Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBPP statement on speech: "this plan is...significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:07 AM
Original message
CBPP statement on speech: "this plan is...significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan"


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3469

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

CBPP Statement: April 13, 2011
For Immediate Release
Statement: Robert Greenstein, President, on President Obama's Deficit-Reduction Plan

snip

The Presidents plan stands in sharp contrast to the budget plan that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled, and his committee approved, last week. Unlike the Ryan plan, the Presidents plan puts all parts of the budget on the table, including defense and revenues. Unlike the Ryan plan, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found would increase the costs of providing health care to Medicare beneficiaries, the Presidents plan contains measures to reduce these costs. CBO estimates that Chairman Ryans Medicare proposals would substantially raise overall costs per beneficiary. Ryans plan reduces federal Medicare expenditures only because it dramatically shifts more of these costs on to the backs of beneficiaries, who CBO says would see the amount they pay for health care more than double by 2022 (for people turning 65 in 2022 or subsequent years). In short, Ryans plan doesnt lower health costs; it shifts them. The Presidents plan, by contrast, seeks to reduce underlying health costs themselves.

Nevertheless, we have several significant concerns about the Presidents plan. First, like the plan of his fiscal commission (the Bowles-Simpson plan), the Presidents plan takes two-thirds of its deficit reduction from budget cuts and one-third from revenue increases. (This two-to-one split does not include the interest savings that the deficit reduction measures would generate; counting those savings, both the Obama and Bowles-Simpson plans would get three-quarters of their savings from spending reductions and one-quarter from increased revenues.) The deficit reduction plan issued last fall by a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and former Clinton White House Budget Office and CBO Director Alice Rivlin offered a more balanced approach with half of its deficit savings from budget cuts and half from revenue increases. Such a 50-50 split represents a fairer and more balanced approach.

Because the Obama plan relies on budget cuts for two-thirds of its deficit reduction measures, it goes dangerously far in two areas. It calls for $360 billion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The large budget-cut target for this part of the budget risks leading to substantial cuts in core programs for low-income Americans, our most vulnerable people. To the Presidents credit, his plan states that reforms to mandatory programs should protect and strengthen the safety net for low-income families and other vulnerable Americans. And the Bowles-Simpson plan enunciates the same basic principle. But to achieve $360 billion in savings in this part of the budget without cutting programs for low-income families and thereby increasing poverty and hardship will require very tough choices that entail confronting powerful special-interest lobbyists to a degree that neither party has proved capable of doing in the past.

snip

To be sure, the Presidents plan represents an important step forward in the debate. But it should be recognized that this plan is a rather conservative one, significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan. While we worry about some particular elements of the Presidents plan, we worry much more that the deficit-reduction process thats now starting could produce an outcome that is well to the right of the already centrist-to-moderately-conservative Obama proposal, by reducing its modest revenue increases and cutting more deeply into effective programs that are vital to millions of Americans.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed - the President's plan is certainly not the progressive counterbalance...
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:15 AM by polichick
...to the Ryan plan. We need a strong pull from the left during negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Rachel Maddow strongly disagrees:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Great clip from Rachel's show.
thanks for posting it!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. No problem! And here's Ed Schultz's praise of Obama's speech, too:
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:30 AM by jenmito
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I missed that. Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. My pleasure!
And thanks for that smiley! I never saw that before! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Rachel knows we need a strong pull from the left during negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Rachel disagrees with your opinion of Obama's speech. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. She thinks it's the "progressive counterbalance to Ryan's plan"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes-and more! Did you watch the video I linked to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I watched it last night - she said no such thing. You are confusing praise...
...of the speech (which I've also done) with claiming that it's the left-wing answer to Ryan's plan.

The prez' plan is centrist, not left - we still need Congressional progressives pulling from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. The cente ris to the left of Ryan's plan.
Start with Obama's, and try and pull the plan further left. But don't expect to get the Progressive Caucus' budget in full, not with this Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yes, Congressional progressives need to put their solutions on the table too...
Otherwise, the end deal will move toward Ryan's plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. No-the prez' speech was an attack on Ryan's plan,
and argued for liberal values. Rachel made it very clear that she felt that way, and as a liberal, was very pleased. Also, Ed Schultz said Obama's speech sounded like it could've been written by HIM (Ed)! Are you saying Ed would've laid out a centrist plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I agree that it was a good speech and it was a relief that the prez spoke about...
Democratic values. However, he's still embracing right-wing framing when he talks about cutting $3 for every dollar in revenue - the solutions need to be Democratic too. For instance, the left needs to put a carbon tax on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Hey Brent....I unrec'd so you wouldn't miss my regular unrecs.
I find the President's plan to be very progressive in lieu of the Congress we have that will try in every way shape or form to destroy US prosperity and people. I find that the writer is a bit near sided. Although he recognizes that Paul Ryan's plan is pure garbage. He doesn't realize the epic obstacle, called congress, that the President will have to face. It is a progressive bill and to say otherwise is BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Ditto! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. $3 of cuts for every dollar in revenue is hardly progressive...
If we don't put left-wing solutions on the table (like a carbon tax), negotiations can only move right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. This is BS
Here is what CBPP wrote about Rivlin-Domenici in November: Rivlin-Domenici Deficit Reduction Plan Is Superior to Bowles-Simpson in Most Areas

