Sen. Gary Hart. Sen. Bill Bradley, Msnbc's Lawrence O'Donnell, Sen. Bob Packwood and Sen. John Danforth. (Chris Eckert/Esquire magazine)
Between working, eating, sleeping and, you know, life, lingering tasks can be hard to squeeze into a three-day period, let alone over a single weekend. (That laundry mountain didn't build itself).
It becomes even more challenging when that lingering task is the federal budget of the United States of America. We keep putting it off, but it isn't going away any time soon. But, a small group of former legislators managed to the unthinkable, without calling someone a terrorist, without slamming their character based on what they did in college, or questioning their loyalty to the Constitution.
Esquire magazine called on Senators Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, John Danforth, Bob Packwood and our very own host with the most Lawrence O'Donnell to balance the federal budget by 2020. (Yes, before his days moonlighting on cable TV, Lawrence worked as a Senate aide for Daniel Patrick Moynihan). They all came in to this project with a range of political beliefs and party affiliations.
For three long days in August, the guys toiled away in one conference room, hammering out solutions to one of the biggest problems facing our country today. There were raised voices and many disagreements. But, the guys powered through. They managed to balance the budget, add a surplus of $12 billion, reform Social Security and its longevity and maintain current tax rates for a decade.
Capitol Hill could stand to learn a thing or two. The full report is in the latest issue of Esquire.
Leave a Comment:
Not to be critical of the work of good people, but didn't the Concord Coalition do this several years ago?
Ok, double post, two topics. The raising of the retirement age is a horrific idea. It shows absolutely no understanding of the ways the body ages, and the disabilities that come on with normal aging. The whole committee needs to do a round in Gerontology at an accredited medical school. It's not just people who work in the environment who need consideration for disabilities, its a majority of human beings. The body gives out. It fades out. It deteriorates. And by 67, it's well under way for most human beings. Even "Dr." Dean is in denial about this reality, which makes me wonder which Nigerian web site he may have gotten his medical degree from.
Demanding that people work when they are slipping into decrepitude is brutalizing to the elderly. Many people are working past 67 only because they have to. You can't live on Social Security, and many, many jobs don't offer 401ks (which are a major fraud in themselves--don't get me started) . The deterioration of the buying power of the dollar, and the depressing of wages in the US, forces people to work beyond the normal capacity of their bodies. You can't live decently on the devalued wages many people have to accept (many of our MSNBC folks have done stories on this). Save a bunch of money for retirement? Guys--that's a sick joke.
And then there's the question of where our young people are going to find jobs as old folks (I'm one, so I can use the term) hang onto their jobs, literally for dear life. Talk about a social/economic disaster, this will be one.
Answer: We need to just suck it up and expand the SS tax to the total income people make, with no cap at a certain income level. Hold the percentage, or maybe drop it as revenue increases, and just increase the amount of income it's assessed against. The same thing local governments do to generate income--hold the property tax rate steady, but increase the valuation of the property. Except in this case, the tactic is open, above-board, and necessary.
Don't force we old folks to work until we fall over with a heart attack. I've seen it happen, because the bodies of good, hard-working people just gave out. This part of the proposal is horribly vicious and cruel, and must be rejected.
It doesn't even take that--just get rid of the cap on SS taxes. If this had been done for the last 20 years we wouldn't even be talking about this. Once again the rich have gotten away with killing the middle class.
The number one problem with Social Security has been the sluggish growth in income at the bottom three quintiles. Remove the cap then enact policies to encourage bottom up wage growth and Washington can go back to suckling of working people's teat again.
Exactly right, Dfor, and I note from the Esquire article this was not even mentioned. The current cap is slightly over $104k. Raise it to $250k, or even establish a formula where the cap is automatically raised over time to cover the X percentage of wages earned.
I don't understand the hue and cry over Social Security as a part of the deficit anyway. It is not! Because SS projects out to 75 years, yes, it is time to make adjustments to meet that obligation, but even under the current circumstances, SS will remain solvent until 2037.
SS is not now, nor has it ever been a part of the general fund. Look at your pay stub. You'll note that SS taxes are withheld separately from the federal income tax. Now we have a host of people crying that the trust fund is worthless because it's held (by law) in US bonds. Huh?
The problem is that most of this is glossed over with the spin repeated over and over until few question it anymore.
I am 44 years old and am a chef (manager) and work in several restaurants. My job is physically taxing. I (literally) cannot do it for 30 more years. What about me? I do not receive 401k or profit sharing or union benefits.
