This is not what leadership looks like

[erfalf]

Funny how Medicare and Social Security are on budget when it's convenient for you, but off budget when it isn't. Pick a position and stick with it.

What do you mean on and off budget? I am being serious.

I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.

The current "payroll tax cuts" help the employee not the employer. The reduction is in the employee portion, not the employer. It does help everybody, but I fail to see how this could significantly add jobs.

[Red Arrow]

I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.

Right up until the employees try to collect Social Security.

[nathanm]

What do you mean on and off budget? I am being serious.

It means exactly what it sounds like. There are two ways to look at Social Security and Medicare. One is, as comports with your earlier post, to count Social Security and Medicare as completely separate from the federal budget, much as employers account for fully funded pension plans and the like. They have a dedicated funding source, so this is reasonable. However, people will often switch to talking about it as if it is part of the regular budget when they want to make a point about large deficits, funding shortfalls, or whatever. That's also not an unreasonable view (and in fact the one I prefer), but it is unreasonable, in my mind, to argue one way when it makes a certain point and another way when it doesn't.

I try to stick with whatever framing my interlocutors use to avoid confusing myself.

To use an example, you said that payroll tax cuts don't really count as tax cuts, but in the past, you've talked about Social Security as if it were part of the regular budget.

The current "payroll tax cuts" help the employee not the employer. The reduction is in the employee portion, not the employer. It does help everybody, but I fail to see how this could significantly add jobs.

It adds jobs in that it increases demand. However, in the current environment where everyone is more interested in paying off debt than increasing consumption, it helps less than it otherwise might. That said, the American Jobs Act's payroll tax cuts apply to both employer and employee.

RA, they get the same credit either way. The cuts don't affect benefits. Of course, this is just tossing more IOUs into the trust fund, but we were doing that anyway. Fixing the economy would more than make up for any shortfall, but that would depend on the economy actually being fixed, which isn't going to happen with the refusal of the Republicans to brook any compromise on stimulus and the continued debt overhang that is continuing to depress consumption.

[erfalf]

It means exactly what it sounds like. There are two ways to look at Social Security and Medicare. One is, as comports with your earlier post, to count Social Security and Medicare as completely separate from the federal budget, much as employers account for fully funded pension plans and the like. They have a dedicated funding source, so this is reasonable. However, people will often switch to talking about it as if it is part of the regular budget when they want to make a point about large deficits, funding shortfalls, or whatever. That's also not an unreasonable view (and in fact the one I prefer), but it is unreasonable, in my mind, to argue one way when it makes a certain point and another way when it doesn't.

I try to stick with whatever framing my interlocutors use to avoid confusing myself.

To use an example, you said that payroll tax cuts don't really count as tax cuts, but in the past, you've talked about Social Security as if it were part of the regular budget.

Wasn't trying to have it both ways. I was just pointing out how it should work. I mentioned how I am aware how the cash doesn't go into a "lockbox" or whatever they want to call it these days. I have just always been infuriated at them calling it a tax cut, when what they are cutting is supposed to be our retirement that we were forced to save for. Most don't know the difference, they just know they get a few extra bucks every paycheck.

Edit: YOu of all people should be upset as well. I always thought you derided the tax cuts for starving the government type of things. That is all this is. Put a few bucks in the taxpayers pocket while we are at it and hopefully they are think they are doing something.

[nathanm]

Tax cuts as stimulus are better than nothing, so no, I can't say it infuriates me or anything. Problem is that they are less effective than direct spending by the government since they largely are saved or used to pay down debt in the sort of economic environment we currently inhabit. That's why I've recently found myself in favor of deficit neutral stimulus even though I don't think taxes should be increased yet. The point is that the Republicans complain about Obama taxing too much, yet when he throws them a bone he gets nothing out of them but further derision. It's impossible to govern effectively in this sort of political environment.

I'm not saying the Republicans should throw away their principles, but they should be willing to meet in the middle.

Anyway, back to the meaning of a tax cut, would it be a tax cut if the fuel tax were reduced or eliminated?

[erfalf]

Anyway, back to the meaning of a tax cut, would it be a tax cut if the fuel tax were reduced or eliminated?

I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?

[Hoss]

I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?

I thought it was essentially a fuel tax bound for the states to use for road maintenance.  I might be wrong; I'm at work and haven't looked it up yet.

[erfalf]

I thought it was essentially a fuel tax bound for the states to use for road maintenance.  I might be wrong; I'm at work and haven't looked it up yet.

It is a combination of federal and state taxes.

[nathanm]

I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?

