The Blame Game

[Dave Roberts]

Yesterday, the Super Committee of Congress announced their failure to reach any agreement on cuts or revenue increases to begin to move toward balancing this country's budget. The Republicans are blaming the Democrats for wanting more money, and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for refusing the allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. I'm sitting here thinking that both sides are saying they will do nothing until after next year's election. Who in this is looking out for the good of the country?

I want to ask, what is so hard about raising the retirement age for full Social Security to 68 by 2020? Why not include all wages in Social Security, not just the first $106,000? Why not admit we have military bases in this country that are underused and do not need to exist and consolidate the system of training and deployments? Why not admit that some of our social programs have furnished subsidies for people who no longer need them? Why not admit we are producing a society where the values of work are no longer touted and in which we need to retool for a global economy? Why not stiffen what we teach in our schools so that Johnny and Susie are prepared to compete in math and science with Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian students? Why not sit down and pass a true federal budget, not just keep the country operating at the same levels on continuing resolutions? When did we actually have our last full-blown federal budget? It seems to me that we are missing the boat in the name of electoral politics. I don't believe our country can wait until 2013 to begin addressing our challenges while we have government by gridlock.

[Neil Heath]

Well said, Dave. All good questions not likely to be answered by the current Congress.

[KeithE]

I think that the Republicans want gridlock and see it as talking point for 2012. I am tempted to say the same thing thing about the Dems, but the reactions of Murray and Kerry and Obama belie that.

I would add to Dave's list:
What is wrong with eliminating subsidies (>$10B/year) to industries that make more profit a quarter than that (e.g. Exxon-Mobile)
What is wrong with increasing capital gains taxes back to 35% marginally to the 0.1% who merely invest (not make any tangible goods) yet receive 60% of investment gains.
What is wrong with beheading Grover Norquist?

[Rock]

Good Questions. One wonders what could be done in this nation if the good of the nation was given priority over getting elected or re-elected.

[Tim Bonney]

[Hal Eaton]

Sez KeithE: What is wrong with beheading Grover Norquist?

Answer: 'Twould make him a martyr, and promote further inconsistent, universal, simplistic pledge-type movements.

Grover's latest publicity-garnering ploy: He claims to have approached Warren Buffet and suggested that, instead of getting millionaires to join together is backing higher taxes, that he simply write a check to the IRS for his share of the goal. (That is like telling a victim of the Texas drought to drink less water . . .)

Buffet, of course, refused, recognizing that his individual action would be worthless without the cooperation of many others . . .

In typical fashion, Norquist's kindergarten claims to fame are ill-advised, spotlight-hugging self-promotions; the public good is ignored; he offers solutions for small problems by creating larger ones.

Shame on him, and on those who follow his bidding.

[Chris]

[Dave Roberts]

My list was by no means exhaustive but merely suggestive of some of the ways the Super Committee could have found some ways to resolve part of the debt crisis instead of helping to put the stock market and 401k's and 403b's into another tailspin. We seem bent on destroying good things just to get our way.