Should I work for Abbleby's? Is that better?
Nancy P, I feel your pain. I would like to share with you my intimate proposals on cutting the deficit and the debt, without harming the middle and working class. These proposals are of course limited and do not address (my favorite word) the question of the trade deficit or the outsourcing of American jobs and the harmful effect of globalization throughout the "developing" world.
You can view my modest proposals (which only cover the issues addressed on this excellent program) on page three or so of the comments page. In addition (and included in many ways) in my reasonable proposals is the raising of Social Security payments and the decrease of the burdens placed on the middle and working class by the rising cost of healthcare. I would love to hear your feedback on my little patrtial outline on a better and more just economy. I thank you for sharing your story.
You Make Some Very Good Points... However, You Missed Part About the 70yr old Collection age NOT affecting Those ON or Near Collecting SS Benefits. In Addition, the 70yrs Old Would be When You Can Collect SS, NOT Retire.....
It Is NOT Up to Government to Provide for Retirement. It IS Each Persons Responsibility to Provide His/Hers Own Retirement. SS was Created as a Supplemental Program to be of HELP, NOT to Provide.
Unfortunately, This Is NOT Taught in Schools, at Home, or via Taxpayer Paid Ads. In Addition, Our Elected Officials Raided the Excess $$$ Brought In, in the Early Years of the Program to Create Other Programs Using SS Funds.
Future Generations are Doomed to Worse Financial Problems than We Face Today IF No Action is Taken to Rework the Entitlement Programs. The Great, Great, Great Grand Kids of U & I will be Economic Slaves Without Reform.
We have been paying (via corp. tax cuts) to export hundreds of thousands of jobs each year. Welfare was eliminated, increasing the number of people desperate for jobs. As jobs continue to flow out of the country, we hear the call to raise the retirement age, once again increasing the number of people desperate for jobs -- all to preserve the tax cuts used to export more jobs. This is how to completely collapse an economy and bring down the USA.
On forcing the aging and disabled to work: At least some states, such as Wisconsin, experimented with requiring certain disabled SSI recipients (those who had dependent children) to "find jobs." The results were not good. Not at all.
We saw how welfare was eliminated via a number of incremental steps, starting with cutting benefits. Social Security "reform" is using the same game plan. American families must realize that most will be compelled to provide for their elderly and disabled family members while trying to provide for their children. This will push the great majority of middle class families into poverty.
So, aask the public if they really want to increase the number of people desperate for jobs to protect the annual corporate tax cuts used to export US jobs?
You guys totally blew it on Social Security. Not once did you address the cap issue. I have totally lost respect for Bill Bradley after seeing him dog the hard working men and women of this country for expecting a decent end of life outcome. I still remember the first time I reached the cap and suddenly I was getting $200+ in each paycheck for 3 months. What a deal! For decades the wealthy of this country have been getting away with killing the middle class for just their greed.
And Danford--SCREW YOU AND ALL YOU CONSUMPTION TAXING BASTARDS!! The day this country goes to a flat consumption based tax is the day I start using my deer rifle for something other than deer.
I agree with the last comment. These three wealthy "liberals" have sold out to the conventional wisdom. They may work until 70 at their soft jobs but the rest of us who start our days before dawn and work until dark cannot. Just because people are living longer does not mean they can work that much longer. I agree with the last comments. Raise the social security tax, raise the cap on social security tax and let us keep the American Dream of being able to retire while we are able to enjoy a few years of life before we die. A very disappointing panel this evening.
Actually, the life expectancy of America's poor has been on a downhill slide for a number of years now. As more of the middle class falls into poverty, they can expect a reduced lifespan. This will ensure that eventually, only "deserving Americans" (the non-poor) live long enough to collect Social Security. This is just another means of making sure that the money stays in the hands of " the right people."
Maybe our Congressmen/women and Senators should have to achieve some type of tenure before receiving full Federal Retirement benefits for life. Most employees must reached some type of tenure but anyone in congress if they serve one day they get full retirement. retired civil servants most of whom receive a modest federal retirement are also subject to a huge penalty against their social security (WEP) when they work after retirement. Let's face it, these job are just ways of supplementing their retirement but still take a big hit unlike Congress who are not subject to it. I know this won't help with the budget but perception counts and when you don't give out COLAs and talk about raising the retirment age, Congress needs to play/pay too.
Federal employees, including members of Congress, must work at least five years before they are eligible for a pension. They cannot start receiving benefits prior to age 55. Benefits are based on length of service and income.
I don't think the 5 year rule applies to members of Congress
So You consider what they do service? Sucking on the old American taxpayer might be a better consideration.
According to PoliiFact, time served limits, as well as mandatory payments into Social Security, began in 1985, although those in Congress before that date are excused from either one of those.
That does not, however, put them in the same boat as the rest of us poor working slobs in the middle class. Raising retirement age to 70 is not a big deal when you sit on your butt for very limited hours when Congress happens to be in session, and have literally months of vacation time every year.
One other thing I still haven't heard anyone address is what are people supposed to do during that 60 to 70 time frame when they are becoming less and less employable. Not everyone can work as a Wal-Mart greeter.
60? Hell, try 50! Age discrimination has been a problem (and anti-bias protections eroded) even well before the current economic disaster, and now it's becoming SOP. We're looking at a significant portion of the population who are going to be scraping the bottom in part-time low-paying jobs for a good decade and a half (all the while eroding their savings and tapping their 401s) before they can claim the privilege that most of us have paid significantly higher rates for, over most of our working lives, than those who went before us, let alone the younger generation, who'll have it even worse. Most people seem to have forgotten that the SS retirement age is already well past 65. That was part of the plan reached by the LAST "commission" that tackled Social Security in the '80s. In exchange for "saving" Social Security for the boomers, we all got a steep hike in FICA taxes AND a phased-in higher retirement age (mine is 66 and 4 months; everyone born after 1960-something, I forget the exact year, must wait until 67). Interesting how the conversation never changes.
By the way, it's quite misleading to compare life expectancy at BIRTH of the 1930s with life expectancy in 2010 and apply that to SS. The reason life expectancy in 1940 was so low was because a huge percentage of the population never made it to adulthood. Comparing life expectancy at working age in 1940 and 2010 and you'll find there's very little difference. So the people who are affected by SS are actually not living significantly longer once they start collecting than people did in the first generation of SS beneficiaries. This conversation on Social Security is so completely dishonest. It's amazing how unkillable zombie assumptions are.
Look at all the powerful, old, white men! I'm sure that group came up with something groundbreaking that will help the little guy.
They removed my original comment, but I still wonder why there are no minorities or women included in the group of old, white men. Even an old white woman would be welcome, I would think.
Kudos to Lawrence O'Donnell, Esquire magazine, and four distinguished senators. I can only thank them all for doing this.
The retired senators have mellowed. Bravo to them for stepping up to try and solve our problems - my goodness a discussion without name calling? - Wow I hope it becomes the model for the next Congress.
Thanks again.
David A. Fay
David,
What substantive solution did they present that hasn't been talked about? Why wasn't the SS cap discussed? Why was taxes on the rich and powerful not fully discussed? Not a single one of these guys represented the working people of this country. Your quest for no name calling has its penalties, namely nothing gets done.
Lawrence and his elitist friends stab workers in the back. Do they have any idea how hard it is for a 65 year old find a job? How come lawmakers pensions are never discussed when talking about cutting the deficit?
You have found your footing. We are crying out for substantive, fact oriented discussions of today's pressing policy challenges. Existing cable news is tired, petty, and redundant. Many many people are craving thoughtful, fact based policy discussions to inform on the difficult choices. Thank you. Please do not make this a one time event. You will find an amazing response to substance in our public debate.
Gather a bunch of wealthy white men to discuss balancing the budget and what do you get? Tax increases on working people and an increase in the retirement age. Color me unsurprised.
You can lecture Democrats for taking raising the retirement age and cuts in Social Security off the table, but by taking elimination of the cap on payroll taxes off the table, you haven't got a shred of credibility.
I would really like to know why O'Donell's quaint little collection of wealthy old codgers couldn't even think about raising the earnings cap on Social Security, opting instead to have our children work until the age of seventy.
O'Donnell has proved himself to be nothing more than a Pomeranian for whatever corporate goons decide to market themselves as "moderate"
This show is worthless. Go back to your silly little TV dramas, Larry.
These guys are essentially O'Donnell's chums from his days as a staffer in the Senate.
To those critical of the recommendations. Perfect. This is the debate that we need and this show had the guts to deliver something of substance, where nothing existed before. Take and voice your positions, but recognize the value in thoughtful debate. Don't kill the content. Embrace it.
As Lawerence himself states on a regular basis you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Facts are facts. Everything I heard discussed by these rich white guys (I'm white, upper-middle class in case you are wondering) has been discussed before. The might as well been sitting there saying the "world is flat" over and over again. It still doesn't make it right.
