'Dumb' & 'Cruel': Budget Deal Attacks America's Most Vulnerable
Lauded as a "step in the right direction" by high-level members from both parties, progressives--calling it both 'dumb' and 'cruel'--say that should be a warning to the nation
"Dumb."
That's what University of California, Berkely economist Robert Reich called the budget deal announced by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan late Tuesday.
Why dumb? According to Reich, the "deal doesn't close tax loopholes for wealthy, restore food stamps to poor, or extend unemployment benefits for jobless."
In separate tweets, he added:
And he's not alone in thinking the negotiated deal--designed to stave off another government shutdown threat by the Republican Party in the New Year--is another example where working people, those suffering unemployment, the poor, and public employees are asked to sacrifice as the nation's corporate barons and wealthiest individuals are once again insulated from scrutiny.
"This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
-Lawrence Mishel, EPI
Though much of the reporting said that both parties were able to make the deal because their respective sacred cows--cuts to Medicare or Social Security for Democrats and tax increases for Republicans--were left off the table.
"I support reaching an agreement that will end the culture of periodic crises that has driven policy in recent years," said Lawrence Mishel, executive director of the Economic Policy Institute. "However, this deal addresses the wrong set of priorities: namely, deficit reduction ten years out rather than a stronger recovery now, and tweaking domestic spending for a few years as we continue to ignore the public investments our country needs."
He continued: "The worst part of the budget deal by far is what it doesn't address: unemployment insurance for America's four million long-term unemployed workers. This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
And according to Michael McAuliff's reporting, the negotiated agreement is going to give Medicare a huge "whack" by increasing cuts to the program's providers.
The "mandatory budget resources" referred to in the deal, explains McAuliff, will focus mostly on Medicare providers, including doctors, clinics, and hospitals who serve the program.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set up the sequester, so-called discretionary programs were subject to 5.1 percent across-the-board cuts when the Congress' "supercommittee" failed to find targeted savings. Most "mandatory" programs, such as Social Security and Medicaid, were exempt. But Medicare was not, and was subject to a 2 percent cut aimed at providers, worth more than $120 billion over the 10 years of the sequester.
By extending the sequester for mandatory programs, Medicare providers -- including hospitals -- will have to take the hit for two more years.
The Nation's John Nichols describes the deal as "cruel, irresponsible, and dysfunctional" in his assessment, where he chastised lawmakers who said the deal was a "step in the right direction."
"[The deal is] mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general."
-Richard Eskow, CAF
What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who -- with a fully Dickensian twist -- now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?
The budget agreement does not look like a "step in the right direction" for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week -- as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess -- many of the most economically-vulnerable Americans will be "lurching from crisis to crisis" very soon.
Calling it a "dirge for the unemployed" and a great modern example of the phrase "man's inhumanity to man," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow slammed the deal and the Democrats who (once again) "seemed to go soft" against a dug-in GOP who, despite the mean-spirited nature of their proposals, stood firm.
Looking at the facts of the deal, says Eskow:
Federal workers will be expected to subsidize this deal with an increase in their out-of-pocket pension costs. There will be cuts to Medicare. Airline passengers will pay a new tax. Military retirees - military retirees - will see their benefits cut.
And the long-term unemployed, who have paid dearly for Wall Street's excesses, will receive no extension of benefits. The sequester's cuts were disastrous, but this deal is needlessly punitive. It's mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes to respond to the deal:
Sanders Weighs in on Budget Dealwww.youtube.com
And the Huffington Post reports:
Progressives viewed the fact that the final arrangement did not include an extension of unemployment insurance as a major tactical defeat. Federal unemployment benefits are currently set to expire on Dec. 28, affecting an estimated 1.3 million jobless Americans. Democrats will now push to renew the benefits in a separate piece of legislation.
In addition, news of the pension provision angered federal workers even before the deal was announced, with dozens of federal unions signing on to a letter opposing it.
"Federal workers have sacrificed over $113 billion for deficit reduction since 2011, including a three-year pay freeze and increased pension contributions for newly hired employees. This figure does not include the up to eight furlough days caused by sequestration this summer and a 16-day shutdown in October which resulted in financial hardship and profound anxiety for half the government's workforce and their families," the coalition of labor groups wrote.
