Skip to main content

GOP Picks for Gang of 12
The "minimize taxes, maximize pain" Catfood Commission Republicans: Reps. Dave Camp, Fred Upton, Jeb Hensarling and Sens. Rob Portman, Jon Kyl and Pat Toomey
If there's a positive to be said of the Catfood Commission II Democrats' plan, it's that it's not as punishing of low-income and elderly Americans as the Republican's. Here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis of the Republicans' offer.
The new Republican plan provides for slightly more than $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years, relative to a current-policy baseline that assumes extension of all the 2001-2003 tax cuts. [...] Of that amount, only about 1 percent of the deficit reduction ($40 billion) stems from revenue increases. And, compared to the "plausible baseline" that the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission and the Senate's Gang of Six used, which assumes expiration of the upper-income tax cuts, the latest Republican plan actually provides for tax cuts of more than $800 billion over ten years. [...]

Because of its lack of revenue increases, the Republican plan both achieves less deficit reduction and makes much deeper cuts in programs that benefit low- and moderate-income families and individuals than does the Democratic offer: [...]

  • The Republican plan makes deeper cuts in Medicare than the Democratic offer—$500 billion versus $400 billion. Of particular note, four-fifths of the Republicans' proposed Medicare cuts—$400 billion—would directly affect beneficiaries through higher premiums, higher cost sharing, and more restrictive eligibility criteria. In the Democratic proposal, $200 billion of the Medicare cuts would apply to beneficiaries, with the rest falling on pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers. Since half of Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $21,100 in 2010, it would be virtually impossible to achieve this level of beneficiary cuts without imposing substantial increases in out-of-pocket costs on near-poor elderly and disabled people—those between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty line (about $11,000 to $22,000 for an individual). Yet the typical Medicare beneficiary in this income range already pays 23 percent of income for out-of-pocket costs, a percentage that would increase significantly under both plans—especially under the Republican plan.
  • The Republican plan also would make far deeper cuts in Medicaid—$185 billion versus $75 billion over ten years under the Democratic plan. Cuts of this depth would shift substantial costs to state governments, which would lead to state actions that limit care for the low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities whom Medicaid serves.
  • The Republican plan also would make sharper cuts in mandatory spending programs other than Medicare and Medicaid—$685 billion versus $385 billion under the Democratic plan and $364 billion under Bowles-Simpson. This level of cuts is close to that in the Ryan budget. Although the proposal does not specify how much will be cut from specific programs, at least half of these cuts are likely to be made in programs serving low-income Americans, such as food stamps.

That's the gulf that would have to be bridged for some sort of Grand Bargain that has once again become all the rage in D.C. It's a gulf that's way too huge, considering there's still no commitment on the part of Republicans to create real revenue. They aren't willing to share any sacrifice, so Democrats should just remove the whole idea of sacrifice from the table, as long as who gets hurt are those who are already most vulnerable.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site