<...>

Through changes in the retirement age or the benefit formula, both plans would reduce basic Social Security benefits for future beneficiaries. Both plans also include an increase in the minimum benefit for long-time low-wage earners. But the more balanced approach in the Rivlin-Domenici plan allows them to propose smaller reductions for beneficiaries who are in the middle of the earnings spectrum. Under the Bowles-Simpson plan, the benefit in retirement for a person who has been a medium earner (someone earning about $43,000 in todays terms) would be cut by 15 percent below the currently scheduled amount in 2050. Under the Rivlin-Domenici plan, the reduction would be 9 percent. This difference is important because the benefits for middle earners are already modest just $1,397 a month ($16,764 a year) for a lifelong medium earner retiring at age 65 in 2010. This benefit is only about 55 percent above the poverty line and barely more than what researchers reckon is a no-frills, bare-bones budget for retirees. <9> The typical retiree does not have significant income from other sources.

<...>


Why would the CBPP push this plan as to the left of the President's proposal? Just because it's a balance between cuts and revenues doesn't mean it's to the left.

The Rivlin-Domenici Deficit Reduction Plan Is Not As Progressive As It Appears

Rivlin-Domenici panel: Tax cuts for rich, increased burden on lower, middle classes

Here is what the President proposed, from the WH Fact Sheet:

7. Social Security

The President does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near-term deficit problems or is currently in crisis. But he supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul, because its long-term challenges are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that it remains the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations. The President in the State of the Union laid out his principles for Social Security reform which he believes should form the basis for bipartisan negotiations that could proceed in parallel to deficit negotiations:

  • Strengthen retirement security for the low-income and vulnerable; maintain robust disability and survivors benefits.

  • No privatization or weakening of the Social Security system; reform must strengthen Social Security and restore long-term solvency.

  • No current beneficiary should see the basic benefit reduced; nor will we accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
<...>



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The CBPP should consider suing you for libel
Deliberate, grotesque misrepresentation by means of selective cut-and-pasting. Since, as the piece you linked to proves, the CBPP never endorsed the Rivlin-Domenici plan; they merely said it wasn't as bad as the Obama commission plan, nothing more.

Here's the actual title of that link...with the part you chopped out:



Rivlin-Domenici Deficit Reduction Plan Is Superior to Bowles-Simpson in Most Areas
But Health Proposal Is Very Troubling


More parts you deliberately left in order to hoodwink casual readers:



Unfortunately, in the remaining key area health care the Rivlin-Domenici provisions are actually more problematic than those in Bowles-Simpson. Both plans include proposals that could impair access to adequate health care for millions of lower-income and elderly people who rely on Medicare or Medicaid, or who will become eligible for premium subsidies under the health reform law.

...

Rivlin-Domenici Health Care Proposal Has Serious Shortcomings

Although superior in other areas, the Rivlin-Domenici proposal is even more troubling than the Bowles-Simpson plan with respect to health care. Rivlin and Domenici propose $756 billion in health care budget cuts over the next ten years. Included in their plan is a tax on sweetened beverages, whose consumption contributes significantly to obesity.<11> Setting aside this sound tax proposal, Rivlin and Domenici propose reducing health care spending by $600 billion over ten years considerably more than the $482 billion in reductions proposed by Bowles and Simpson. Three proposals, in particular, would likely result in harm to tens of millions of vulnerable Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

...

The bottom line is that it will be impossible to achieve the magnitude of savings in Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the Rivlin-Domenici task force (or by Bowles and Simpson) without doing serious harm to many of the most vulnerable people in the nation, unless the growth in private health spending (that is, in health care costs systemwide) also is slowed. This is a point that health care experts from across the political spectrum have made for some time.


So, as any fourth-grader can see, the CBPP said that both plans are terrible, and that one is more terrible than the other. If you have anything to retort, please tell it to the judge during the civil trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Ridiculous!
"Deliberate, grotesque misrepresentation by means of selective cut-and-pasting."

What does that have to do with CBPP's claim that a plan to cut Social Security benefits is far left of the President's proposal?

Also, from the OP article:

<...>

The deficit reduction plan issued last fall by a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and former Clinton White House Budget Office and CBO Director Alice Rivlin offered a more balanced approach with half of its deficit savings from budget cuts and half from revenue increases. Such a 50-50 split represents a fairer and more balanced approach.

<...>


Balanced is cutting benefits?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
22. Your consistent passion knows no bounds!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC