and parents, who would deny them a basic human right, who would deny them the right to life.

Notice the profanely monstrous way in which slavery is presented.

[Patricia Shannon]

BJ Feng says...

Patricia, are the numbers you posted about Georgia's eligibility requirements accurate? How much does it cost to rent an apartment, a single, in a poor neighborhood in Georgia? I don't see how anyone can quality in Georgia.

I gave you the web address of the official Georgia Medicaid site that has the eligibility requirements, which is were I copied those figures directly from. If you aren't capable of checking that out, no wonder you write such stupid things.

The price of a cheap 1-bedroom apartment is at least $600 a month, or at least is was a couple of years ago. I know because of my co-workers at Waffle House.

Why the heck do you think the southern states have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher homelessness, etc. I expect you don't even know those elementary facts. Why do you think there are people on disability because of cataracts, which can be treated. Why do you think there are a bunch of unrelated people living in apartments, which some people complain about.

How many elderly relatives are living with you? How much are you contributing to your mother and grandmother?

Are you autistic? What else explains why you think your comment would cause most people to think you are anything but a piece of sh*t.

[Patricia Shannon]

correction: It was at least $600 for a room in an extended stay motel. Most of my co-workers couldn't scrape up the money to pay a month's rent at one time, so paid weekly. We got paid weekly. I was almost the only one with a car. Sometimes someone would manage to save up enough money to buy a cheap used car for a few hundred dollars. They were so happy, thinking they would be able to find a better-paying since they had the means to get to it. They thought I paid too much money for my 1996 car, which I bought in 1999. But, of course, as I tried to tell them would happen, their cars quickly broke down, and they couldn't afford to get them fixed.

[Icarus]

Notice the active Zionism in these responeses. The lack of empathy or care for the suffering Palestinian victims of Israeli Zionist oppression. It's especially lamentable that people who claim to care for the weak in society should champion the cause of a colonizing force, such as the israeli nation.

Why is that? Why is Zionism so unquestionable within US political discourse. Even Obama can't come out, as most other nations and leaders have, and call out this continued colonization of Palestine...

Anne, you should use words like "anti-semitism" more judiciously. Anyone who criticizes israel is not anti-semetic (the term also has no real meaning)...We should have louder, more actionable movements against the israeli state, and lend our thoughts and prayers to the suffering Palestinians, who now live in refugee camps because of western imperialism, and indifference.

Shame on you Anne. You are a true monster.

[Icarus]

Patricia 2.10.

I have 2 elderly parents living with me. I, like any civilized person, have an obligation and duty beyond anything else, to make sure their lives are good. This is what family means. Perhaps you should teach Anne, and others, that looking after one's family is a moral duty.

If I expected the government to do that...I'd surely be a monster.

And, Patricia...here's an easy solution to the financial problem you alluded to above. Share an apartment. Simple. Share it. You need not spend $600/month. You can cut half of it quickly.

Is that really so tough?

And, we as a society expect that you can/should earn at least minimum wage. This would be at least $1000/month, and with rent at $300, you can live. It may not be the best life...but hey, your labor skills don't warrant anything more.

[anne]

"Notice the active ------- in these responeses."

Notice the vile anti-Semitism in these crazed attacks. A vile anti-Semitic monster bent on being vilely anti-Semitic. Crazed anti-Semitism beyond all control.

[Icarus]

And where is it written that medicare is a right? Some UN charter? A blog site? An academic paper? Where?

Our 'rights' prevent anyone from stopping our free market access to legal goods and services. No one can say "hey, you're brown, or a woman, or short...and hence, can't buy x or y". Rights are structured like that.

You don't have a 'right' to a sandwich, a lobotomy, or a hybrid car. Those aren't rights...those are necessities...and it's your job to afford them. Now stop whining that no one is taking care of your grandma, and go work, and earn something so you can finance their needs.

[Icarus]

Crazed Zionism has taken over. Notice the indifference to Palestinian suffering. How much longer do we have to breath in this noxious colonial mentality? Do the Palestinians not have 'rights' to decency? Monsters.

[Icarus]

http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/palestinian_suffering.htm

A good article on the suffering of Palestinians.

Notice that the supporters of US/Israeli domination will respond with "anti-semitism". It's a broken record they can't get beyond, which prevents any light being shed on one of the greatest atrocities of our times.

[anne]

"And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is pro-_______. Monster."

So it begins.

"Notice the active _______ in these responeses."

So it continues.

"Crazed _______ has taken over."

The point being anti-Semitic attacks for the sake of anti-Semitic attacks. Again and again and again.

[Icarus]

So predictable. So pathetic. And, Zionism = Racism.

Monsters.

[anne]

"And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is pro-_______. Monster."

So it begins.

"Notice the active _______ in these responeses."

So it continues.

"Crazed _______ has taken over."

Ao it continues.

"So predictable. So pathetic. And, _______ = Racism."

The point being anti-Semitic attacks for the sake of anti-Semitic attacks. Again and again and again and again.

[anne]

Correcting:

"And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is a pro-_______. Monster."

So it begins.

"Notice the active _______ in these responeses."

So it continues.

"Crazed _______ has taken over."

So it continues.

"So predictable. So pathetic. And, _______ = Racism."

The point being anti-Semitic attacks for the sake of anti-Semitic attacks. Again and again and again and again.

[Cyrille]

Oh come on Anne, resst it.
I have little (make that no) sympathy for Icarus or BJ Feng and their Randian mythology, but I don't think that even one of your posts starting with "notice the" has ever been useful, and my you do write a lot of them.

(on a side note, accusing anyone who protests at the actions of the state of Israel of anti-semitism is the mother of all non-sequiturs).

[Cyrille]

BJ, those numbers are not just low, they are unbelievably low.
Suppose you just fail to qualify, considering healthcare prices in USA, you only need to fall sick and you're broke.

Cattle would seem to get treated better...

[Icarus]

Cyrille,

Thanks for bringing a bit of open debate back into this forum.

I apologize if I did come across as childish, in my rants towards Anne's intolerance and blatant Zionism, but, it was a momentary lapse.

Question for you...why is relying, or arguing a notion of individual responsibility always charicaturized with the thoughts of Rand? (a 'philosopher' of poor legacy, I'd say, as there isn't much of a following, or influence, on contemporary debates).

The argument is that a trans-national world will have to adjust expectations, and that the Keynesian model of income distribution and public works are no longer applicable. We have too many migrants, and the hold of "nation" seems to be slipping away (and that may be a good thing).

We need to reset expectations, and people need to take care of their children, or not have them. I know that people will make mistakes, and civil society exists to ameliorate some of those effects. But, setting an expectation that you can have a child, and 'society' will finance it, is imprudent. Do we need to evoke Ayn Rand here?

[Icarus]

And Cyrille,

Let me ask you another question...Why do so many people immediately equate criticism of Israel, and its colonialist policies, with "anti-semitism"?

The Mearsheimer book last year saw similar vitriol, and dirty handed academic politics (aka the bandit dershowitz)...

Do we not live in a nation where we can expose our own complicity in effecting genocide?

Even Obama can't criticize israel. What gives?

[anne]

For some horridly vicious motive, I was suddenly attacked in anti-Semitic terms:

"And, medical care is not a 'right'. I'd think you'd know that by now.

"You're a monster too...one that throws tantrums and is a pro-_______. Monster."

So it began.

"Notice the active _______ in these responeses."

So it continued.

"Crazed _______ has taken over."

So it continued.

"So predictable. So pathetic. And, _______ = Racism."

So it continued.

"I apologize if I did come across as childish, in my rants towards ______ intolerance and blatant _______...."

So it continued.

The point being anti-Semitic attacks for the sake of anti-Semitic attacks. Again and again and again and again and again.