Jonathan Bernstein puts the blame for the Debt Ceiling crisis squarely where it belongs...

Amen, Brother!

I have no idea what’s going to happen in the next week. One hopes that enough Republicans are only bluffing with their craziness, or can be talked out of their craziness (by who? Who will they listen to?) at the last minute. Or perhaps eventually, if there’s no other way, the president will take unilateral action — the Constitutional option — after all. But the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as naïve. This isn’t about poor bargaining or fecklessness by the Democrats. It’s about dealing with the consequences of the fact that Americans elected to Congress a whole bunch of people who are either trying to impose fringe policy views despite apparently having no understanding whatsoever of their consequences — or are so driven by opposition to the president that their highest priority is opposing him, regardless of those consequences.

Translation: America, you voted for these idiots, prepare to deal with the consequences.

Ezra has the terms of the deal...

Reprinting the meat of it from: "An imperfect, but not-that-bad, deal on the tax cuts", we have:

1) The Bush tax cuts get extended for two years -- with one ugly surprise: For the next two years, estates up to $5,000,000 will be protected from the estate tax, and the tax rate for the few estates that are taxed will be 35 percent. That's worse than the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45 percent rate), though better than this year's "no estate tax at all." The difference in expected revenue between the 2009 levels and the compromise levels is $10 billion or so.

2) The refundable tax credits are extended: The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.

3) Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months: Most observers -- myself included -- thought the federal boost to unemployment insurance (which allowed jobless workers in states with high levels of unemployment to collect insurance for up to 99 weeks) would lapse. At best, there'd be another two- or three-month extension. In perhaps the most important part of the deal, there's going to be a 13-month extension at a cost of $56 billion.

4) A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees: This is perhaps the most unexpected part of the compromise. Rather than extending the administration's Making Work Pay tax credit for two years, which would've been worth about $60 billion a year, they've agreed to a one-year cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees, which'll raise $120 billion in 2011. That's a much stronger boost over the next year, and of course these tax cuts have a tendency to get extended ...

5) Business expensing: Remember back in September, when the White House announced a proposal to give businesses two years in which they could deduct 100 percent of the cost of new investments? That's in the deal, too. The cost of this is a bit complicated -- it's $30 billion over 10 years, but it works by offering huge tax cuts in the next two years and then paying that back over the next eight. So we're basically trying to shift business investment forward to 2011 and 2012. Over those two years, the tax breaks should be around $200 billion, though because it's a shift rather than a cut, it will have less than $200 billion in impact.

Ezra's reaction is there as well. I think it's a "Meh. Coulda been worse."

Does President Obama have Corporate America by the balls??

Well, Noam Schieber seems to think so, and I think he's got a pretty good argument.

Two weeks after a mid-term election in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce helped thwart Barack Obama and the Democrats, the group’s CEO, Tom Donohue, gave a speech that read like a doubling down of sorts. “We cannot allow this nation to move from a government of the people to a government of the regulators,”he said. “Regulation is the vehicle by which some seek to control our economy, our businesses, and our lives.” Nor did Donohue leave any doubt about how he intended to prosecute this fight: “The Chamber will mount a vigorous defense and aggressive offense in support of the right to lobby, communicate with voters … and to do so without government harassment or undue restriction.” In other words, Donohue plans to spend gobs more money on lobbyists and ads to undermine Obama.

But, if you look at what Donohue had to say in a less scripted moment, it’s not clear that he and the Chamber feel quite as triumphal as they’d have you believe. Asked about Republicans’ mounting criticism of the Federal Reserve, Donohue sounded positively frustrated. “The Fed has over many, many, many years been particularly helpful to this government and to this country,” he lectured reporters. “We must maintain the independence of the Fed and be very, very careful not to louse that up on Capitol Hill.”

Oops! Having spent tens of millions of dollars defeating Democrats while explicitly touting the Tea Party movement, the Chamber is waking up to the fact that its brand new Congress may be a touch better in theory than in practice. Not only are many recently elected GOPers hostile to the Fed, they also oppose infrastructure spending, corporate subsidies, expanded free trade, and pretty much anything Wall Street favors—all top Chamber priorities.

Which is why the White House shouldn’t be in an especially conciliatory mood when dealing with the Chamber and its allies. Big business may talk a good game these days. But, in a world where the Tea Parties are about to get the keys to the Capitol, Corporate America needs adults like Barack Obama much more than he needs it.

Any article that takes the time to rip Amity Shlaes, minister of information for the country-club-industrial-complex (Noam's words...I only wish they were mine), is okay by me.

It continues on to the key graphs:

If you parse Tom Donohue’s speech, the administration should be sufficiently cowed after the midterms to retreat from key pieces of health care reform, financial reform, and greenhouse-gas regulation in exchange for business support on other issues. Business also wants to extend all the Bush tax cuts and preserve the tax advantage for overseas profits, which the White House opposes.

But it’s actually the administration that now holds the cards. For one thing, the regulations the Chamber is most exercised about also happen to be the most popular. The big banks hate the new consumer financial products agency, but the public strongly supports it. The insurance companies hate not being able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; the public can’t wait for that provision to take effect. The Chamber would be foolish to go to war over these issues.

More importantly, corporations are suddenly in a much more precarious position than they were prior to the election. That may be counterintuitive given the Republican gains. But, while it’s tempting to assume that the interests of business overlap perfectly with the interests of the Republican Party, that’s simply not the case. The GOP wants to defeat Democrats at all costs. Big business has to make a more sophisticated calculation: It wants to defeat Democrats, since GOP rule typically means lower taxes and fewer regulations. But, unlike the GOP, the shorter-term costs of achieving this goal matter quite a bit to Corporate America. Republicans might accept a double-dip recession as the price of vanquishing Democrats. But, to most corporate managers, such profit-destroying horrors outweigh the benefits of GOP rule.

For that matter, even GOP rule itself doesn’t look nearly as appealing in the Tea Party era. In addition to opposing big business on some of its top priorities, like infrastructure spending and immigration reform, Tea Party pols are prone to dangerous games of brinkmanship. For example, many are drawing a line on raising the nation’s debt limit, which could create a fiscal crisis, leading to a collapse of the dollar and a surge in interest rates.

During the mid-term campaign, the Chamber breezily dismissed such worries by insisting the Tea Partiers would shed their most extreme positions once in office. "Some of the politics of the Tea Party and legislative practicalities just don't match up," the group’s political director, Bill Miller, told Bloomberg Businessweek in October. But the reality is that the GOP is much more likely to move toward the Tea Party movement than vice versa. That’s because the power of the movement is structural: It has less to do with individual office-holders than with the constant threat of primary challenges against Republicans who drift too far to the center, as occurred this year in Utah, Alaska, Florida, and Delaware.

All of which makes the business community’s greatest source of leverage over Democrats—the threat of ousting them on Election Day—significantly less credible. The more Democrats that Big Business takes out, the closer it comes to consolidating power for the Tea Parties and all the nightmares that entails. If that wasn’t apparent before November 2, it’s almost inescapable now.

Putting a thumb in the eye of Liberal Discontent, Part 4 (Congress screwed up the Bush Tax cuts, not the White House)

And now we have Greg Sargent:

My understanding from the reporting I did at the time is that White House officials repeatedly signaled to Dem Congressional leaders that they wanted the vote [on extending only the middle class part of the Bush Tax Cuts] to happen. Nancy Pelosi, too, wanted it to happen. But she and Steny Hoyer ultimately deferred to moderate Dems who feared such a vote would allow Republicans to paint them as tax hikers. Dem leaders also worried that they might lose the vote, though it's unclear why this should have mattered: It still would have forced House GOPers to make a tough choice before the election.

It's also key to keep in mind that when the possibility of the vote was still hanging over the elections, Dems were on the offensive. They were winning. As Ezra Klein reminds us, Republicans were clearly caught in a bind. House GOPers like John Boehner and Dave Camp were actually saying they might vote with the Dems. That was a clear signal that Dems held the cards at the time. Yet they punted anyway. Now Republicans are in a stronger position: Dems have been "shellacked," Republicans are no longer facing an election, and the tight timing of the lame-duck session has given the GOP more leverage.

You could argue that the White House could have been more vocal about their desire for a pre-election vote or pushed Dem leaders harder to make it happen. But the White House was right to grant Congressional leaders the leeway to chart their own course. And at a certain point, it's tiresome to hear Dems blame the White House for their own lack of spine or leadership. Amid the roar of criticism of the White House, let's keep in mind that they aren't to blame for a key aspect of the Dems' current predicament.

The important choice before Senate Republicans on Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

This may have been covered to death, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates really nailed the Senate Republicans this morning when he discussed the Pentagon's Report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

"This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness."

"Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year," Gates said. "I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen this past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue."

Greg Sargent:

The Congressional staffer summarized the conclusion this way: "The conclusion of the report is that the authors believe that with the prompt implementation of their recommendations, the risk of repeal for military effectiveness is low. The U.S. military can adjust and accomodate the change."

....

Bottom line: The military has spoken. And the pretexts for opposing repeal are running out.

Bottom line: Do it now, neatly Congress, or have the Courts do it for you, messy.