"Given these contributions, we are dismayed to learn that increasing the pension contributions and/or changing the retirement formula for current federal employees is on the table," they wrote. "This is simply unacceptable."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
"Dumb."
That's what University of California, Berkely economist Robert Reich called the budget deal announced by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan late Tuesday.
Why dumb? According to Reich, the "deal doesn't close tax loopholes for wealthy, restore food stamps to poor, or extend unemployment benefits for jobless."
In separate tweets, he added:
And he's not alone in thinking the negotiated deal--designed to stave off another government shutdown threat by the Republican Party in the New Year--is another example where working people, those suffering unemployment, the poor, and public employees are asked to sacrifice as the nation's corporate barons and wealthiest individuals are once again insulated from scrutiny.
"This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
-Lawrence Mishel, EPI
Though much of the reporting said that both parties were able to make the deal because their respective sacred cows--cuts to Medicare or Social Security for Democrats and tax increases for Republicans--were left off the table.
"I support reaching an agreement that will end the culture of periodic crises that has driven policy in recent years," said Lawrence Mishel, executive director of the Economic Policy Institute. "However, this deal addresses the wrong set of priorities: namely, deficit reduction ten years out rather than a stronger recovery now, and tweaking domestic spending for a few years as we continue to ignore the public investments our country needs."
He continued: "The worst part of the budget deal by far is what it doesn't address: unemployment insurance for America's four million long-term unemployed workers. This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
And according to Michael McAuliff's reporting, the negotiated agreement is going to give Medicare a huge "whack" by increasing cuts to the program's providers.
The "mandatory budget resources" referred to in the deal, explains McAuliff, will focus mostly on Medicare providers, including doctors, clinics, and hospitals who serve the program.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set up the sequester, so-called discretionary programs were subject to 5.1 percent across-the-board cuts when the Congress' "supercommittee" failed to find targeted savings. Most "mandatory" programs, such as Social Security and Medicaid, were exempt. But Medicare was not, and was subject to a 2 percent cut aimed at providers, worth more than $120 billion over the 10 years of the sequester.
By extending the sequester for mandatory programs, Medicare providers -- including hospitals -- will have to take the hit for two more years.
The Nation's John Nichols describes the deal as "cruel, irresponsible, and dysfunctional" in his assessment, where he chastised lawmakers who said the deal was a "step in the right direction."
"[The deal is] mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general."
-Richard Eskow, CAF
What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who -- with a fully Dickensian twist -- now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?
The budget agreement does not look like a "step in the right direction" for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week -- as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess -- many of the most economically-vulnerable Americans will be "lurching from crisis to crisis" very soon.
Calling it a "dirge for the unemployed" and a great modern example of the phrase "man's inhumanity to man," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow slammed the deal and the Democrats who (once again) "seemed to go soft" against a dug-in GOP who, despite the mean-spirited nature of their proposals, stood firm.
Looking at the facts of the deal, says Eskow:
Federal workers will be expected to subsidize this deal with an increase in their out-of-pocket pension costs. There will be cuts to Medicare. Airline passengers will pay a new tax. Military retirees - military retirees - will see their benefits cut.
And the long-term unemployed, who have paid dearly for Wall Street's excesses, will receive no extension of benefits. The sequester's cuts were disastrous, but this deal is needlessly punitive. It's mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes to respond to the deal:
Sanders Weighs in on Budget Dealwww.youtube.com
And the Huffington Post reports:
Progressives viewed the fact that the final arrangement did not include an extension of unemployment insurance as a major tactical defeat. Federal unemployment benefits are currently set to expire on Dec. 28, affecting an estimated 1.3 million jobless Americans. Democrats will now push to renew the benefits in a separate piece of legislation.
In addition, news of the pension provision angered federal workers even before the deal was announced, with dozens of federal unions signing on to a letter opposing it.
"Federal workers have sacrificed over $113 billion for deficit reduction since 2011, including a three-year pay freeze and increased pension contributions for newly hired employees. This figure does not include the up to eight furlough days caused by sequestration this summer and a 16-day shutdown in October which resulted in financial hardship and profound anxiety for half the government's workforce and their families," the coalition of labor groups wrote.
"Given these contributions, we are dismayed to learn that increasing the pension contributions and/or changing the retirement formula for current federal employees is on the table," they wrote. "This is simply unacceptable."
"Dumb."
