Talk to smart folks in Washington, and here’s what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That won’t raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.
The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even that’s not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.
That’s not a policy I like much, but New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait accurately conveys the White House thinking here: They see it as having “weirdly disproportionate symbolic power,” as it’s not a huge (or smart) cut to Medicare benefits, and most of the pain will be blunted by the Affordable Care Act.
Many of my liberal wonk friends have been making the case against raising the Medicare retirement age — see Sarah Kliff, Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Cohn. Their basic case is that raising the Medicare retirement age is a really stupid way to save money because it just forces people to stop buying health care through Medicare, which is relatively cheap, and start buying it through private insurance, which costs way more.
They’re all totally right about this. Still, when the question comes to what concessions the Democrats are going to have to accept, rather than what policy makes the most sense, raising the Medicare age seems like a sensible bone to throw the right.
. . . raising the Medicare retirement age would help strengthen the fight to preserve the Affordable Care Act.
. . . a side effect of raising the Medicare retirement age would be that a large cohort of 65- and 66-year-olds would suddenly find themselves needing the Affordable Care Act to buy their health insurance. Which is to say, Republicans attacking the Affordable Care Act would no longer be attacking the usual band of very poor or desperate people they can afford to ignore but a significant chunk of middle-class voters who have grown accustomed to the assumption that they will be able to afford health care.
David Dayen makes me wonder why someone as smart as Jon Chait would write such an idiotic column bit.ly/SLmIcm
— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) December 7, 2012
I lack the words to describe how democratically perverse a deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age would be.
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 7, 2012
Ezra Klein using Maddow guest host platform to blatantly shill for Chait "surrender on Medicare age" plan. Unbelievable. Wow, wow, wow.
— Ryan (@RTMcNeely) December 8, 2012
Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age.
I’m going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it’s a VSP fantasy about how we’re going to resolve this in a bipartisan way. Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.
. . . this looks crazy to me; it looks like a deal that makes no sense either substantively or in terms of the actual bargaining strength of the parties. And if it does happen, the disillusionment on the Democratic side would be huge. All that effort to reelect Obama, and the first thing he does is give away two years of Medicare? How’s that going to play in future attempts to get out the vote?
If anyone in the White House is seriously thinking along these lines, please stop it right now.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Pelosi was announcing her intent to remain in post as the leader of the minority caucus in the House. Russert asked whether this choice was blocking younger members who wanted to move up in the party.
"Some of your colleagues privately say that your decision to stay on prohibits the party from having a younger leadership and hurts the party in the long term," he said. "What's your response?"
"Age discrimination!" some of Pelosi's colleagues shouted. "Boo!"
"Next!" Pelosi cried, adding, "Oh, you've always asked that question, except to Mitch McConnell!" The women behind her applauded.
Russert pressed on. "No, excuse me," he said. "You, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Clyburn, you're all over 70. Is your decision to stay on prohibiting younger members from moving forward?"
"Let's for a moment honor it as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive," Pelosi responded. "You don't realize that, I guess." She went on to say that she had no concerns about the question Russert raised, adding flatly, "the answer is no."