A rebuke to both to the left and the right when it comes to our preconceived notions...

Great catch from Andrew Sullivan reading from a guy named P.M. Carpenter:

Just as the modern right requires frequent reminders that prior to Europe's liberalism and America's New Dealism life was for many a living hell utterly without safety nets, the modern left needs reminding that not all national security measures are a "military-industrial" scam.

Bondad on why you can expect no problems to get solved on the Deficit and Taxes in the foreseeable future

Back from Turkey Day, and it's back to business:

From the Bondad:

The Republicans on the panel are generally opposed to raising taxes and the Democrats to big changes in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The above emboldened words illustrate the stupidity of Washington. Simply put there is no way to balance the budget without two things happening: taxes going up and some kind of compromise on health care spending. There is just no way for meaningful change to happen without both parties compromising on their key issues. So, expect the problem to continue.

White House White Board: The Rebirth of the American Auto Industry (VIDEO)

Josh Marshall (via TPM) thinks these the White Board videos are "simultaneously quaint, bizarre and also kind of cool". I just think they're cool.



Clear-eyed, easy to understand Economics reporting (or anything related to Econ) is hard to find. Let's enjoy these while we have them.

Jonathan Chait: Rich guy Harold Ford says that we should extend Tax Cuts for Rich Guys like him...

With each passing day, I grow happier and happier that Harold Ford is nowhere near Congress.

This is from an Op-Ed he wrote for Forbes:

The most important thing our leader can do is to push the reset button with business and not raise taxes on companies in a time of economic hardship. The U.S. economy and workers benefit from a strong, healthy relationship between government and business. America's most powerful job-creation engine, the private sector, remains under intense pressure from the uncertainty surrounding tax rates and new regulations, among other things.

On companies he said.  That's the most important thing.

What exactly is the difference between him and Bob Corker?


The man's a weasel. Like Elliot Spitzer and Eyan Bayh to come, he's looking to make money by being an "honest broker Democrat" who'll criticize other Democrats. Trust them at your peril.

Jonathan Chait was even more vicious:

I hope this kind of truth-telling doesn't hurt Ford's chances of securing a plush gig at one of the well-heeled institutions dedicated to punishing the rich and powerful. Hopefully some private equity firm can take him under their wing and allow him to continue to speak truth to power.

So what do the polls say about Tax Cuts for the Rich?

The following is from a NBC/WSJ Poll. I got the emphasis from Greg Sargent's blog, so all credit to him:

Congress will soon decide whether to keep in place the existing tax cuts enacted during President Bush's time in office, or allow them to expire. Which one of the following options would be your preference for what they should do?

Eliminate all the tax cuts permanently: 10

Eliminate the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 per year, but keep them for those earning less than that: 39

Keep in place all the tax cuts for everyone for another year to three years: 23

Keep in place the tax cuts for everyone permanently: 23

As it happens, far and away the largest group, 39 percent, favors the Dem proposal of extending only the middle class cuts and letting the high end ones expire.

Now, this is not entirely conclusive. Another way to look at these numbers is to note that 46 percent favor either a temporary or permanent extension of all the cuts. The counter to that, though, is that more -- 49 percent -- favor the options that would eliminate the tax cuts on the wealthy.

But all that parsing aside, the simple fact is that when the public is offered the full range of options currently being considered, the Dem position has significantly more public support than any other one. The "compromise" being discussed is supported by less than a fourth. So why is there even a debate underway among Dems over how proceed?

Republicans against Federal Spending...who don't want to acutally do anything about it (VIDEO)

From last night's Keith. Great stuff:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lewis Black, Nate Silver and the shameless utter hypocrisy of the American People (VIDEO)

I was going to do a whole piece on the American's shameless hypocrisy over the full body scanners. Save me! Save me from those nasty Muslims! Do whatever you have to do...to them. Take away my neighbor's civil liberties, I have nothing to hide.

Wait, you want to do something to me? Whooooaaa, you crossed a line there, fella.

Of course, Lewis Black said it (and performed it) way better.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black - Nanny State
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

It reminds me of the old adage: Black people.  Why I love black people!  Blacks are some of my best friends...


...but no, I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.

Instead here its: Muslims?  I ain't afraid of no Muslims...but don't let one sit next to me, okay?  And don't let them build a Mosque in my neighborhood...and God help you if you touch my junk!
Still, Nate Silver has a couple interesting points about his own experiences with the Scanners in San Diego (an experience mirrored by Sports Talk Show Host, Jim Rome on his own show this morning, but I don't have audio for that):

My first experience with the full-body scanners, on a flight back to Kennedy Airport from San Diego last month, was also a negative one. I had assumed that, whatever their other faults, the full-body scanners would at least speed up the process of going through the security line; I supposed I imagined something like this scene from the movie Total Recall, in which passengers literally don’t even have to pause to go through security as their bodies are scanned while they walk toward the departure gate.

Instead, the lines were quite slow — possibly because the machines were coming up with a lot of false positives, myself included. As is my usual practice when passing through airport security, I emptied my pants pockets completely — there wasn’t so much as a stick of gum, a penny, or a taxi receipt in there. But the machine nevertheless insisted that that there was something in the back right-hand pocket of my jeans. When the official from the Transportation Security Administration asked me what I had in my pocket, and I told him that there was absolutely nothing, he then performed a pat-down. I was in a chipper enough mood that I wasn’t inclined to make a scene, but I did ask the T.S.A. official whether it was routine for the machines to see things that weren’t there, to which he declined to respond.

This is not necessarily to suggest that my experience was typical — although perhaps there are some particular issues in San Diego, the same airport at which Mr. Tyner experienced his problems, and perhaps there is something of a learning curve as T.S.A. crews learn how to use the new technologies effectively.

And Nate has some interesting stuff about the polls finding Americans in favor of the scanners:

The T.S.A. is fond of citing polls which suggest that about 75 or 80 percent of air travelers approve of the new machines. There are a couple of issues having to do with the timing of these surveys, however. Most of them were conducted in January, immediately after the failed attempt last Christmas day by a Nigerian man, who had concealed explosives in his underwear, to blow up a plane travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit — during which time concern about air travel security would naturally have been quite elevated.

In addition, the surveys were conducted at a time when virtually no Americans would have had experiences with the full-body scanners, which had not yet been installed in any American airports at that time. Again, I have no way of knowing whether my experience at San Diego was at all typical. But if so, I would imagine that other people might have their opinions shifted after actually having encountered the machines.

A suggestion for John-of-Orange...one and done??

Coming off that ridiculous piece in the Washington Post, Jonathan Bernstein (subbing for Jonathan Cohn) comes up with something similar for the House Republicans, though far funnier: John Boehner and entire Republican Caucus should resign the day after they're sworn in.

Yeah! That'll get those stinkin' Democrats! They'll never know what hit 'em!!

Congress, without a quorum in the House, would be paralyzed. Ideally, this would coincide with a short extension of appropriations through, say, January 15, so that Democrats would be left running the entire government when it shut down. Blame the Republican heroes? How? They’re not even there! The massive inconveniences would clearly be the fault of Kenyan anticolonial ideology.

For once, conservatives wouldn’t have to worry about their leaders selling them out. How could they, when they weren’t even there?

Richard Trumka's trying to get the White House, Nancy and Harry to hold a Middle Class Tax Cut vote solo...

According to the headline writers at the Huffington Post, it may even be working. (As of 3:35pm Pacific, the banner headline on their homepage is: DEMS MAY VOTE ON MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS ONLY)

Still, there's nothing in the article that says it may be working.

The largest union federation in the country has been in talks with both Democrats in Congress and members of the administration to push them to hold a vote that would only extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and not those for the rich.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said on Tuesday that his group has been "working diligently with lawmakers and the White House" about its legislative preference for the expiring tax rates. Though he wouldn't elaborate on the substance of those discussions, Turmka explained that "to date, no one that I'm aware of said that's not a good strategy, that's not good policy, and that's not good for the country."

Listen, fingers crossed. I think this is the right move. I just there was some evidence for Huffpo's clickable optimism.

Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow are telling you the same thing America, John McCain is a flake! (VIDEO)

Of course, both of these clips of video got a fair amount of airplay in the Blogosphere. I just thought it'd be useful to have them in the same place for once.

For the record, Jon's funnier.

Then again, he's not trying to be news.



And finally, the Daily Show (which I saw first):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
It Gets Worse PSA
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I don't want to forget this special moment of Daily Show goodness, discussion the static nature of our contemporary political discourse...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Republicans Miss Bill Clinton
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

And, your moment of Zen...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - John McCain Questions Homosexual Conduct
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

For those who like lines in the sand, @ezraklein draws four lines in the sand

Well, they should be lines in the sand.

This is really good stuff.  He calls them Four possible deals on Bush Tax Cuts:

1) Unemployment insurance: In a few weeks, unemployment benefits will expire for 2 million Americans. An extension of the benefits commands majority support among Democrats, Republicans and independents. But most Hill observers think Congress will fail to act. It would be unconscionable, however, to let unemployment benefits expire even as the tax cuts for the rich are continued. If Republicans aren't willing to come to the table on unemployment benefits, Democrats shouldn't move on tax cuts for the wealthy. And if they're not willing to take that case to the public, what are they good for, exactly?

2) The debt ceiling: In February, Congress will have to vote to lift the debt ceiling. Republicans are already looking toward this moment eagerly. Sen. Jim DeMint, for instance, wants to use it as leverage for "returning to 2008 spending levels" and "repealing Obamacare." Of course, part of the reason the debt ceiling will have to rise is that extending the Bush tax cuts will cost about $4 trillion -- all of it on the deficit. If Republicans want the tax cuts, Democrats should force them to accept the consequences of their vote and stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the debt ceiling. For Democrats to vote to extend Bush's tax cuts and then let Republicans hammer them on raising the debt ceiling borders on self-parody.

3) Comprehensive tax reform: Our tax code is long-overdue for an overhaul. We need to clean out the loopholes, lower the rates and get rid of the tricks and traps (like, for instance, the occasional expiration of unaffordable tax cuts). The Bush tax cuts offer a useful forcing mechanism for that process: Sen. Kent Conrad has proposed pairing a short extension with a mandate for comprehensive tax reform. If the reform doesn't pass, then rates snap back to their 1999 levels, or deductions start taking across-the-board cuts.

4) The expiration of the tax cuts for income over $250,000: This was originally the White House's position, though they don't seem to be fighting for it very hard. Now it's the position of the House Progressive Caucus. They want to split the vote on the tax cuts for the rich from the vote on the tax cuts for income under $250,000. It's widely acknowledged that this makes the passage of the tax cuts for the rich less likely, which is why Republicans are ferociously resisting it. it's unclear exactly what leverage they're wielding in that effort, but whatever it is, it seems to be working.

I personally think my fellow Liberal numbnuts who failed to show up on November 2nd, deserve an awful lot of scorn for what's about to happen to us for the next two years. And I would also remind my fellow Liberals that you have just demonstrated that you're not worth dealing with, because in the end, no matter what the policy is, no matter what's done or passed, it will never be good enough and you will stab your own ideological colleagues in the back.

At the same time, Democrats bear a responsibility to make sure we know there's a difference between us and them.  They talked a good and convincing game about responsibility to the middle-class, and votes they want to pass.  Howzabout stepping up and passing them?

Erza probably put it better:

The Bush tax cuts cannot pass without Democratic support. They expire before the House changes hands. And even if they didn't, Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. They have a much stronger negotiating position than the Republicans: They can decide what passes, and Republicans have never been willing to end the tax cuts for most Americans simply to preserve the tax cuts for the rich. But though they're the party in charge, Democrats aren't acting like it.

Elizabeth Warren delivers the Mario Savio memorial lecture at Berkeley (VIDEO)

Great get from Ezra:



Just to let you know, the lady herself does not appear until the 25:39 mark.

Rachel Maddow's Unedited Interview with Jon "I have the boubons" Stewart (VIDEO)

Jon was sick, so for about the first ten minutes, he's off his game. But he warms up as time goes on, and he did not throw up once during the interview. Kudos!

The Huffington Post finds a way to break absolutely no news at all...

I've never been a big fan of Howard Fineman, but I was at least hoping that his journalistic ethos would rub off on the Click-addicts at the Huffington Post.

No such luck.

Here's the Headline:

White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

And here's the relevant section:

But there is just such a change on taxes.

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.

"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," he said, which means the administration will have to accept them all for some as yet unspecified period of time. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."

In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be that the tax-cuts-for-the wealthy not be extended "permanently."

What does that mean?

Well, not a lot, and a lot closer to nothing at all. This is the same thing we've been hearing about for, literally, months now. Don't wanna extend the Tax cuts for the Rich. Will probably wind up temporarily extending Tax Cuts for the rich in order to get Tax cuts for Middle Class.

Now, I don't like it...but it's not news.

Huffington Post? Call me when you break something.

The Hill: Did the Deficit Commission just call for a second look at the Public Option?

First caught (at least in my mind) by Kos on his Twitter account.

The answer is simple: Yes they have:

In their report, Bowles and Simpson urged Congress to set a global target for total federal health expenditures after 2020 and to review costs every two years to keep the growth of healthcare spending in line with the increase of gross domestic product plus 1 percent.

If costs exceed targets, the fiscal commission’s draft proposal would require the president to submit to Congress reforms such as the public option to lower spending.

The chairmen’s proposal calls for consideration of “a robust public option” among other reforms such as an overhaul of the fee-for-service system; an increase in healthcare premiums; a premium support system for Medicare; and strengthened authority for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which under current law will be empowered to restrict Medicare payments beginning in 2015.

Hmmmm....