Why we're headed over the fiscal cliff
The GOP's effort to avoid raising taxes won't work without concrete spending cuts both parties can agree on.
What a chump I am. With the help of my colleague Matt Horween on Monday night, I went rooting around for ways to actually cut spending, something that many people talk about but few actually want to do. I did this because I am spending the morning in Washington, D.C., and I know that the tax hikes, while important, are being used by both sides to avoid concrete ideas for spending cuts.
Defense? Medicare? Social Security? What would these people do, concretely, to make the deficit smaller now? How about in the next two years? How would they do it better than the fiscal cliff would?
For example, look at Medicare. There are a whole host of ways to have people pay more into the system or to cut back certain procedures or to get the government to negotiate hard with the drug companies. There are real specifics that could be discussed. We could create some true competition by outsourcing the darned thing to a company such as Accenture (ACN) or IBM (IBM) to consistently check how hospitals and doctors are doing. We could exempt Medicare from legislation that requires quick payment in order to smoke out fraud.
But I think these all come under the "so-and-so slashed Medicare" concept that makes it so easy to vote people out -- even people with very solid seats.
Nevertheless, while I'm in Washington, I'll ask about what people are willing to cut and what kind of trade-offs that, say, a person like tax activist Grover Norquist is willing to make. If you give Norquist spending cuts, I imagine he will simply say they aren't big enough. If you ask him whether he would allow his congressmen and Senators out of the no-tax-hike pledge at a particular level of spending cuts, I imagine he would say something like this: "No, there is no level, because if you cut like you are supposed to do, then you don't need to raise taxes anyway. In fact, you can cut them, too."
Left out of the equation is that, eventually, someone has to buy the debt being issued by the U.S., because we can't seem to cut spending, and we won't raise taxes. The Federal Reserve isn't always going to be there to keep buying it.
What's so beautiful about Norquist's position and logic is that nobody wants to pay more tax and you can simply say no by voting for Republicans to take the pledge. It means nothing that there is actually some cost for government, because most people I talk to believe that government doesn't give people anything they need, and that it takes more than they want it to take. That's standard. It's an ineluctable, circular, beautiful position.
You occasionally hear about these people who say, "Look, I am not going to pay my taxes because it's illegal for the government to tax me."
We throw those people in jail.
But I believe that the beauty of the pledge is the illegitimacy with which it frames taxes. "Hey, we only need to tax because the government spends more than it should -- so if it spends less than that, we don't have to pay those taxes."
Of course, this circular bit of logic ignores the fact that the nation ran up $4 trillion in deficits fighting the Global War on Terror. Was that illegitimate? Was that something we didn't need, and therefore something we shouldn't have had to pay for? It wasn't all social programs that got us into this fix.
To me it seems the Republicans want to keep spending on defense no matter what, and the Democrats want to keep spending on Medicare, Social Security and other social programs no matter what. When it comes to the arguments here, the only real advantage the Democrats have is that they know it must hurt the Republicans to cut any defense at all -- and defense will get cut.
Nevertheless, in some ways Norquist's logic is more powerful than President Barack Obama's. The president campaigned on raising taxes for the wealthy, and he's sticking by that. Norquist doesn't want anybody to pay more tax. Moreover, so far it hasn't bothered him that the media is typecasting him as someone who just wants to protect the rich -- a caricature that has not resonated. I keep hearing in the media that he is finished, but when you watch him on my Mad Money show Tuesday, I am confident you will see a man who is just getting started.
While the president was recently elected and will be finished after his second term, in the next election the Tea Party people will target any Republicans who broke their no-tax-hike pledge by compromising. So they have more to lose than the president does -- which is why, alas, I think the U.S. is going over that darned cliff. We won't come back, either, until Norquist says it is OK to vote for a tax cut, even if it is only for the 98% -- provided that they immediately dig in on the debt-ceiling fight and again try to shut down the government.
Jim Cramer is a co-founder of TheStreet and contributes daily market commentary to the financial news network's sites. Follow his trades for Action Alerts PLUS, which Cramer co-manages as a charitable trust and is long IBM.
More from TheStreet.com
He says he's willing to pay a small percentage more in taxes if the little people like me who have been working our entire life and paying into SS and Medicare are willing to accept cuts to our benefits....oh yea, and raising the retirement age to 70. He says we need to "fix the debt".
He said, it wouldn't affect the boomers now. No, it would just affect the people like me who got F**Ked when the economy crashed and we lost our home value, many of us lost our good paying jobs, and lost some of our retirement savings.
That's FUNNY because for the past 20 years the trend has been sending jobs overseas for slave wages - so even when the economy was better, we were losing jobs!
Mega-rich LYING jerks.
I sent an email to Boehner yesterday suggesting he
1. Detail out the loophole and special treatment tax changes the Republicans are willing to make.
2. Present cost cutting proposals.
3. Balance the above ideas with a tax cut for the middle class.
Time to get out of the crosshairs.
If the tea party candidate don't have the balls to stand up and do the right thing why in the hell should they be re-elected anyway.....
We are headed off the fiscal and physical cliff
Look folks either way we go Republican or Democratic solution to the debt crisis we still wind up with $26 trillion plus debt in the year 2020.
There are about 110,000,000 Americans making on average about $48,000 a year. The US government is spending about $4 trillion a year which is equal to what everyone makes rich or poor.
This is not going to end well. There are a lot of government contracts and services that are well over priced. $5.9 billion for a submarine?? gee it's about 20,000 tons works out at $150 a ton for scrape steel to about $3 million add about $3 million to fabric the steel into the ship and we have a serious over priced piece of hardware. We could build a fleet of 1,000 submarines for the same price and no one in the world could hunt down and find all 1,000 of those subs during a war.
The prices of things and what people make are very much out of whack as far too many super rich people and government workers are merely taking money they do nothing for.
Most Americans work at make work jobs. I know people think their jobs are important but for the most part we are not using our labor force in the correct manner. We need to clean up the environment yet 150 million Americans are out of work, we need to farm with our own people yet 53 million Americans are on food stamps, hundreds of millions of Americans are at risk of losing their houses yet over 20 million houses stand empty.
Let's face facts capitalism has been very successful in making 1 percent of the population very very wealthy and 30 percent of the population lives well to very well. It has been a horrible way of doing business for 60 percent of our population.
And it is only going to get worse folks.
It sounded so good when they devised the "buy us some delay time before we actually have to do something" And now the deadline to enact it and actually lead and make decisions that will have outcomes and effects just seems too much for this group. You can't lie your way to prosperity. We need concise and clear direction and of course doing that might step on a few "important" monetary constituents so all of us have to settle for mediocrity, excuses, and this fake brinksmanship while Rome burns. Pathetic!
28th Amendment to the Constitution: U.S. Balanced Budget required yearly
definition of balanced: Debt to GDP ratio
> 50% <50%
balanced allowed 10%
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.