The Inconsistency in the Tea Party

In the Ft. Walton newspaer Saturday, Henry Kelly, president of the FWB Tea Party said, "Politicians must consider cutting Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending...if we don't, we are just playing with the light switches.Geoff Ross, presient of the Emerald Coast Teas Party Patriots said he "would like the government to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, and the National Endowments for the HUmanities, among other programs. However, he feels defense spending should be increased."

This is a fairly good representation of the Tea Party, is it not? Abolish Medicare, and increase defense spending? Seriously?

In the Ft. Walton newspaer Saturday, Henry Kelly, president of the FWB Tea Party said, "Politicians must consider cutting Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending...if we don't, we are just playing with the light switches.Geoff Ross, presient of the Emerald Coast Teas Party Patriots said he "would like the government to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, and the National Endowments for the HUmanities, among other programs. However, he feels defense spending should be increased."

This is a fairly good representation of the Tea Party, is it not? Abolish Medicare, and increase defense spending? Seriously?

It goes without saying that the teabaggers are no good for society. Their message all along has been open your mouth, close your eyes, and you'll be in for a big surprise. Not all of us were surprised and we knew enough not to bite.

Fiscal Conservatives.... why keep responding. They aren't listening. The disease has overtaken their brain. Insanity is due to set in. This is what i meant by things are just getting started.

In the Ft. Walton newspaer Saturday, Henry Kelly, president of the FWB Tea Party said, "Politicians must consider cutting Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending...if we don't, we are just playing with the light switches.Geoff Ross, presient of the Emerald Coast Teas Party Patriots said he "would like the government to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, and the National Endowments for the HUmanities, among other programs. However, he feels defense spending should be increased."

This is a fairly good representation of the Tea Party, is it not? Abolish Medicare, and increase defense spending? Seriously?

.
I watched Meet the Press this morning w/David Gregory - interview was with SC Senator Jim DeMint, a major leader for the Tea Party and he indicated that Social Security was not on the table for cuts. hmmm? guess we'll see how this shakes out.

Gregory: ... do you think the American people have to be prepared for sacrifice? Which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15 percent that's nondiscretionary, or that's real--nondefense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts?


DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.

Gregory: So you're saying that everything has to be on the table--cuts in defense, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Social Security. Is that right?

SEN. DeMINT: Well, no, we're not talking about cuts in Social Security. If we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level. So before we start cutting--I mean, we need to keep our promises to seniors, David, and cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table.




.

.
Rand Paul does get more specific than DeMint in his interview with Christine Amanpour on This Week - it is in the second part of video clip.

Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) struggled on Sunday to actually name any specific cuts they plan on making.

On ABC's "This Week," Christiane Amanpour repeatedly pressed Paul to move beyond "slogans and platitudes" to "direct information" on how the Republican Party will balance the budget and cut the deficit.

Paul immediately reiterated that he was going to push for a balanced budget amendment and said that cuts needed to come from across the board -- including defense spending. Whenever Amanpour asked whether a specific program -- such as Medicare, Social Security and health care -- would be cut, Paul simply kept reiterating that he was going to be looking "across the board." He was unable, however, to actually name anything significant that would be on the chopping block:

Tea Party Favorites Rand Paul & Jim DeMint Struggle To Name Specific Budget Cuts (VIDEO)


.

.
Rand Paul does get more specific than DeMint in his interview with Christine Amanpour on This Week - it is in the second part of video clip.

Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) struggled on Sunday to actually name any specific cuts they plan on making.

On ABC's "This Week," Christiane Amanpour repeatedly pressed Paul to move beyond "slogans and platitudes" to "direct information" on how the Republican Party will balance the budget and cut the deficit.

Paul immediately reiterated that he was going to push for a balanced budget amendment and said that cuts needed to come from across the board -- including defense spending. Whenever Amanpour asked whether a specific program -- such as Medicare, Social Security and health care -- would be cut, Paul simply kept reiterating that he was going to be looking "across the board." He was unable, however, to actually name anything significant that would be on the chopping block:

Tea Party Favorites Rand Paul & Jim DeMint Struggle To Name Specific Budget Cuts (VIDEO)


.

All this tap-dancing is hurting my head. What is so hard about budgeting every single item on the budget about 2% less than they got last year? I don't see why spreading the pain evenly is such a strange concept? Of course, slashing defense a significant amount is an impossibility, but surely just not increasing the budget every year is possible.

Gregory: ... do you think the American people have to be prepared for sacrifice? Which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15 percent that's nondiscretionary, or that's real--nondefense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts?


DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Security does not add one penny to the current deficit.

Social Security can be remedied with relatively minor tweaks.

Medicare (aka Obamacare for old folks) is more troublesome.

Hi Andy:

You wrote, " The top 5% already pay 95% of them, or close to it. When are we going to get an income tax system where everyone pays something on what they earn?"

A. The Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data cites the tax burden of the top 5% at 60%. Close is when your football team loses by three points in overtime.

B. Your much repeated talking point ignores Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, property, use, and transfer taxes. If you don't figure those...

For the record. Peter Peterson - a hero of mine, vilified by liberal critics-labels Social Security as a transfer from lower middle class workers to upper middle class workers.

The current tax code is an abomination but we need to deal with facts and get away from bumper sticker talking points.

Gregory: ... do you think the American people have to be prepared for sacrifice? Which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15 percent that's nondiscretionary, or that's real--nondefense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts?


DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Security does not add one penny to the current deficit.

Social Security can be remedied with relatively minor tweaks.

Medicare (aka Obamacare for old folks) is more troublesome.

In the future though it will unless it's tweaked.

The important distinction on cuts everybody needs to remember is that nobody is talking about cutting benefits to seniors currently receiving social security.

SS doesn't have a short term funding problem, it's a long term issue. So means testing, raising the retirement age, and something progressive that phases the general revenue aspects out for younger workers is the best bet.

Hi Andy:

You wrote, " The top 5% already pay 95% of them, or close to it. When are we going to get an income tax system where everyone pays something on what they earn?"

A. The Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data cites the tax burden of the top 5% at 60%. Close is when your football team loses by three points in overtime.

B. Your much repeated talking point ignores Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, property, use, and transfer taxes. If you don't figure those...

For the record. Peter Peterson - a hero of mine, vilified by liberal critics-labels Social Security as a transfer from lower middle class workers to upper middle class workers.

The current tax code is an abomination but we need to deal with facts and get away from bumper sticker talking points.

I knew when I wrote that the someone would take the generalization and run with it, but I expected to be someone who usually does so and revels in such antics. It was a generalization, I didn't look it up, as for those concerned with absolute accuracy here do,and for that I apologize. Buz, can you accept the fact that the top 50% of our wealthy pay 90% of our income tax? I don't accept all your "experts" anymore than you accept all of mine. The only thing I agree with in the above post is that the current tax code is an abomination. Your "facts" and my "facts", were I into research,which I admittedly am not these days, come from different but just as unreliable sources. They all have their own sources and agendas. Those who don't realize that have just not lived long enough yet.

By any stretch the Tax Foundation is a staunchly conservative organization.

I am shocked to find out you don't agree with them.

A tax burden does not solely consist of federal income taxes.

I find the often repeated talking point "the bottom 50% don't pay enough taxes" disingenous.

I've been in both clubs and I like the top half-for any warts-better.

In the future though it will unless it's tweaked.

The important distinction on cuts everybody needs to remember is that nobody is talking about cutting benefits to seniors currently receiving social security.

SS doesn't have a short term funding problem, it's a long term issue. So means testing, raising the retirement age, and something progressive that phases the general revenue aspects out for younger workers is the best bet.

That's because they vote.

So the solution becomes raising taxes on younger workers.

Just like any other insurance program there needs to be a lifetime benefit cap.

No kidding! I am shocked to find out that a "tax burden" consists of more taxes than income tax particularly since Miss Kitty listed a whole litany of them recently.
It is too bad you think it is disingenuous for all Americans to pay a little something of what they earn back to support the many, many programs in place for all's benefit. It is called "assuming a responsibility", something I know you are well aware of and practice. It also gives one pride in being an American. Strange as it may seem, I rather like the fact I pay my way through taxes. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of a system that literally does away with the IRS. That said, it is my firm belief that there are many in this nation who don't and while I don't expect to find them on SoWal they are there. If you don't mind, Buz, and I'm sure you don't, I'll remain in the other club.

Social Security is a long term problem but make no mistake, when the need arises to cash in some of those IOU's the government has made to the "trust fund" the problem will be huge. The time to fix the problem is now when we have time to minimize the pain.

The tax code is an abomination and must be reformed ASAP. The fair tax is a good place to start but I am willing to consider any system that consolidates various taxes into one collection method. By the way, the single most regressive tax on the books is the Social Security tax. Funny you do not hear liberals talk about that much.

Medicare/medicaid is a thorny problem but also the most time sensitive.

Whatever your feelings are about deficit reduction plans and their merits, it is clear the one option we do not have is sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the problem. That will result in a huge disaster in the future.

No kidding! I am shocked to find out that a "tax burden" consists of more taxes than income tax particularly since Miss Kitty listed a whole litany of them recently.
It is too bad you think it is disingenuous for all Americans to pay a little something of what they earn back to support the many, many programs in place for all's benefit. It is called "assuming a responsibility", something I know you are well aware of and practice. It also gives one pride in being an American. Strange as it may seem, I rather like the fact I pay my way through taxes. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of a system that literally does away with the IRS. That said, it is my firm belief that there are many in this nation who don't and while I don't expect to find them on SoWal they are there. If you don't mind, Buz, and I'm sure you don't, I'll remain in the other club.

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

Geo, you know Andy likes to say it's not his job to educate you, just to tell you when you're wrong. I like the Buzz method, he will tell you where he disagrees with you and then explain why with opinion, facts and supporting links.

That's because they vote.

So the solution becomes raising taxes on younger workers.

I wouldn't equate raising taxes with adjusting the system for rising life expectancies. These are two entirely different concepts. Benefits levels should also continue to be based on what you contribute.

I would also like to see ss funds separated from general revenue and placed in individual accounts. (Which the government is free to regulate.) People should be able to control what they have in savings. The fact that we can't do this today is criminal.

I guess the alternative would be to decrease benefits for future generations based on the increase in years lived past the retirement age. That would work as well.

The math on an investment like this is pretty straight forward.

(total contributions + interest) / (life expectancy - retirement age) = annual benefit

I thought there was already a plan in place to slowly reduce the age at which you can get full benefits.

Partial benefits starts at 62, but full is slowly being increased from 65-67.

Why can't we just tweak that a little more? A month or 2 here and there adds up fast.

Solving SS without raising taxes

I wouldn't equate raising taxes with adjusting the system for rising life expectancies. These are two entirely different concepts. Benefits levels should also continue to be based on what you contribute.

I would also like to see ss funds separated from general revenue and placed in individual accounts. (Which the government is free to regulate.) People should be able to control what they have in savings. The fact that we can't do this today is criminal.

Raising the retirement age more than a year or two places a huge burden on teachers, sales clerks, construction workers, miners, factory workers because the body wears out.

SS is ALREADY mean-tested. Workers on the higher end of lifetime earnings receive a lower benefit relative to their contribution when compared with workers who have lower lifetime earnings.

I have yet to see any study where means testing would reduce costs.

Plus I disagree with means testing. Take a small business owner, who paid both sides of SS on his earnings and contributed for employees and because of his hard-work and good fortune he gets cut off SS?

The best scenario for solving the SS funding is to gradually (over thirty years) let the full retirement age increase to 69, recompute how COLAs are computed and scale back the benefit for the top 70% of recipients.

No taxes are raised and everyone chips in except those at lower end. Most of the solutions being proposed dump the burden on our children.

For the report (free download) Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future

Raising the retirement age more than a year or two places a huge burden on teachers, sales clerks, construction workers, miners, factory workers because the body wears out.

SS is ALREADY mean-tested. Workers on the higher end of lifetime earnings receive a lower benefit relative to their contribution when compared with workers who have lower lifetime earnings.

I have yet to see any study where means testing would reduce costs.

Plus I disagree with means testing. Take a small business owner, who paid both sides of SS on his earnings and contributed for employees and because of his hard-work and good fortune he gets cut off SS?

The best scenario for solving the SS funding is to gradually (over thirty years) let the full retirement age increase to 69, recompute how COLAs are computed and scale back the benefit for the top 70% of recipients.

No taxes are raised and everyone chips in except those at lower end. Most of the solutions being proposed dump the burden on our children.

For the report (free download) Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future

I guess we'll have to agree to agree?

I thought there was already a plan in place to slowly reduce the age at which you can get full benefits.

Partial benefits starts at 62, but full is slowly being increased from 65-67.

Why can't we just tweak that a little more? A month or 2 here and there adds up fast.

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

You are trading a short-term liability (unemployment insurance) for a long tem liability( social Security.) That is best case. The other part is that Social Security is not income replacement for most workers so they will still need a job to supplement the SS income. So the effect on the unemployment rate would not be that great and the net result is a flood of new red ink.

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

What I am citing, and what so many refuse to accept, is what I have learned personally over the years. It is often amazing to me how little one's personal results count on this board. I may be wrong but I see these personal episodes and their results as indicative of our country as a whole I do not immediately accept organizations, pundits or experts as ultimate and absolute on either the right or the left. I am sorry you do not approve of my method of making decisions. It has held me in good stead for many years, and yes, in many cases it is a result of a "gut feeling" and while occasionally wrong more often right. Therefore, I will continue to post what I feel, have learned, read and experienced. You are certainly under no obligation to accept it, as you are well aware.