taxes are slated to be slashed for both corporations and 'the wealthy.'

That's the reason for the 'Grand Bargain'--the fact that wealthy Americans feel no compunction about not carrying their weight when it comes to paying federal taxes. (In comparison to the era when the top rate was over 90 percent.)

Indeed, they are insisting that their taxes be slashed in the future, while eliminating tax 'loopholes' which greatly benefit the broader American populace (150 million of whom are enrolled in Group Health Insurance, for instance).

[BTW, I am in no way opposed to helping folks by subsidizing their premiums. If anything, the eligibility criteria for income was set too low for singles and couple. After all, less than approximately $65,000 household income isn't even middle-class, today. So the cut-off for singles and couples, which was in the $30,000's and $40,000's respectively, was rather ridiculous. But, again, the ACA was mostly drafted/written by former WellPoint executive/VP, Liz Fowler. Clearly, her mission was to look out for the insurance industry, not the citizenry.]

Dem US Rep Jan Schakowsky (IL) references this in her Reutuers Op-Ed, "The Sham of Simpson-Bowles." See below.

The Great Debate

The Sham Of Simpson-Bowles
By Rep. Jan Schakowsky October 24, 2012

. . . In one of its few specific points, for example, Simpson-Bowles mandates a top individual tax rate of 29 percent “or less.”

(Again, since she wrote this, Ron Wyden--while Chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee--has negotiated the proposed top marginal tax rate down to 25 percent.)

Much like the vague Romney proposals, the Simpson-Bowles plan would make up the shortfall by eliminating tax loopholes, suggesting options such as having employees pay taxes on their health benefits.

Not only is this likely to increase costs to middle-income families, it could threaten coverage altogether.

The proposal for corporate tax reform would eliminate taxes on profits earned overseas, rewarding companies that move jobs offshore.

Somehow, being willing to cut “entitlement” benefits has been called a “badge of courage” for those who purport to be serious about deficit reduction– despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the deficit.

Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer. But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job. Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment.

For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent. . . .

Last summer, none other than Dem Sen Ron Wyden admitted to Reporter Gerald Seib, at a WSJ Conference, that he had negotiated a cut in the highest individual marginal tax rates--to 25 percent. Same for corps.

IOW, instead of raising taxes on those "who can afford to pay," the top marginal tax rate will be dropped from (technically) 39.6 to 25.0, sometime in the future.

To be clear--this is the reason for the proposed Grand Bargain, which has been passed and implemented in increments since its proposal in 2010.

And, according to Repub Senator Rob Portman on C-Span (about one year ago, BEFORE the 'Doc Fix'), approximately "85 percent" of the cuts proposed by the President's Fiscal Commission (Bowles-Simpson) have already been achieved.

Not sure how many folks are aware, but there is a push among corporatist politicians and policy shills to replace the FICA tax, with a VAT tax--to fund Social Security. This, of course, would also severe the tie between earnings and benefits received. Al From addressed this on December 26, 2013 on C-Span.

The reason for this reform is to alleviate 'business' of any responsibility for their employees' retirement security.

IOW, more 'trickle down' economics.

(I will try to "clip" the part of the interview on this. I've intended to do so, for months now, because I want the Dem Party candidates to address this policy proposal.)

Anyhoo, since our "entitlement programs"--which presently do not include any type of sick/maternity/vacation leave, etc.--have been/are being cut piecemeal in practically every piece of major budget legislation, I believe that the only wise way to go about expanding benefits, is to do so with an 'employer mandate.'

Especially, since progressive think tankers have long been pushing for privatized Unemployment Insurance--making the employee pay a premium for a 'policy,' via their workplace payroll system.

Also, a Panel working with this Administration has recommended that LTC (long term care) insurance coverage for poor, disabled, and elderly Americans be scrubbed from the Medicaid program--to be replaced with a 'mandate' to carry private LTC insurance, for all Americans. In the end, the Commission/Panel couldn't come to agreement on the finer details of a proposal, so it's been put to the side, for now. But I can't imagine that there won't be another stab at this 'reform.'

Everything that our legislators are currently proposing, would only further "shift the cost" onto the American People--not the other way around.

I'm watching to see what happens to civilian and military retirements/benefits, what "fix" will be negotiated for SSDI (which stands to be cut approximately 19%--if the shortfall is not addressed by transferring funds from the "Old Age" Fund), and, most of all, what tax and entitlement reform will occur by the end of the year.

I have a very queasy feeling that whatever happens--"it ain't gonna be pretty."

Mollie