Happy 78th birthday, Elvis! As for the rest of you, here are the headlines:
- 2012 Was by Far the Hottest Year on Record for Most of U.S. (NYT) — Yeah, but were those other places Famously Hot?
- United Finds Dreamliner Wiring Issue (WSJ) — It was kind of weird how this morning, when I was reading about the Dreamliner fire all over national media, I didn’t find anything on SC news sites (that is, not on my phone apps, anyway). You know, since we make them here.This story is leading the WSJ site as I type this.
- UN unable to deliver food aid to 1 million Syrians (The Guardian) — I’m starting to get Somalia flashbacks here…
- Hugo Chavez to miss swearing-in (BBC) — OK, people seriously — is the guy even alive?
- Sheheen urges SC House, Senate to apologize for hacking (thestate.com) — Office of Gov. Nikki “We Did Nothing Wrong” Haley criticizes him for it.
- Graham: will not “cave” on debt ceiling debate (thestate.com) — This was at a Columbia press conference. I didn’t go, since it was about this and not something that interested me more, such as the Hagel nomination. I mean, this is about money or something, right?
Related Posts
Same old Vincent “Vote For Me Because I’m Not Her” Sheheen. Luckily he’s never been in any position to do anything in the state government that would require an apology. No guts, no glory, no apologies.
Honestly with the several MILES of cable on the Dreamliner this isn’t a big shock. Boeing is new to Charleston so the technicians are probably new too. Its really easy for junk like this to happen.
Its not acceptable but hardly unexpected.
As for Graham I am bored with the brinksmanship . They are going to pay eventually. They will get a hoo hum deal since likely the republicans will wait till the last minute.
I wish they would just come out with a plan for spending cuts now. Don’t wait till the last minute then complain because the President does cave immediately.
The hottest year story is interesting in that the news media and the presidential campaign barely mentioned it. This could be the biggest issue of our time yet it gets so little attention. Perhaps because we’re at a point where the solution is just to enormous to actually achieve politically. The media ignores it because it’s still somewhat of a long-term story that the short-news-cycle media just can’t make it into a ratings success. Still, this is something we should talk about and not merely shove under the rug.
Actually, Bud, the hottest year story was leading on both the NYT and Washington Post sites when I saw it.
Good. Perhaps it will get the attention it deserves. On the other hand, the NYT is generally not a great predictor of what congress is thinking about.
The debt ceiling issue has an interesting subplot – the trillion dollar coin. In theory the Treasury could simply mint a $trillion coin and deposit it in it’s account at the Federal Reserve. That would provide the funds to pay our debts. Obama is very unlikely to use such a bizzare tactic but it seems like a pretty useful strategy to use as a threat. I would suggest to Graham and the others in the GOP that they simply offer SPECIFIC spending cuts NOW in order to get the talks moving in a concrete, discernable manner. Until those SPECIFICS are spelled out the GOP is merely posturing. In the meantime we can have a debate as to whose face should be displayed on the trillion dollar coin.
The “Trillion Dollar Coin” isn’t really worse than what the Treasury/Federal Reserve are already doing – monetizing the debt. Ultimately the cost will be inflation and a weaker dollar.
Maybe when my great grandchildren are old we’ll see the spectre of high inflation that conservatives continue to warn us about. In the meantime inflation and interest rates remain low and the dollar strong.
” I would suggest to Graham and the others in the GOP that they simply offer SPECIFIC spending cuts NOW in order to get the talks moving in a concrete, discernable manner. ”
Right.. that’s how it will play out. Republicans will offer spending cuts, Democrats will scratch their collective chins and say, “Why, that sounds like a reasonable starting point. Let us go back and ponder your thoughtful ideas and we will come back to you shortly with our compromise”. Welcome to Dreamland.
Here’s how it would go: Republicans suggest cutting Social Security by 0.00001%. Immediately, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi scream about Republicans wanting to kill grandmothers. Rachel Maddow snarkily blames Republicans for famine across America. Al Sharpton and Jim Clyburn will say it’s a veiled attack on African Americans. The White House releases a statement saying that Obama’s mandate in November means he doesn’t have to accept such draconian cuts to the safety net.
I think it’s time for Democrats to put the cuts on the table first.
And by cuts, I mean cuts. Not reductions in growth.
“I think it’s time for Democrats to put the cuts on the table first. ”
They wont though. There is no political gain in that. What has the left to gain by suggesting cuts when they know that the house will be held responsible if they don’t raise the debt ceiling?
The president knows that he can basically sit back and watch the house Republicans tear itself apart.
Its bad for the country I realize but if preserving and building political capital is your only goal its the smart play.
Yes. If you follow the scenario Doug suggests, it goes like this:
REPUBLICANS: “We must have spending cuts!”
DEMOCRATS: “OK, what do you want to cut?”
REPUBLICANS: “Oh, no! We’re not stepping into THAT trap! YOU suggest the cuts!”
DEMOCRATS: “Are you nuts? We don’t even want any cuts! We’re not offering ways to do something we don’t want to do.”
REPUBLICANS: “All right, then! There won’t BE any cuts.”
DEMOCRATS: “Fine, if that’s the way you want it.”
REPUBLICANS: “But that’s NOT the way we want it! This is bad, and it’s YOUR fault!”
DEMOCRATS: “No, it’s isn’t — it’s YOUR fault!”
REPUBLICANS: “No, it’s YOURS!”
… and so forth, ad infinitum.
Pretty much.
Here is what gets me. Democrats aren’t afraid to prove the worth of their new programs and new cost. The burden is on the party that is justifying the expenditure to prove its worth to the majority.
The right should be held to that same standard.
What gets me is they should EMBRACE that fight. Cutting spending is in the Republicans wheelhouse.
Get some modicum of a consensus. Bring it to the other side and to the American public.
So what backs up the trillion dollar coin? As a debtor, I’d only accept it if it was backed up in gold or real estate. When they cash it in, can they redeem it for say… Hawaii or Nebraska?
If it’s only backed up by faith and Obama’s word… get ready for the $100 trillion bill like they have in Zimbabwe, where a loaf of bread costs $300 billion.
http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/01/zimbabwe-introduces-100-trillion-dollar.html
Just for fun, if you have time today or this evening, you should read “The £1,000,000 Bank-Note” by Mark Twain. It’s one of my favorites among his short stories.
And even if you haven’t read it before, the story will be familiar. The writers of “Trading Places” basically combined that plot and the plot of Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper, added Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd, and presto, a comedy classic.
In “The £1,000,000 Bank-Note,” two rich guys make a bet between themselves over what will happen to a poor man if they make him suddenly rich. Sound familiar?
Note that I’m avoiding using the “reply” button to answer Doug’s last comment.
Why is it Democrats’ turn to suggest cuts? They’re not the ones asking for them. By giving Republicans an excuse not to suggest cuts themselves you’re just offering yet another excuse for nothing to get done.
If you want cuts, say what you want to cut. If you want tax increases, say which taxes you want to increase and by how much. It’s the height of absurdity for a party to stamp its foot and demand cuts, then demand the other party come up with them.
Here’s how easy it is: I want to save Social Security. I don’t say “SOMEBODY out there should suggest some cuts or tax increases to make it happen; it would be mean to make me do it.”
No, I go ahead and say: “We need more revenue, and a cutback in benefits. So eliminate the payroll tax cap, and gradually increase the retirement age to 68 between now and 2028. That will more than solve our Social Security problem, and make sure the benefits are available to future generations.”
See? Was that so hard?
“Why is it Democrats’ turn to suggest cuts? ”
Because we have finished with the revenue side of the equation already, right? and Obama “won”.
So now Democrats have to make a decision. Are they interested in cutting the deficit and reducing the debt or not? If you support cutting the deficit and you aren’t going to get any more taxes through, well, there’s only one option left. Cuts.
As for your Social Security solution, why don’t we just raise the tax on EVERYBODY instead of the “rich”? Your solution doesn’t cost you much does it? Will you absorb the extra $X thousand dollars I would be on the hook for as a self-employed person?
And is that your idea of compromise? Starting with something that doesn’t impact you seems like the Democrat approach. What’s in it for those who make more than the current maximum?
Here’s my solution: cut foreign aid and defense spending and shift that money to social programs.
Also, Obama PROMISED he would not raise taxes on families making over $250K. Eliminating the cap on Social Security would be a huge tax increase for everyone making over $110K. That would make him a liar. So maybe you have a cap at $110K and another at $250K. I’m okay with that.
