Talkin’ Budgets on the Newshour

April 11th, 2013 at 9:56 pm

A rousing debate on the social insurance cuts proposed by the President.  One thing: the clock ran out as Joe Antos and I were squabbling about whether cuts to Medicare, largely on the delivery side–bundled payments, bargaining for lower drug costs, etc.–were in the President’s budget.  I  said yes, he said no.  I still say yes.  See section starting on page 37, though you might want to climb into bed first because this stuff can be a touch soporific.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments in reply to "Talkin’ Budgets on the Newshour"

  1. Perplexed says:

    Nice job on D! You’re getting pretty solid back there in the sweeper position.

    I must admit I was pretty skeptical at first, but this just might work. There’s no way they’ll come up with the revenue so it won’t get implemented, and there’s already lots of great campaign footage from Ryan, Boehner & Cantor about how it just doesn’t go far enough. It’ll be great to watch them trying to squirm there way out of it. So lets see, so far they’ve pushed away African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBT Americans, and now they’re going after seniors. Some pretty solid strategic thinking going on there!

  2. Bart says:

    One of you two bookends to the smiley guy in the middle should have come up with percentages of seniors who rely on SS as major source of retirement income, and that the chained CPI would be a 3% cut after 10 years of retirement.

    Also stress that SS in not a problem. You let smiley say “We can’t wait 20 years to fix it”

  3. Fred Donaldson says:

    Watched the PBS panel, and wonder how you justify not using chained cpi for all means-tested (welfare) programs, including SSI, SNAP, etc., or not all for anyone, because under this budget so-called means-tested program benefits will grow more than earned benefits?

    In fact, the people who worked hard, earned the most, will get an even smaller percentage of benefits than under today’s regressive Soc Sec formula. Chained CPI for seniors and veterans and current cpi for Medicaid and food stamps – sounds like a good way to promote economic warfare between the middle class and the lower class.

    Protecting the poorest by reducing benefits for those just above the poorest (and not the richest, who pay virtually nothing in FICA as a percent on earnings) once again sounds like the serfs bearing the total burden of welfare.

    Statistics are fine in the thin air of D.C., but in the real world it is not the American dream to chisel someone with a benefit of say $1,800 a month, to increase the benefit of someone getting $900 a month.

    Can’t we pay for welfare out of general funds, gathered from all taxpayers, and stop this continuous stalking of the middle class and squeezing that stone until it bleeds?