If nothing else, the Republicans’ hostage taking over the U.S. debt ceiling is full of ironies. After all, Republicans voted seven times to boost the borrowing limit and double the national debt under George W. Bush. The biggest deficit drivers going forward - the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and the Medicare prescription drug plan – all enjoyed GOP support. And as it turns out, simply by doing nothing and leaving current laws (most of all, the 2013 expiration of those Bush tax cuts) on the books, annual deficits will disappear well before 2020. Regardless, despite all their grandstanding, every GOP budget proposal, including the draconian Paul Ryan spending cuts backed by 98% of Congressional Republicans, will require the United States to raise the debt ceiling repeatedly in the years to come.
All of which means that the GOP’s threats of national economic suicide over the looming August 2 default deadline are about slashing government spending and gutting the social safety net.
Appearing on the Charlie Rose show, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn provided a case in point. Coburn, as you may recall, walked out on the so-called Gang of Six deficit negotiations. At a time when the federal tax burden is at its lowest since 1950, Coburn like his GOP colleagues refused to countenance raising new tax revenue. And when fellow Gangsta Dick Durbin balked at Coburn’s demand to slash another $150 billion from Medicare on top of the $400 billion pledged by President Obama, Coburn stormed out.
Now, Coburn is back, pushing his plan co-authored by Joe Lieberman to drain $600 billion from Medicare over the next decade. Those savings come from raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, means-testing wealthier beneficiaries, adding new co-pays and a $550 deductible, and instituting a new $7,500 maximum for “out of pocket” expenses. On Monday, Dr. Coburn tried to explain why his plan is necessary:
ROSE: You resigned from the Gang of Six because there was an impasse. What happened?
COBURN: Well, look, the whole purpose for bringing three on each side together was to actually come up with a plan that we could sell to an equal number of Senators on each side that would actually fix the problem. And we got to a point where we could not get to a point at which we could actually fix the problem…
ROSE: In the end are we talking about Medicare?
COBURN: We're talking about Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. A lot of people want to discount Social Security, but we're going to have to borrow $2.6 trillion to fund Social Security over the next thirty years. And that's what we've stolen from it and spent on other things.
And even if you have all that money and even if you have the capability of borrowing it, which I doubt seriously we have the capability to borrow right now, even if you've done that you still have to reform it because our life expectancy has gotten longer and the number of people supporting each person on Social Security has gotten much smaller. And so it doesn't work.
There are so many problems with Coburn’s sales job, it’s hard to know where to begin.
For openers, it’s worth noting that since its inception in 1965, Medicare has been the major factor in the dramatic reduction of poverty among the elderly. But raising the eligibility for Medicare threatens to reverse some of those gains. For starters, life expectancy varies significantly by income, by geography and for minorities. Worse still, as the Incidental Economist noted in a review of studies of the topic, “Those without insurance prior to Medicare eligibility spent much more money on health care after they became Medicare eligible. In other words, people wait to get care until their Medicare kicks in. This is bad both for health and for the federal government’s bottom line.”
And the federal government’s bottom line will be impacted for another reason: private insurance simply costs more. As Paul Krugman lamented in reviewing the Coburn-Lieberman proposal:
The idea of Medicare as a money-saving program may seem hard to grasp. After all, hasn’t Medicare spending risen dramatically over time? Yes, it has: adjusting for overall inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose more than 400 percent from 1969 to 2009.
But inflation-adjusted premiums on private health insurance rose more than 700 percent over the same period. So while it’s true that Medicare has done an inadequate job of controlling costs, the private sector has done much worse. And if we deny Medicare to 65- and 66-year-olds, we’ll be forcing them to get private insurance — if they can — that will cost much more than it would have cost to provide the same coverage through Medicare.
(It’s worth noting that Coburn’s plan is only made possible by the Affordable Care Act, which makes it possible for older Americans to qualify for and afford private health insurance.)
Sadly for Coburn, the math and the market belie his assertions regarding the Social Security trust fund.
As the continued low rates on U.S. Treasuries reflect, Coburn is wrong that “I doubt seriously we have the capability to borrow right now.” And as Krugman again explains, “Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that [budget] crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.”
But those who insist that we face a Social Security crisis want to have it both ways. Having invoked the concept of a unified budget to reject the existence of a trust fund, they refuse to accept the implications of that unified budget going forward. Instead, having changed the rules to make the trust fund meaningless, they want to change the rules back around 15 years from now: today, when the payroll tax takes in more revenue than SS benefits, they say that’s meaningless, but when – in 2018 or later – benefits start to exceed the payroll tax, why, that’s a crisis. Huh?
I don’t know why this contradiction is so hard to understand, except to echo Upton Sinclair: it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary (or, in the current situation, his membership in the political club) depends on his not understanding it.
That describes Tom Coburn and his Republican Party perfectly. As Nancy Pelosi concluded in rejecting the Coburn-Lieberman plan, “It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare — all while Republicans back tax breaks for big oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas.”
The fire sale has started early in New York. Looking to move Francisco Rodriguez before his $17.5 million option kicks in, K-Rod has been traded to the Brewers, according to Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman. The Mets will also send along some money to help pay him. In exchange, the Brewers will send a pair of players to be named later
If K-Rod were to finish out 55 games for the season, the option would automatically kick in. Just over halfway through the season, he’s already finished 34 games, needing just 21 before his guaranteed payday.
On the part of the Brewers, they’ve acquired a great relief pitcher. His ERA is a less than impressive 3.14, but over his career he’s proved than he has the stuff to be the best in baseball. In 2008 he was absolutely unstoppable, recording a record 62 saves for the Angels.
The Mets really didn’t get much back for him. Players to be named later are usually not high-ranking prospects. They’re also sending along money to the Brewers. Evidently, it was a salary dump move, and the Mets did not want to take a chance on being stuck with the $17.5 million option.
K Rod was adamant in wanting to remain a closer, and would have rejected a deal to be the setup man for any of the 10 unknown teams in his no-trade clause. It is yet unknown exactly whether the Brewers were on that list, and where he will pencil in for the Brewers. In the best-case scenario, this is how they’ll use their bullpen.
The Brewers already have John Axford as their closer. The 28-year-old has saved 23 games and posted a 2.83 ERA. He has a better ERA, better strikeout-to-walk ratio and better strikeouts per nine innings ratio than K Rod. Simply put, this season he’s been a better closer. K Rod should be his setup man.
Perhaps more importantly is the looming option for K Rod. If he were to finish off 21 more games, he would get his $17.5 million next season. But using him as a setup man will not trigger that option, and allow the Brewers to use him as a half-season rental.
This move shows the Brewers are serious about making a run at the postseason. It’s widely speculated they won’t be able to retain Prince Fielder, but they certainly have a team which could carry them deep into the playoffs. K-Rod would be their second trade for a top-line pitcher this year, having acquired former AL Cy Young pitcher Zach Greinke from the Royals during the offseason.
Suddenly, the Brewers are back to being the favorite team in the NL Central.
Trade season has just begun, and teams still have until July 31 to acquire players via trade without exposing them to the waiver wire. There’s still plenty of time for the rest of the Central to answer back with moves of their own.
Still, this move proves two things. One, the Mets are in straight sell mode, and won’t be making a serious run at the wild card. Two, the Brewers are making a big run at the postseason, and this move won’t even prevent them from future deals.
It’s going to be a fun summer in Wisconsin.
surface encounters reviews url
surface encounters reviews url surface encounters reviews url
surface encounters review surl
surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints
surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints
surface encounters macomb mi surface encounters macomb mi
surface encounters macomb mi <surface encounters macomb mi
surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops
surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops
surface encounters mi surface encounters mi
surface encounters mi surface encounters mi
surface encounters quality marbl... surface encounters quality marbl...
surface encounters quality marbl...
surface encounters quality marbl... surface encounters.
No comments:
Post a Comment