Senators Baucus and Conrad have expressed their preference for compromising with the Republicans on entitlement spending for Medicare and Medicaid in return for tax increase concessions. The Senatorial voting arithmetic based on ideological predilections and other factors on the tax-spending questions isn't clear. For example, Senator Chambliss, a Republican, has expressed his willingness to be flexible on the tax increase question. Whether or not significant compromises need to be made about spending in order to reach agreements with Republicans about taxes, the question of why Senators Baucus and Conrad decided to focus on entitlement cuts rather than other cuts like defense cuts still remains.
Americans and Democrats deserve to hear specific numbers from Democratic senators like Baucus and Conrad. When it comes to Medicare cuts, what does " rich " mean ? If these " rich " are availing of Medicare at the moment, where will they come up with the resources for equivalent medical care if their Medicare entitlements are cut ? Senators Baucus and Conrad are effectively stating that the US can no longer guarantee the same level of medical care without jeopardizing the future fiscal health of the US. However, the question arises - how do you know if this is indeed the case ? In other words, why should parts of Medicare expenses be the ones to go in order to restore the US to good fiscal health and good fiscal prospects ? Why not try to find specific defense cuts to achieve the same objectives ? Also, what amount of cuts are Senators Baucus and Conrad recommending ? What are the numbers as far as the mix of tax increases and Medicare spending cuts they are suggesting goes ? Without specific numbers from these Senators regarding tax increases and spending cuts, it is difficult to reach an intelligent assessment about their suggestions.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )
Americans and Democrats deserve to hear specific numbers from Democratic senators like Baucus and Conrad. When it comes to Medicare cuts, what does " rich " mean ? If these " rich " are availing of Medicare at the moment, where will they come up with the resources for equivalent medical care if their Medicare entitlements are cut ? Senators Baucus and Conrad are effectively stating that the US can no longer guarantee the same level of medical care without jeopardizing the future fiscal health of the US. However, the question arises - how do you know if this is indeed the case ? In other words, why should parts of Medicare expenses be the ones to go in order to restore the US to good fiscal health and good fiscal prospects ? Why not try to find specific defense cuts to achieve the same objectives ? Also, what amount of cuts are Senators Baucus and Conrad recommending ? What are the numbers as far as the mix of tax increases and Medicare spending cuts they are suggesting goes ? Without specific numbers from these Senators regarding tax increases and spending cuts, it is difficult to reach an intelligent assessment about their suggestions.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )