Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« Where there's a Will there's a wackiness | Main | Photofinish fatuity »

November 29, 2012



This deal was probably sitting on the table begging to be accepted during the debt ceiling hostage negotiation last year.

I'd be astounded if it is now. I think (based on nothing but a hunch, I admit) this article is the result of GOP attempts to ratfuck the process to move the terms in their direction.

But we'll see.


Also, the Medicare savings is calculated out over 10-20 years which makes it relatively minor. Some means testing is okay to a degree, although I think it runs counter to the whole concept.

I do have a problem with raising the age limit. In fact, I think it should be lowered.

It would make more sense to, instead of reducing spending, except through getting rid of fraud and waste and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices, to increase revenue. And it wouldn't take much to do so. A small increase in the payroll deduction, a small increase in the Part B premium, and a lot of new revenue would be raised.

So the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, people don't take the time to look at the details and only hear the words Medicare cuts.

Robert Lipscomb

"So the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, people don't take the time to look at the details and only hear the words Medicare cuts."


I would like to see the numbers for raising the age eligibility overlain with the new Obamacare provisions for premium support for private healthcare.

Chris Andersen

From what I am hearing the changes in taxes would be immediate while the changes in entitlements would be stretched out over 10-20 years. Also, the revenue changes sound much larger than the entitlement changes.

If the usual crowd on the left doesn't go into full meltdown mode on this, a deal like this could be a monumental win for the Democrats.


The issue here is that the Village poobahs take entitlement cuts as the price for tax increases on the rich. The discussion has already coarsened around this point. It's quid pro quo. I give you tax increases, you give me entitlement cuts. That's where the Compromise grounds out. Check out Andrew Sullivan. He makes the exact opposite point PM makes with as much conviction. Bold leadership to middle-of-the-roaders like him is entitlement cuts. He expects them. Any deal reached without them will be spun as Obama Fail.

In other words, extreme rapids ahead. Don the life vests.



Boehner's trying to make it even worse than that - he's trying to force the Democrats to propose the entitlement cuts first.

It's the 2010 con all over again; even though it's the GOP who wants to shred, and eventually destroy these programs, they are gleefully happy to make Democratic "cuts" a campaign rallying cry. Hence the GOP's appalling but successful "the Dems robbed Medicare!" crapola from the 2010 midterms.

Democrats better not fall for it. Any entitlement cuts that harm benefits would be bad enough on its own. Letting the GOP pin thoe cuts that they, in fact, badly want, on the Democrats after the Democrats "go first" in good faith...would be an utter travesty.


Turgidson, one bright point is that Dems are already calling out Boehner for not specifying what cuts he wants. Reid has said he doesn't know "what's in Boehner's head." Schumer has attacked Boehner for talking about cuts but not identifying any of them.

Basically, it is more of a "This is what we want, tell us what you want because we aren't going to decide that for you" type of response on the Dem side. This is to the good.

The comments to this entry are closed.