

Lieberman opens the door to Democratic retreat
-
08/25/09 09:19 AM ET
Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) criticism of the Obama healthcare initiative may prove to be a pivotal turning point in the congressional debate over the increasingly unpopular proposal. Previous commentary about the Obama plans has focused exclusively on their impact on healthcare in America. The elderly are increasingly recognizing that, whatever its defenders say, extending coverage to 50 million new people — without any new doctors or nurses or equipment or hospitals — will create a scarcity that will lead to rationing, to the disadvantage of those over 65. Defenders of the free enterprise system have looked with alarm at the socialization of one-sixth of our economy and opponents of single-payer systems have argued that government control of healthcare is the inevitable result of the plan.
But Lieberman's critique was not primarily focused on the healthcare aspects of the program, or even on its ultimate desirability, but rather on the wisdom of attempting so radical a transformation and so extensive — and expensive — an extension of government's role in our economy during a major recession attended by a huge budget deficit. His go-slow commentary integrates worries about the economy, the deficit, the debt and interest rates with those about the healthcare proposal itself. In effecting this linkage, Lieberman cautions supporters of the idea and of the plan that this might not be the right time to try to do it all.
His comments come at a time when the Congressional Budget Office predicts a growth in the 10-year deficit projection to $9 trillion and when Americans are growing increasingly nervous about the massive debt we are incurring. Few buy the president's argument that spending $1 trillion extra will cut the deficit and rein in spending. The very notion is so counterintuitive that it is hard to give it any credibility.
If the elderly are worried about the projected $500 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade and conservatives fret over socialization of healthcare, the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.
Lieberman's critique gives moderates a place to go in the healthcare debate. Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around the "not now" approach of Joe Lieberman. It is obvious that, despite the Obama majorities in Congress, this is the exact wrong time to embark on a major new government spending program.
Worries that the deficit will drive us anew into recession abound. And, increasingly, it appears that the back end of this "double dip" will be accompanied by inflation, as happened in the ’70s. Alarm mounts that the Fed will be unable to fight the inflation without hurting the economy further and, conversely, cannot stimulate a flagging economy without worsening the rise in prices. Add to all this concerns that the world might not be willing to invest further in a deteriorating dollar and we have the makings of, well, a Catastrophe!
By expressing the obvious — that this is a time for retrenchment, not for expansion of the public sector — Lieberman may even have given the president an avenue of escape, permitting him to accept a scaled-back, phased-in program that might attract bipartisan support.
But Lieberman's critique was not primarily focused on the healthcare aspects of the program, or even on its ultimate desirability, but rather on the wisdom of attempting so radical a transformation and so extensive — and expensive — an extension of government's role in our economy during a major recession attended by a huge budget deficit. His go-slow commentary integrates worries about the economy, the deficit, the debt and interest rates with those about the healthcare proposal itself. In effecting this linkage, Lieberman cautions supporters of the idea and of the plan that this might not be the right time to try to do it all.
His comments come at a time when the Congressional Budget Office predicts a growth in the 10-year deficit projection to $9 trillion and when Americans are growing increasingly nervous about the massive debt we are incurring. Few buy the president's argument that spending $1 trillion extra will cut the deficit and rein in spending. The very notion is so counterintuitive that it is hard to give it any credibility.
If the elderly are worried about the projected $500 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade and conservatives fret over socialization of healthcare, the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.
Lieberman's critique gives moderates a place to go in the healthcare debate. Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around the "not now" approach of Joe Lieberman. It is obvious that, despite the Obama majorities in Congress, this is the exact wrong time to embark on a major new government spending program.
Worries that the deficit will drive us anew into recession abound. And, increasingly, it appears that the back end of this "double dip" will be accompanied by inflation, as happened in the ’70s. Alarm mounts that the Fed will be unable to fight the inflation without hurting the economy further and, conversely, cannot stimulate a flagging economy without worsening the rise in prices. Add to all this concerns that the world might not be willing to invest further in a deteriorating dollar and we have the makings of, well, a Catastrophe!
By expressing the obvious — that this is a time for retrenchment, not for expansion of the public sector — Lieberman may even have given the president an avenue of escape, permitting him to accept a scaled-back, phased-in program that might attract bipartisan support.






Most Viewed RSS Feed »




















Comments (6)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574358882642883214.html
By JAMES M. PEASLEE
Two tax provisions in the health-care bill voted on by the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this summer have gained significant attention. One would impose a surtax on high-income earners. The other would force individuals (or their employers) who do not have approved health-insurance plans to pay a tax penalty. But there are other "revenue provisions" in the bill that also deserve a close look.
One would change the law to mandate that the Internal Revenue Service slap penalties on honest but errant taxpayers.
Under current law, taxpayers who lose an argument with the IRS can generally avoid penalties by showing they tried in good faith to comply with the tax law. In a broad range of circumstances, the health-care bill would change the law to impose strict liability penalties for income-tax underpayments, meaning that taxpayers will no longer have the luxury of making an honest mistake. The ability of even the IRS to waive penalties in sympathetic cases would be sharply curtailed.
The proposed changes in penalty rules have largely escaped notice because they are buried in a part of the bill that purports to deal with abusive tax shelters. They are barely mentioned in the Ways and Means Committee summary. Their inclusion in the bill underscores the need to read it closely. If anyone had doubts about the value of loading the text of the bill into a wheelbarrow and bringing it to the beach this August, the proposed changes to tax penalties should dispel them.BY Robert Rosencrans on 08/25/2009 at 15:44
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/08/the-office-of-the-presidency-must-end/BY Todd on 08/26/2009 at 09:12
The Senate is run By the highest paying Corporations. Get Rid of the Senate and turn our government over to 100 Chief Executives of our biggest Corporations.
It would amount to the same thing and we wouldn't have to pay all those Senators and their Staffs.BY Donaldd on 08/26/2009 at 17:03
$10-billion provision tucked deep inside thousands of pages of health care overhaul bills that could help the UAW's retiree health-care plan and other union-backed plans.
It would see the government — at least temporarily — pay 80 cents on the dollar to corporate and union insurance plans for claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for retirees age 55 to 64.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20090824/BUSINESS01/908240321&s=d&page=1
We are being used as serfs to our government!BY bobc on 08/27/2009 at 09:05
Add Comment