I'm pretty sure it works almost exactly like the Social Security trust fund. When the funds have a positive balance, that balance is actually IOUs Congress gave them so they didn't have to issue so many Treasuries, not cash. (the interaction with the debt ceiling is interesting, as debt owed to the trust funds doesn't count)

I could go on for a while about how Bush was ultimately right when he said deficits don't matter and how it ends up mattering anyway because people don't understand the nature of money, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

[erfalf]

I'm pretty sure it works almost exactly like the Social Security trust fund. When the funds have a positive balance, that balance is actually IOUs Congress gave them so they didn't have to issue so many Treasuries, not cash. (the interaction with the debt ceiling is interesting, as debt owed to the trust funds doesn't count)

I could go on for a while about how Bush was ultimately right when he said deficits don't matter and how it ends up mattering anyway because people don't understand the nature of money, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

I guess I was only looking at the responsibilites aspect. The feds are liable to spend money on social security and medicare, whereas I don't believe they are for roads and such.

[nathanm]

At the state level, states can do whatever they like with their fuel tax money, presuming they have a fuel tax. I'm pretty sure, but haven't just now checked, that highway trust fund money can only be spent on transportation and related projects. So yes, some of it gets used for trails and what have you, but it's all spent on transportation projects of some kind.

Edited to add: Obviously, as with Social Security, Medicare, or anything else not specifically required by the Constitution, Congress can change the law as they see fit at any time and spend the money however they like. That's how they get away with borrowing from the trust funds instead of the public, after all.

[Conan71]

Great foreign policy, Obama is too busy to meet with Bibi in New York and too busy to meet with him in DC.  Plenty of time to get his mug on Letterman while in NYC though, that's certainly more important than chatting about Iran's nuclear program.

Reading Israeli news sources, they don't seem to pleased with Obama.

White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama

The White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request on Tuesday to meet U.S. President Barack Obama during a UN conference in New York at the end of the month.

The White House National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told Haaretz the two would not meet due to a scheduling conflict. "The President arrives in New York for the UN on Monday, September 24th and departs on Tuesday, September 25th. The Prime Minister doesn't arrive in New York until later in the week. They're simply not in the city at the same time."

Vietor did, however, say that Netanyahu and Obama are "in frequent contact" and that the PM would meet with other senior officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

An official in Jerusalem said that the Prime Minister's Office sent the White House a message stating that although Netanyahu will spend only two and a half days on U.S. soil, he is interested in meeting Obama and is willing to travel  to the U.S. capital specifically for that purpose.  The official added that the White House rejected the request and said that at this time Obama's schedule does not allow for a meeting.

Asked whether the president is ready to meet Netanyahu in Washington, Vietor said: "I don't have a final schedule for the president for that whole week."

To get the latest news from Israel, the Middle East, and the Jewish World, subscribe to Haaretz's digital edition, through our special High Holiday offer.

The White House's response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the U.S. as prime minister without meeting the president.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak tried to ease the tension on Tuesday, saying that the differences between the U.S. and Israel should be ironed out "but behind closed doors."

"We must not forget that the U.S. is Israel's most important source of support in terms of security," he said in a statement.

Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu launched an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government over its stance on the Iranian nuclear program.

"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel," Netanyahu told reporters on Tuesday.

"Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs," he said.

U.S. Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stressed again on Tuesday that the U.S.  administration doesn't see public discussion of Iranian nuclear program and red lines as useful. "We don't think it's particularly useful to have those conversations in public. It doesn't help the process and it doesn't help the integrity of the diplomacy. To be standing here at the podium parsing the details of the Iranian nuclear program is not helpful to getting where we want to go," she said, briefing the media.

White House spokesman Jay Carney reasserted the strong cooperative relationship between Israel and the U.S. on security. "We have extensive and ongoing conversations and contact with our close ally, Israel, on this issue as well as a wide variety of other security-related issues. We have the most comprehensive security and intelligence relationship with Israel in history, as attested to by not just leaders from this administration but from the Israeli government."

Also on Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran decides to make a nuclear weapon, the United States would have a little more than a year to act to stop it.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/white-house-declines-netanyahu-request-to-meet-with-obama.premium-1.464328

[erfalf]

Edited to add: Obviously, as with Social Security, Medicare, or anything else not specifically required by the Constitution, Congress can change the law as they see fit at any time and spend the money however they like. That's how they get away with borrowing from the trust funds instead of the public, after all.

I was thinking the same thing. But, could Congress (if re-election weren't an issue) just say one day that Social Security is ending next year, no more payouts to anyone, no matter what? Obviously this would be political suicide, but is it possible? I understand that no Congress can bound the next, so I don't really see why not.

[erfalf]

Great foreign policy, Obama is too busy to meet with Bibi in New York and too busy to meet with him in DC.  Plenty of time to get his mug on Letterman while in NYC though, that's certainly more important than chatting about Iran's nuclear program.

Reading Israeli news sources, they don't seem to pleased with Obama.

Hoss already posted a Politico piece refuting this. Course, it seems like a he said she said kind of thing. Every source outside of the white house says he was turned down, the white house says otherwise.

[Conan71]

Hoss already posted a Politico piece refuting this. Course, it seems like a he said she said kind of thing. Every source outside of the white house says he was turned down, the white house says otherwise.

I'm surprised Jay Carney doesn't have dents in his forehead from smashing it on his desk on an hourly basis.