Philly CEOs push Congress to cut a deal | PhillyDeals | 07/25/2011
The executives told Republicans to stop blocking tax reform and Democrats to curb future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid deficits.
"We are writing here as job creators. We collectively employ thousands of people and generate over a billion dollars in revenue.
"Our message is simple: The threat of a reasonable increase in the effective tax rate, particularly one that combines the closure of tax loopholes and a reduction in applicable tax rates, [will] not slow economic growth and will not prevent us from creating more jobs.
"Rather, a greater impediment to job growth is our continued failure to invest properly in the things that drive our economy, like education, our transportation and information infrastructures, and basic research.
"We propose a truce, in which Democrats are given the leeway to do the right thing with respect to entitlement reform, in return for the cover Republicans need to do the right thing with respect to taxes."
Actual small and medium sized business owners in Pennsylvania - the real job creators - calling for compromise in the debt deal. I hope that Congress is listening.
You make a lot of good points, but I think it's far from accurate to say that both sides started negotiations from their maximum positions. That seems to be the exclusive province of republicans, these days.
Obama's major (and constant) error is starting negotiations at the point where he would like to wind up, which inevitably leads him to concede more than he should. In contrast, the republicans major (and constant) error is to start at their maximum position and then refuse to negotiate at all.
You make a lot of good points, but I think it's far from accurate to say that both sides started negotiations from their maximum positions. That seems to be the exclusive province of republicans, these days.
...the republicans major (and constant) error is to start at their maximum position and then refuse to negotiate at all.
From the June 29, 2011 edition of The Washington Post:
Leading congressional Democrats immediately recoiled Tuesday from a new proposal to cut $600 billion in Medicare spending over the next decade - in part by raising the eligibility age...
But the swift rejection of the proposal among Democrats reflects the significant obstacles that remain to any agreement to cut the deficit and raise the nation's legal borrowing limit.
That's an example of a maximum position from the Congressional Democrats, who are one of the parties to the talks. The reality is that everything should be on the table, with negotiations focused on details.
To be clear, I am not in any way suggesting the extreme notion that Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security should be gutted. Such an outcome would be politically unfeasible and socially destructive. I do believe structural changes will be needed with all those programs (Social Security's is easiest given that the problem is essentially an actuarial one). Medicare/Medicaid are more difficult, as the program's difficulties are overlaid on a health system that has an excessive cost growth problem, meaning that fundamental health care reform will need to be adopted to help address Medicare/Medicaid problems. Everything can't be accomplished immediately, but a downpayment on entitlement reform is feasible. Raising the age of eligibility over a period of time and pegging it to life expectancy changes is an easy downpayment and it is one that would have minimal macroeconomic fallout.
As noted earlier, I believe the negotiations should have commenced with each side's having been instructed to open with sustainable proposals. By that, I mean proposals that they reasonably would expect would be largely satisfactory to the other side. No such instruction was provided. Moreover, when the "grand bargain" was within reach and the parties were reportedly about $10 billion apart, I believe either Speaker Boehner or President Obama should have suggested that they split the difference and initial the terms as they stood. That would have locked in what had been agreed. Instead. talks proceeded with nothing having been locked in and they ultimately collapsed over additional suggestions that pushed the parties farther apart. I believe an important opportunity was lost and don't believe any deficit reduction that will be agreed in the near-term will amount to what would have been possible under the grand bargain.
The intransigence by some Republicans, namely those who oppose raising the debt ceiling under virtually any circumstances, is a huge problem. They are not alone. There are some progressive democrats who oppose any changes to the entitlement programs. Such entrenched positions highlight my point about an unwillingness to build consensus and to compromise to achieve agreement. Those holding such positions are an example of the "theologians" to whom I refer.
what do believe will happen?
Actual small and medium sized business owners in Pennsylvania - the real job creators - calling for compromise in the debt deal. I hope that Congress is listening.
"Look, a 3% increase in top marginal tax rates isn't going to sink us."
This is what I've been saying all along. NOBODY LISTENS TO DEUCE
So, a person making 30 grand a year can afford 3%, as well. Yes?
But, something tells me that the Libbos wouldn't be all over that. I wonder why not.
CHICAGO — Business leaders are growing exasperated with Washington. And they say the dysfunction in the political system is holding them back from hiring and investing.
A new sort of risk to growth is emerging, not from the kind of economic forces that led to the recent recession but from elected officials’ inability to agree on how to deal with them. This angst in the executive suite is reflected in this month’s uptick in lobbying by business groups eager to see a deal on the federal debt ceiling, in surveys showing falling confidence among business leaders — and, in the American heartland, by the deepening frustrations of corporate chiefs.
In interviews in this great industrial capital, senior executives in the area said they lack confidence that political leaders can execute the basic nuts and bolts of governing, as exemplified by the brinksmanship over raising the debt ceiling. Indeed, the frustration over the political climate and Washington’s seeming inability to solve problems appears to weigh more heavily in their minds than any specific government policy.
The executives are hostile to President Obama and his agenda and say higher taxes would damage their business prospects and make them less inclined to invest and hire. But in contrast to congressional Republicans’ claims that any tax increases would stop job creation in its tracks, many executives say they could tolerate somewhat higher taxes if they were part of a broader plan that offered clarity on the nation’s future policies, particularly one heavy on spending cuts.
One thing you forget this isn't just a fight between Obama and the Republicans in Congress. He has to fight his own party who are just as intransigent about their usual positions. Any compromise is going to be fiercly opposed by the usual suspects on the Democrat side in Congress.
I do like what the business leaders had to say. We need more business leaders to follow suit to pressure Congress and Obama to do the right thing.
The simple solution would be that both democrats and republicans decided on a long term goal for cutting the deficitet. Then decide on a compromise to the election 2012. That it's just next year so they can swallow their pride and come up with a compromise to that date.
That at the same time democrats make one plan and republicans makes one plan each for what they will do after the election 2012 to live up to the long term goal of cutting the deficitet. Then the voters have to decide with plan is the best. If one party wins both senate, congress and president they have the mandate to accomplise their plan. If senate, congress ends up with one party and the president with the other both sides have both a mandate and duty to comprise. But I'm not even an american so this plan is either to smart, dumb or probably both to work in your american context.
See, the thing is that the voters have already put in place a divided government, and Congress already has a duty to compromise in order to move the country forward. But one party has not gotten the message.
And the Republican solution? They want a short term solution to ensure that this uncertainty continues indefinitely.
You make a lot of good points, but I think it's far from accurate to say that both sides started negotiations from their maximum positions. That seems to be the exclusive province of republicans, these days.
Neither party wants a short term solution, it's just the only thing it seems they may be able to agree upon. Plan C or D.They want a short term solution to ensure that this uncertainty continues indefinitely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?