That's what University of California, Berkely economist Robert Reich called the budget deal announced by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan late Tuesday.
Why dumb? According to Reich, the "deal doesn't close tax loopholes for wealthy, restore food stamps to poor, or extend unemployment benefits for jobless."
In separate tweets, he added:
And he's not alone in thinking the negotiated deal--designed to stave off another government shutdown threat by the Republican Party in the New Year--is another example where working people, those suffering unemployment, the poor, and public employees are asked to sacrifice as the nation's corporate barons and wealthiest individuals are once again insulated from scrutiny.
"This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
-Lawrence Mishel, EPI
Though much of the reporting said that both parties were able to make the deal because their respective sacred cows--cuts to Medicare or Social Security for Democrats and tax increases for Republicans--were left off the table.
"I support reaching an agreement that will end the culture of periodic crises that has driven policy in recent years," said Lawrence Mishel, executive director of the Economic Policy Institute. "However, this deal addresses the wrong set of priorities: namely, deficit reduction ten years out rather than a stronger recovery now, and tweaking domestic spending for a few years as we continue to ignore the public investments our country needs."
He continued: "The worst part of the budget deal by far is what it doesn't address: unemployment insurance for America's four million long-term unemployed workers. This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on the unemployed as well as new federal employees, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery."
And according to Michael McAuliff's reporting, the negotiated agreement is going to give Medicare a huge "whack" by increasing cuts to the program's providers.
The "mandatory budget resources" referred to in the deal, explains McAuliff, will focus mostly on Medicare providers, including doctors, clinics, and hospitals who serve the program.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set up the sequester, so-called discretionary programs were subject to 5.1 percent across-the-board cuts when the Congress' "supercommittee" failed to find targeted savings. Most "mandatory" programs, such as Social Security and Medicaid, were exempt. But Medicare was not, and was subject to a 2 percent cut aimed at providers, worth more than $120 billion over the 10 years of the sequester.
By extending the sequester for mandatory programs, Medicare providers -- including hospitals -- will have to take the hit for two more years.
The Nation's John Nichols describes the deal as "cruel, irresponsible, and dysfunctional" in his assessment, where he chastised lawmakers who said the deal was a "step in the right direction."
"[The deal is] mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general."
-Richard Eskow, CAF
What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who -- with a fully Dickensian twist -- now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?
The budget agreement does not look like a "step in the right direction" for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week -- as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess -- many of the most economically-vulnerable Americans will be "lurching from crisis to crisis" very soon.
Calling it a "dirge for the unemployed" and a great modern example of the phrase "man's inhumanity to man," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow slammed the deal and the Democrats who (once again) "seemed to go soft" against a dug-in GOP who, despite the mean-spirited nature of their proposals, stood firm.
Looking at the facts of the deal, says Eskow:
Federal workers will be expected to subsidize this deal with an increase in their out-of-pocket pension costs. There will be cuts to Medicare. Airline passengers will pay a new tax. Military retirees - military retirees - will see their benefits cut.
And the long-term unemployed, who have paid dearly for Wall Street's excesses, will receive no extension of benefits. The sequester's cuts were disastrous, but this deal is needlessly punitive. It's mean-spirited toward people who are struggling through no fault of their own, people who have chosen a life of public service, and the middle class in general.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes to respond to the deal:
Sanders Weighs in on Budget Dealwww.youtube.com
And the Huffington Post reports:
Progressives viewed the fact that the final arrangement did not include an extension of unemployment insurance as a major tactical defeat. Federal unemployment benefits are currently set to expire on Dec. 28, affecting an estimated 1.3 million jobless Americans. Democrats will now push to renew the benefits in a separate piece of legislation.
In addition, news of the pension provision angered federal workers even before the deal was announced, with dozens of federal unions signing on to a letter opposing it.
"Federal workers have sacrificed over $113 billion for deficit reduction since 2011, including a three-year pay freeze and increased pension contributions for newly hired employees. This figure does not include the up to eight furlough days caused by sequestration this summer and a 16-day shutdown in October which resulted in financial hardship and profound anxiety for half the government's workforce and their families," the coalition of labor groups wrote.
"Given these contributions, we are dismayed to learn that increasing the pension contributions and/or changing the retirement formula for current federal employees is on the table," they wrote. "This is simply unacceptable."