I posted and distributed my commentary "The Deficit Reduction Committee"
on November 28, 2011 and "The Deficit Reduction Committee II"
on December 4, 2011. I received comments on both and would like to take this
opportunity to share them with you. On the first of the two posts:
Ernest
Hauser of the Bronx, NY responded to the following observation, which I made:
So we have ended up with $1.2 trillion cuts going
into effect beginning in 2013. $600 billion of that will be in defense spending
which is in addition to a cut of $450 billion previously agreed to. Not the
worst of all possible outcomes, and in 2013 the Bush tax cuts will expire. No
Congressional action is needed. Beginning in 2013 the deficit will be reduced
over the following ten years by 6.1 trillion. The hammer of using the deficit
to justify attacks on needed spending will be gone. Not bad negotiating by our
President.
with:
I don't think for one minute that the Republicans having bet and lost will let things go; they are already planning to cut the defense dept budget out of the deal. The generals are planning to cut the medical benefits for dependents and retirees rather then losing one planned multi-billion $ carrier or another new plane.
To which I replied:
They can plan all
they want, but executing is another matter.
As
far taking defense cuts out of the deal, the President has already said he will
veto it if they get through both Houses of Congress, with a 60 vote threshold
in the Senate. As for the generals they don't run the defense establishment.
The President as Commander in Chief does.
As for medical benefits for military retirees, see the observations of
Albert Nekimken below.
Republicans
have boxed themselves into a corner and have been outwitted by Obama.
Albert
Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia added this observation:
Bravo on a well-written and well-conceived comment.
I would add the reminder that Robert Gates also told congress before he departed that the uncontrolled growth of health care (and pension?) costs for the military was unsustainable and must be reformed. (Which without having seen Hauser’s comment appears to be a rejoinder to it)
On the point of what the correct size and scope of the U.S. military establishment ought to be there is clearly a large gap between the views of Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans believe fervently that the U.S. (apparently due to its Christian, moral superiority and exceptional mission in the world) must retain the ability to dominate the world everywhere by force of arms, while Democrats believe that the U.S. is, and should be, only one of many major players in world events. Further, Democrats see attempts by Americans to assure military domination as counter-productive. By coincidence, the primary beneficiaries of the Republican view are defense contractors
And, as we know, one of the largest contributors to the general federal deficit is Medicare and Medicaid. All evidence accumulated to date corroborates that the problem is a lack of control on the "spending" side of the system and the primary causes are an open checkbook to vendors of medical supplies and services, excluding doctors who have already been squeezed hard by prior reforms. To my mind, this forces us to reconsider either a single-payer federal health care system for all citizens, civilian, military and members of congress, or a system of private health insurance that is highly regulated by the federal government as are utilities with limits on profit margin and controls on prices as well as coverage. As an aside, the "individual mandate" idea was ill-conceived from the beginning. National healthcare needs a dedicated source of revenue such as general tax receipts or a national sales tax on all goods and services.
Regarding your criticism of the media for not doing their job, I disagree insofar as we do want news reporters to maintain a line between factual journalism and comment, or other editorial analysis. Your real criticism seems not that the facts are not being made available, but that the analysts have been prostituted into eviscerating their own logical conclusions.
Overall, I think your views of the consequences of the failure of the supercommittee are accurate.
I did not respond to
the observations on Health Care, but I disagree, and will address this subject
at a later time, when the subject is Reform of our Health Care System.
On the second of my
two posts Robert Malchman responded to my analysis of a Krauthammer column with:
Does anyone who doesn't believe in Fox News-eque fairy tales, lies and manipulations take Charles Krautkopf -- excuse me, Krauthammer -- seriously? Debunking Krauthammer is like debunking Santa Claus, if instead of a merry, gift-giving elf, Santa were a bitter, miserly troll. I can see taking on politicians who at least have some influence, even nutjobs like Herman Cain because his 9-9-9 plan needed a response like the 4.5-4.5-4.5 one you provided. But using your skills on someone like Klownhammer is like using a flamethrower on a strawman.
To which I issued the following
challenge:
Who
do you think would be a worthy columnist for a critical analysis of their
views? If you would like, nominate someone, and if you are so inclined, I would
be happy to have you suggest a particular column for dissection. Would George
Will be better? Ann Coulter? Bill Kristol? You name it!
Malchman retorted:
Will and Kristol are at least serious people. Coulter is a self-promoter who believes in nothing but her own self-aggrandizement; her goal is simply to shock and to draw attention to herself, so the best thing one can do is to ignore her. (Did you know she was two years ahead of me in law school? I only knew her by sight, but she did not have the reputation for being insane yet, only a Federalist Society-style conservative; that's what leads me to believe her public persona is an act.)
To which I repeated
my challenge by saying:
I await your nomination. Hopefully, a
specific column, but if that is asking too much, your choice of a columnist and
I will look for a column. There is no rush. Give it some thought and find a
column that would be a challenge.
No specific nomination came, but I am
considering a column by Ross Douthat
entitled: “An Argument Against Redistribution," which has more meat to it, for rebuttal.
With the holidays fast approaching I will take a sabbatical until after the New Year has rung in. Until then חנוכה שמח, Joyeux Noël and Feliz Año Nuevo or Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment