Deficit Reduction

Labor unions that represent government workers — and some Maryland Democrats — criticized the budget President Barack Obama unveiled Monday for cutting $27 billion in federal employee pensions while offering what they called a modest, half-percent raise. The $3.8 trillion spending plan for 2013 would trim $4 trillion from the national debt over a decade through a combination of tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts. Many of those reductions would affect Maryland, including funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, teaching hospitals such as Johns Hopkins and research grants awarded by the Bethesda-based National Institutes of Health.

Deficit reduction is an important national priority, vital to our long-term economic opportunity and security. But just because it's important doesn't mean that it can be undertaken without regard to our national values. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives left values on the sideline this week when it moved forward with a shocking proposal to cut food assistance for our nation's hungry by over $33 billion. That it was done in the name of deficit reduction does not excuse the fact that cuts to anti-hunger programs at a time when need has never been greater are both reckless and short-sighted.

Contrary to Jay Hancock 's recent assertions about shared sacrifice and the federal deficit ("Fixing America needs contributions from everybody," Oct. 2), we do not oppose changes to Medicare to make it solvent, for two reasons. First, Medicare is not insolvent; its trust fund is solvent through 2024. Second, we recognize the value of reasoned proposals, such as the delivery system reforms included in the Affordable Care Act, that address the larger problem driving Medicare spending growth: rising costs across the entire health care sector.

Your editorial on Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal demonstrates why it will be so difficult to restore fiscal discipline to the federal budget ("Ryan's song and dance," March 21). Unfortunately, you have picked the wrong culprit. While criticizing Representative Ryan in his effort to balance the budget, The Sun glosses over President Obama's utter failure to make any serious effort at reducing government spending. You mention the president's "bipartisan deficit commission" but conveniently leave out the fact that the president has refused to implement any of its recommendations.

The problems facing our government today have never been more serious, the issues never more complicated, the situation never more dangerous, and the solutions never simpler. The critical issue is neither Republican nor Democratic but a problem for all Americans. The "Gang of Six" after months of working together have produced a comprehensive plan to address the deficit. It may not be perfect, but it is a good starting point. Mr. President, Baltimore just laid to rest its best ever mayor with a flourish.

A whole lot of Democrats and independents were probably delighted to hear President Barack Obama demonstrate a little more resolve in the deficit reduction debate today. In unveiling his $3 billion proposal to reduce federal debt over the next decade through both spending cuts and tax increases, the president also outlined some core principles — among them that he won't support any measure that requires the middle class and poor to do all the sacrificing in order to preserve tax loopholes and other advantages for the rich.

Deficit reduction is an important national priority, vital to our long-term economic opportunity and security. But just because it's important doesn't mean that it can be undertaken without regard to our national values. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives left values on the sideline this week when it moved forward with a shocking proposal to cut food assistance for our nation's hungry by over $33 billion. That it was done in the name of deficit reduction does not excuse the fact that cuts to anti-hunger programs at a time when need has never been greater are both reckless and short-sighted.

I completely agree with Professor Peter Morici's assessment ( "Republicans have a chance to lead on the budget: will they?" April 6) that neither political party is serious about tackling the deficit. The main driver of these budget shortfalls are health care costs. The Democrats abdicated responsibility to completely transform the system when passing the Affordable Care Act. While Rep. Paul Ryan does make significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which will save the federal government trillions, his "Path to Prosperity" does not eliminate the perverse incentives that drive medical inflation.

The budget deficit has been the spectral issue of thi campaign, a threatening presence only rarely glimpsed.Yet it is the major long-term problem facing the economy. If putting America back to work is the nation's first priority this election year, then keeping it there must be its second. Almost everyone agrees the deficit must be reduced if the United States is ever to prosper again.Ross Perot, the independent candidate who has made deficit-reduction the focus of his underdog campaign, likens the deficit to the crazy aunt in the basement who everyone knows is there but no one wants to talk about.

THE Concord Coalition recently released its "Zero Deficit Plan," which proposes to eliminate the federal budget deficit by the year 2000. The plan's sponsors, former Democratic senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts and Republican Warren Rudman New Hampshire, also unveiled a "Debt Clock," mounted on a trailer, to be hauled around the country for photo-ops to underscore the peril of the rising national debt.The coalition was intended to be a grassroots group, sounding a national alarm in the spirit of Paul Revere ("The deficit is here!"

Labor unions that represent government workers — and some Maryland Democrats — criticized the budget President Barack Obama unveiled Monday for cutting $27 billion in federal employee pensions while offering what they called a modest, half-percent raise. The $3.8 trillion spending plan for 2013 would trim $4 trillion from the national debt over a decade through a combination of tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts. Many of those reductions would affect Maryland, including funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, teaching hospitals such as Johns Hopkins and research grants awarded by the Bethesda-based National Institutes of Health.

Who's to blame is the question of the day in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats have been rushing to point fingers ever since the deficit-cutting supercommittee admitted failure and stopped negotiations. But for the rest of the country, the exercise is not particuarly productive. Both sides took positions and held to them, and both concluded that what the other side proposed was worse than the consequences of failing to reach a deal - about $1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts, split about evenly between domestic programs and defense.

Marylanders from nearly every walk of life could be affected by across-the-board budget cuts starting in 2013 as a result of the congressional supercommittee's failure to reach an agreement to trim the nation's spiraling budget deficits. After months of secret talks, the 12-member panel formally pulled the plug Monday on its mission to identify $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years. Unless changed by Congress, the outcome will cause automatic reductions that would be particularly painful for Maryland, where the federal government spent $96 billion last year.

At 84, Barbara Talbert might seem an unlikely Washington lobbyist. But when she heard senior citizen programs could be cut to reduce federal budget deficits, she quickly got on a bus to Capitol Hill. "As far as Social Security is concerned, some people have that as their only income," the Bowie resident said, repeating the pitch she made to staff members in nine congressional offices in a single day. "Others with health problems depend solely on Medicare. " Dozens of Maryland businesses, nonprofit groups and, in some cases, individuals are lobbying the congressional "supercommittee" charged with finding a way to trim federal budget deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Anyone familiar with the six stages of grief can recognize the noises coming for the congressional supercommittee these days. They are somewhere between denial and depression, but with a Thanksgiving deadline looming, they had better move on to the bargaining stage pronto. For those who have not closely followed the committee's travails, do not fret. Not all that much has happened since Day 1. And that, of course, is precisely the problem. The most recent tally has the Republicans standing with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction offer that raises taxes slightly but also lowers tax rates for the wealthy.

Later this month, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction - often referred to as the "supercommittee" - will issue its recommendations on how we should deal with our nation's economic problems and budget deficits. I have two strong recommendations for its members: Focus on job creation, and develop a comprehensive, balanced approach that is bold and will lead to meaningful deficit reduction. First, jobs. President Barack Obama has come forward with a jobs initiative that I believe is the right approach.

Boston -- Building the $4 trillion federal debt was a bipartisan effort. Controlling it will be, too.An innovative citizens' effort to add political muscle to the issue is off to a surprisingly strong start, with surprising supporters and opponents from both parties. Calling itself ''Lead . . . or Leave,'' the movement is asking candidates for federal office to pledge that they will not seek re-election after four years unless the annual deficit is cut in half by that time.Seven members of Congress and many more challengers signed up in the first week after the drive was announced formally in Washington with the support of retiring Sen. Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Republican, and former Sen. Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts, a Democrat.

For Rep. Chris Van Hollen, brokering a bipartisan deal to trim the federal deficit is about more than dodging draconian across-the-board cuts or protecting a fragile economic recovery. It's also about proving that a bitterly divided Congress can still get something done. As a member of the congressional "supercommittee" charged with slashing U.S. budget deficits by $1.2 trillion, the Montgomery County Democrat is again at the center of the most pressing question facing Washington: how to balance spending cuts, taxes and the increasingly partisan politics of Capitol Hill.

Contrary to Jay Hancock 's recent assertions about shared sacrifice and the federal deficit ("Fixing America needs contributions from everybody," Oct. 2), we do not oppose changes to Medicare to make it solvent, for two reasons. First, Medicare is not insolvent; its trust fund is solvent through 2024. Second, we recognize the value of reasoned proposals, such as the delivery system reforms included in the Affordable Care Act, that address the larger problem driving Medicare spending growth: rising costs across the entire health care sector.