Actually, I’m not “raising a tax” on anyone. I’m just eliminating a tax break that only upper-income people enjoy.
Get rid of the cap, and higher-income people would simply be paying the same rate on all of their income that lower-income people pay on all of their income. Everybody, and all income, would be treated the same, for a change.
You are raising the taxes paid by individuals. Saying the rate stays the same is pure semantics. Why don’t we lower the income tax bracket where the highest rates are paid? People would still be paying the same rate, right? Let’s have one bracket and one rate for income tax. That makes sense, right? Will you support a flat tax?
We should also eliminate the cap on car sales tax too, right?
Also, you understand if you eliminate the cap, you must also raise the amount that those rich recipients will get back when they retire. The more you put in, the more you are supposed to get out. Or are you expecting to just take those extra dollars and redistribute them without any benefit to those who pay in? Then it wouldn’t just be a tax increase it would also become a welfare system.
How about we apply the personal portion of FICA to dividend income? That would raise a lot of money from the truly rich.
Absolutely. On the car tax. As I’ve written repeatedly over the course of more than 20 years.
But no on the flat tax. Income taxes should be progressive.
And absolutely on the benefits for the higher-income people. If you pay more in, of course you should get more out, according to the same formulas.
But I see no need to tax capital gains for Social Security. Eliminating the cap on paychecks takes care of the revenue problem, while at the same time eliminating a cap that makes no sense.
So why not have a flat tax rate for everyone who makes $1000 or $1billion? Kill the cap on Social Security but cap the retirement benefit to $50,000/yr. Reduce unemployment compensation to 1 year unless the person has enrolled college or a trade school, then cap it at two years total. Kill 90% of foreign aid, you build schools for 3rd world countries when you have schools that look like they’re in a 3rd world country within your borders. Cap the family amount of total “welfare”benefits to $1500/month regardless of the size of the family. Social programs and pet projects are eliminated until a balanced budget can be established. Funding museums, festivals, arts programs aren’t necessary to run a government.
Stop the handouts… there was a time when people who got hungry went to work no matter what the job was. Today, those same people go stand in government lines expecting to be handed money. It’s no wonder we’re the fattest and laziest country in the world… or maybe it’s just a glandular problem epidemic.
Doug the whole point of having a congress is to present a plan with which to use as a starting point for negotiations. The GOP has failed to present any sort of plan other than to say Obama should lead on the spending cuts side of the equation. But he is leading by offering a plan with no cuts (or rather modest cuts). The GOP then comes back with a plan to … well actually they haven’t come out with a plan. Until they do then there is nothing to bargain over. It’s sort of like if you’re buying a car and you offer $5000 for it and the seller says “the buyer should lead”. When the buyer suggests the seller should make a counter offer, the seller says “I’m selling the car it’s up to the buyer to lead. The buyer then says $4900. The seller says, that’s a joke, the buyer should lead. And so it goes. The GOP has simply not offered anything other than to suggest the president lead. What that really means is the GOP wants the president to not only capitulate but to spell out suitable terms for the capitulation.
No wonder Congress has a lower approval rating than cockroaches. Given that cockroaches have been around for millions of years let’s hope that doesn’t set a precident for a GOP controlled congress.
bud – There was Simpson Bowles, there was sequestration… there have been many attempts to suggest spending cuts. Democrats won’t support any of them.
OK, we’ve found the limit on the “reply” feature. As you can see on this comment, it stops at the fifth level of “replies.”
I am confident that we will not see an increase in the Social Security maximum for one reason: it would hit the wallets of the politicians who vote for it.
Think about the unintended consequences of your tax increase. Say someone makes $150,000 a year. That extra $5K would have gone to pay for things like restaurant meals, travel, jewelry, any number of non-essential items. Businesses that rely on those discretionary dollars would be impacted.
Ask Vincent Sheheen if he’s on board with paying an extra $30K a year. I think he’s in the $400-450K a year bracket.
I will, next time I see him. I think he would be. Can’t guarantee it, though, until I ask him.
If he’s like most politicians, he’ll tell you what you want to hear. The truth only comes out when it’s time to vote. Unless you’re one of those people who actually believes anything career politicians say.