Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved

Outlines of a Compromise?

February 26, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

Even with the current hysteria over the looming sequestration, outlines of a sensible, bi-partisan compromise are painfully obvious. The Republicans want to trim deficits by cutting spending, while Democrats seek the same result through more sacrifices from the rich.

Why not give both sides what they demand—with government spending less and the rich sacrificing more—by cutting entitlement checks to rich people? It makes no sense to demand that rich people pay more in order to preserve entitlements that they don't need. That policy may maintain the size of government, but does nothing to help families at any income level.

Instead of complaining that Warren Buffett pays taxes at lower rates than his secretary, we ought to object that his hard-working secretary pays payroll tax to cover ever-rising Social Security and Medicare checks for her billionaire boss.

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (14)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    We might not complain about Warren Buffett's SSI & Medicare if..........
    February 26, 2013 12:48 pm
    ...he actually paid in on his entire income - not just on the first $93,000, or whatever the cap is now. ..... Funny how rich liberals want higher income tax rated (which, with good accountants, they can abate) but NEVER even mention the paltry social security they pay compared to their incomes.

    That - and stopping is use of SSI tax money in the general fund - would go a long wan toward stabilizing Social Security.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    It is $110,000 + or - Mr. ron
    February 27, 2013 6:51 am
    And actually rich liberals recommend eliminating the cap quite often.

    You could also means test Social Security.

    Problem is, we've never had a mechanism for measuring wealth so removing the cap would be a lot easier.

    Fix Social Security with the stroke of a pen.

    Forever.

    Although there would be howls of class warfare, class envy, soaking the rich, because if you kept the current Social Security structure and payout maximums the "rich" could never hope to recoup their "investment".

    You know who would be doing that howling, Mr. ron.

    Don't you?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    I stand corrected on the cap amount
    February 27, 2013 7:54 am
    But is rich liberals are recommending cap elimination, they are using whisper voices to do so.

    And what the rich of ALL political views need to accept (and they really do - whatever may be voices - is that SS never was an 'investment'.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Good point Medved
    February 26, 2013 3:14 pm
    "Why not give both sides what they demand—with government spending less and the rich sacrificing more—by cutting entitlement checks to rich people? " Now let's see who stands in the way to this....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    We hear Obozo cry about the rich needing to pay higher income tax.
    February 27, 2013 11:36 am
    I bet Obozo's tax people take every tax break known to man and probably some down right illegal for the Fool in chief. If he believes he should pay more tax the fool should step up and set an example. Never happen. He's full of it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    All right. I'll go for that.
    February 28, 2013 7:24 am
    Provided the wealthy still pay in to social security and we eliminate the cap. Nice try jerk. It is a common tactic of the right to try and eliminate social security & medicaid benefits for high income earners so they don't have to pay in to the system. There is no law that says Buffet has to collect the social security benefits he qualifies for or any rich guy for that matter. Quit feeding the monkeys. You're just riling them up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Real Me wrote...
    As Reported by the CBO
    February 28, 2013 3:08 pm
    We could close ALL the tax loopholes for corporations and the rich (the so-called private jet loopholes) and collect all that tax revenue for 100 YEARS and it would only pay for ONE MONTH of Obowelmovent's spending. It is CLASS WARFARE being perpetuated by the Liar In Chief and his minions. Until Obowelmovement is removed from office, none of us is safe.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Quick, go hide, we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.
    February 28, 2013 4:08 pm
    President Obama has presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any president in the last 60 years.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And unemployment is down to 2%.............
    February 28, 2013 4:28 pm
    And the wars are all ended. And Gitmo is closed. And, LOOK. A unicorn is flying down from the rainbow !

    .

    Just one question, if federal spending is so low, just how did we go from $9T to over 16T in 4 short years ? ...............

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Uhmmm...do you really not know or are you being glib?
    February 28, 2013 6:01 pm
    By the time Bush left office he left a huge deficit. Not only President Obama cut the deficit by $350 billion during his first term but he cut the deficit by $200 billion in 2012 alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion. Aaaand, believe it or not, the deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate sine WWII. The problem is that the deficit and the debt are two different things and most people lump the two together. If Bush left a 1.4 million dollar deficit and Obama hadn't done anything, at the end of his second term the debt would increase by 11.2 million. But he is lowering the deficit, which means (for the mathematically challenged) that every year, less and less gets added to the debt. You can say he's not doing it fast enough (although as I already pointed out it's the fastest decrease in the deficit sine WWII). You can say he should have never agreed to the extension of the Bush tax cuts (which he shouldn't have), you can say he's failed to raise taxes or increase revenue the way he's wanted (although it's kind of hard when one party is beholden to the rich). But the truth is, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest since 1950 and the only to get revenue up is to raise taxes (gasp). Some people will say that if people go back to work that will increase revenue, which is not all true...tax revenue is counted as a percentage of GDP.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Nice talking points, Gay, but your post said 'federal spending'.
    March 1, 2013 5:52 am
    OH - I get it. Debt is not an expense. At least not one that needs be ever paid be 'spending'.

    And, by your own words above, if Obama did nothing the 'Bush debt' would increase to 11.2 (I assume you mean trillion), just how did it get to $16T ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Ughh...I thought you were one of the smart ones.
    March 1, 2013 12:41 pm
    My post says Obama has presided over the smallest INCREASE in federal spending in over 60 years. ALL VERY TRUE And I said if he did nothing the debt would increase BY 11.2, meaning at the end of 8 years, the debt would be about 22T, since now that we know the real numbers, Bush left the White House 10.6T in debt. Obama has lowered the deficit 22% as of 2012, and in 2013 CBO estimated 35%, short of his 50% for sure, but the deficit is narrowing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OK, but all those typos in a fairly long post can confuse anyone.
    March 1, 2013 11:41 pm
    But debt/deficit/spending - you've got to keep apples to kumquats. .... Granted, Boy George was not a help to the economy (at least 2007 & after - 2001-06 years were relatively good) but suffice to say I just can't believe the debt has more than doubled without one heck of a lot of fiscal mismanagement. So word games about the 'rate of increase' become self serving for the administration.

    All I can say for sure is to paraphrase the old saying that there are lies, danmed lies and statistics. And you can't eat statistics.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Lol. I should watch the typos.
    March 2, 2013 7:11 am
    Look, no doubt Obama is not without some blame. But a lot of the debt and spending that gets attributed to him just isn't based on reality. Safety net spending increased during 2009 because the economy had tanked, not because Obama wanted it to. It was entirely appropriate to increase spending in the recession. And he walked into large increases in defense spending and veterans' health care because of the ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I do think he deeked the dog by extending the Bush tax cuts which added $400 billion to the deficit in 2011. Overall, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. But I do wish people would look at facts before they start talking smack about Obama and his "big spending" ways.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }