So, we can either tax the rich at higher levels (nothing new - that's the way we did it before Regan became president), or we lose an entitlement that has helped improve the lives of many millions of Americans in their old age. Seems like a simple call to me. Particularly considering the extraordinary wealth now being horded by the top one percent of earners. It's like the old saying - "share the wealth". Of course, I'm sure the right wingers will have none of this. Better for Granny to die in the gutter than have a millionaire sweat another few thousand in taxes.

This entry would be interesting if it dealt with the only real fiscal truth, which is indeed rare in the business press: Gaping federal budget deficits can't be fixed without pulling the military out of Afghanistan, single-payer universal health care with price controls, and most importantly, taxing the wealthy after rolling back the budget-destroying Bush cuts for the rich. You're licking the boot of the business class again, Jay Handjob.

So what you're really saying, Jay, is that Christie is telling half the fiscal truth. Yes, expenditures for Medicare, etc. must be cut. However, to balance the budget, taxes have to be raised to keep these programs from being completely eviscerated.

Republicans, for years and years, have treated raising taxes as something that can never be done. They need to come back to reality, just as Democrats need to come to the reality that spending cuts are going to be necessary.

Just as with anything else, compromise is the key. You have to raise taxes and make cuts. How else are you going to close a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit?

In response to Rick: the top 1% of earners pay 38% of the taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of all taxes. So while taxing the top 1% won't hurt their wallets and probably won't reduce their hiring power, it also won't reduce the debt much because they already pay 38 times what the average Joe pays. It could be part of a solution, but it won't make a dent in the problem.
We must STOP SPENDING. We must have able-bodied people at work, not on welfare. We must be choosy about where we place our military. We must be particular when providing tax breaks to corporations. We must stop collecting 16% social security from payroll of people who will never see the money, and those people must change their expectation to paying their own way. All of this combined will reduce the deficit significantly.

In response to Rick: the top 1% of earners pay 38% of the taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of all taxes. So while taxing the top 1% won't hurt their wallets and probably won't reduce their hiring power, it also won't reduce the debt much because they already pay 38 times what the average Joe pays. It could be part of a solution, but it won't make a dent in the problem.
We must STOP SPENDING money we don't have. We must have able-bodied people at work, not on welfare. We must be choosy about where we place our military. We must be particular when providing tax breaks to corporations. We must stop collecting 16% social security from payroll of people who will never see any social security money, and those people must change their expectation to that of paying their own way. All of this combined will reduce the deficit significantly.
Also, I wish Anft would stop with the insults. Just tell Jay you disagree, explain why, and leave the name-calling to elementary schoolyard bullies.

Er, not quite Anonymous:
The top 1% of earners pay 38% of the taxes THAT GET PAID. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of all taxes THAT GET PAID.
See the difference?

The ONLY alternative to having those populations having their collective burden increased as is so clearly needed... is to substantially increase the income of the bottom 50% instead.

Take your pick.
I suspect the 1% would absolutely rather pay a bit more as would most of the other top 49%.

Even their sycophantic toadie supporters watching FOX (it seems) would still rather not have their own real wages raised if it meant even a chance of having to pay more in taxes as the price.

First, there is a world of difference between Social Security and Medicare.

Over the next few years, we will have to use general revenues to fund the $2.5 Trillion surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Of course the reason that Social Security accumulated these surpluses was to cover the period after the baby boom is mostly retired when it is projected to pay benefits that exceed annual revenue. This is not a problem, it is part of the design of the program.

Taking that one step further, the reason that we still have a huge deficit despite the fact that Social Security trust fund has a huge surplus is that we waged two wars without funding and, at the same time, cut taxes, primarily for the wealthy. Let's be clear: "Funding" Social Security via benefits cuts rather than by raising the income tax cuts that we will have effected a massive injection of regressivity into the tax system. Essentially, the two wars and the Bush tax cuts will have been financed by Social Security taxes which, of course, fall most heavily on the middle class.

Robert Reich has pointed out that when Social Security was reformed in 1982, the contribution limit covered 90% of total earned income. That limit now only covers 84% of earned income. Returning to the 90% level ($180,000.00) a year will return it to solvency. See his comments here: http://bit.ly/h9h5ng. Additional possible remedies: Increasing the amount of immigration to the US, increasing rates (the Trustees conclude that a 1.96% increase provides solvency into the indefinite future) and adding additional stimulus to the economy. Obviously, some combination of the foregoing would provide solvency without cutting benefits which fall most heavily on the poor and laboring middle class who have significantly shorter post-retirement lifespans.

Finally, as to Social Security, the shortfall is really not that great. The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.8 percent of GDP in 2009 and is projected to increase gradually to 6.1 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 5.9 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level. See the 2010 Trustees' Report here: http://bit.ly/hokZEk

As to Medicare, the issue is quite different. The principal driver is the increase in medical costs which is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. While a comprehensive discussion of this issue is clearly beyond the space allotted to a comment, suffice it to say that a robust public option, including allowing those below age 65 to "buy into" Medicare, would be a start.

I have never understood why liberals say that the rich don't pay their fair share. You can argue the statisitics if you want, but the truth is wealthier and more successful citizens pay a hugely disproportionate share of total personal taxes, and a large percentage of our citizens pay little or nothing, and a growing percentage actually get "refunds" (the earned income credit) having paid nothing to begin with. This is punitive, and socialist redistribution economics is the only rationale - just be honest about that.
The only argument for taxing the "rich" more is they are the only ones with money.
Government spending at irresponsible levels got us in this mess, and only drastic surgery to the government bureaucracy will get us out.

I like Chris Christie more and more these days -- it's refreshing to hear someone not peddling the rhetoric that we can have our cake and eat it to by simply cutting spending a tad.

People need to know what kind of a situation our spend-happy government has gotten us into. Maybe if we all realized the gravity of the situation we wouldn't feel so bad about making some sacrifices.

Going without dessert feels bad without a reason -- going without dessert because you can't afford it at least feels like you're taking action.

Florida Rooster:

I believe that people should pay for me. Two income couples who pay for daycare should pay more tax so that I can watch my children. They should subsidize my taxes so that I don't have to work.

I did not try hard in school, so therefore my job pays less. Therefore you should pay for me.

I only want to work 40 hours per week. If you are an executive and work 60 hours per week and earn more, I want you to pay my taxes.

I worked for 35 years (really it was 22 years, but I like to exaggerate) and therefore you should pay for me and work a full 50 years.

The federal income figures are a farce that mask the regressive payroll tax. Taxes are taxes regardless of what they are labeled on your paycheck. When you factor in the payroll tax (which raises exactly as much total revenue as the income tax) you end up with the middle class paying a HIGHER total federal tax rate than the rich.

Someone making $67,000/year already pays a higher total federal tax rate than someone making $380,000/year. This is possible because the Social Security tax is so highly regressive, as well as the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income. Payroll taxes have greatly expanded as a share of total government revenue, while corporate income taxes have greatly contracted http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

The rich pay more, because they earn more, and the bulk of all productivity growth since 1966 has gone to the top 10% http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/BPEA_Meetingdraft_Complete_051118.pdf

Footnote:
This includes total federal income tax and total payroll tax to include the employer contributed portion. An average worker with $380,000 of taxable income would pay 23.27% federal income tax, 2.9% Medicare tax, and 3.4% Social Security tax for a total federal tax rate of 29.57%, An average worker with $67,000 of taxable income would pay 15.68% federal income tax, 2.9% Medicare tax, and 12.4% Social Security tax for a total federal tax rate of 30.98%.

Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

In 2001, in a letter to Mitch Daniels, then Pres. Bush's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Paul Krugman said: "In the end, we both know, the truth will become apparent. Eventually there will be no disguising the fact that thanks to the tax cut the nation has failed to make adequate preparations for the demographic deluge, that money that was supposed to be accumulated to pay retirement benefits has been used instead to provide big tax cuts to the very, very affluent." See here: http://nyti.ms/erZtTZ

Apparently, Krugman was wrong. People such as Gov. Christie either don't know the facts or continue to disguise them. The facts have not become apparent to most people. Rather, Christie has convinced too many people that it is appropriate to divert funds paid into Social Security and to allow "money that was supposed to be accumulated to pay retirement benefits [to be] used instead to provide big tax cuts to the very, very affluent."

Jay, "fails to offer" is a far cry from "peddling the fantasy."'

I've thought you're generally a straight dealer. Please don't make me change my mind.

Oddly enough, I just finished going through the Balance the Budget exercise, and I ended up with about $170 billion in surplus, even though I didn't cut social security (or medicare, which didn't seem to be an option, oddly enough.) Nor did I raise income taxes on people making under $200,000 a year. And I raised benefits for veterans, spending on low-income housing, public transportation, health and basic science research, global health and development spending, and clean energy.

I would have liked the option to rebate some of my carbon tax to consumers, but I guess I'll have to pay down the debt instead.