From an article in The Hill on the Speaker of the House making a commitment to “address” entitlements next year:
… “That sounds like wealthy people who want to have all of their tax breaks and loopholes and their carried interest deductions and so forth but they want working people who paid into all of those programs for years to take less,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said when asked about the Speaker’s statements about the need to tackle big mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
Hawley says he gets nervous when policymakers talk about the need to “address” or “reform” Social Security.
“Addressed? Reformed? That’s usually code for ‘cut.’ I’m not in favor of that,” he said. …
10 comments:
Exactly. It’s a bipartisan issue. Those who say otherwise are lying. Trump, Vance, Newsom, AOC, Rubio won’t cut Social Security. So get back to providing crappy service.
Josh Hawley talks a good game.
Senator Josh Hawley ultimately voted for the Trump administration's sweeping reconciliation package, but voiced deep regret and actively sought to reverse the massive Medicaid and rural hospital cuts embedded in the legislation.
“Addressed? Reformed? That’s usually code for ‘cut.’ I’m not in favor of that,”
Yet I would bet that if a plan was put forth that did just that and that was the party line he would totally vote for it.
Without question that’s exactly what he would do, and what he and his colleagues have done time and time again. So why do they keep getting re-elected? Because Americans are mostly dumber than s**t.
I continue to fund it amazing that if an American President wants to engage in a foreign adventure (war) the funding seems to be unlimited and always available. Same goes for for any Wall Street financial adventure gone off tracks (government bailouts), but funding for our public good and the health of our people will break the bank and just can’t be done. Has it been 100 billion spent out of thin air in the past 3 months for this war? Not to mention how much will have to be spent to replenish our weaponry. Plus the cost to our economy due to the conflict and the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. But for God’s sakes expect a dime extra for the sake of the domestic security of our own American people.
See 10:06 above for a concise explanation for this paradox
There will be no reform until the Congress during which the insolvency will occur. There is too much political risk to attempt or debate any fixes. They want to get re-elected and any attempt to fix will anger some of their voters. It will be up to the suckers in that Congress to fix and deal with the consequences.
I think what he means is that he will accept cuts if he can convince his constituents that they are not cuts, or at least not cuts to people they care about.
I fully expect Congress to sit back and do nothing.
I think the real concern is that they’ll upset donors, not voters. The number of voters who will be genuinely upset by raising taxes on the wealthy is extremely small but makes up the vast majority of both parties‘ campaign donors. Until one party realizes that dollars can‘t vote them into office, nothing will change. As for why a majority of those in Washington can’t seem to grasp this simple reality, I think 10:06 above puts it succinctly.
Post a Comment