I give credit for proposing a solution. That is more than we typically get from our elected officials. They get no credit for diversity of opinion. I realize there were Republicans and Democrats among the cadre of old, rich white guys, but that just doesn't do it for me.
The defense stuff was well done and explained very well. But on Social Security, what a FAIL. Everything is on the table except creating a more fair taxation system, with modest increases on high income earners, to support Social Security. WTF?
Really disturbing to hear Bill Bradley and Gary Hart claim that raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are the only options -- to "save" Social Security which they admit is SELF FINANCING -- and therefore has NOTHING to do with the debt. Why was this not pointed out? Just appalling.
And this idea of setting workers against each other -- presumably working class workers get earlier retirement than white collar workers, which will thus fuel even more resentment than we are already saddled with in this country. And will working class workers have to apply for this favored status? Who will judge whether they are worthy? No chance there will be abuse or unfairness or bias in such a system. What a horrific idea! Do we as Democrats nit understand that the quickest way to kill a program is to means test it so then we can argue about who does and doesn't deserve it? See: welfare reform.
Also why is it more valuable to maintain the Bush tax rates than to maintain the retirement age?
Balancing the budget is not a good in and of itself. The fairness of the system matters much more.
I would have expected more from this group than buying into the absolute mythology that Social Security is in crisis -- it is not -- and that it is inevitable that those of us in our 30s will have to work until we collapse on the job. We can and should aim higher than this.
Clearly the elites in our country -- Republicans and way too many Democrats -- are invested in destroying the middle class and denying most of us any kind of retirement. It's going to be up to the rest of us to not let them steal from us on this massive scale. If we don't resist it, they will win. It is not inevitable unless we let them do it.
Explain your "way too many Democrats" tack on? Who is that referring to other than a few conservaDems who are DINOs?
Sorry should have explained -- I meant conservative Dems, DINOs as you call them, and even some moderate Dems -- because I never would have tagged Bradley or Hart as conservadems but seeing them buy into this SS crisis bunk makes me realize maybe they are...which is seriously troubling...BTW totally agree with you on the regressive and immoral consumption tax. As someone who lives in a state that (humanely) does not tax food, clothing or shoes (up to certain limits), I can't understand how this tax is seen as an option, especially when so many big corporations and the wealthy are able to avoid paying any income tax year after year.
Not to worry. You'll notice there is nothing in the report about raising the age for early retirement, which is currently 62. White collar workers tend to make more and have more generous retirement plans than blue-collar workers. Many will be able to retire early and start collecting benefits while their blue collar brethren get a three year tax increase and have their benefits cut by three years.
A wonderful show this evening! Yes, kudos all around. I wonder if there could be some way of having only retired elected officials, those never worried about re-election, debate and pass laws (tongue in cheek), or at least have strict term limits allowing our elected servants the freedom of thinking, speaking, and voting freely without campaign pressures from voters, special interest groups, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Quoting James Clarke: "A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation." We need a return of statesmen and stateswomen. And we need it now!!
Thank you Lawrence O'Donnell, Esquire magazine, and four distinguished senators. I was inspired to tonight's discussion and look forward to reading the Commission's work and recommendations. I may not agree with all of the recommendations mentioned during the discussion but at least the Commission reached some common ground. I wish we could lock up our legislators to make sure they would discuss the issues and in come up with a list of recommendations!
Your comment about common ground reminds me of the healthcare debate. What good is a compromise (common ground) when the compromise is as bad as the current system. If you were to strip away everyone's insurance and wealth we would very quickly have a national health system because it IS the right thing to do. This groups on everything from taxes to SS doesn't surprise me since they are just regurgitating previous nonsense. Flat tax Danforth? Really?
It is amazing how Republicrats get to lie about social security without being challenged. If we eliminate the cap, and also quit raiding the social security fund, the "problem" goes away completely. Isn't it time that people started talking about social security as a societal program, and not as an individual ira account? Why shouldn't millionaires pay a social security tax on all their income? Did they make it in a vacuum? It is SOCIAL security, to benefit society, to take care of the elderly and those who are in need. What kind of anti-social, un-Christian, greedy slobs do we have in this country?
And while we're at it, let's have an income tax that taxes all income fairly. I've had it with the rich getting gigantic breaks on investment income -- to tax capital gains at a rate less than income from labor is not only morally reprehensible, it is so illogical it's hard to believe that people actually buy the specious arguments used to promote the practice. It is just another example of those that have the gold getting to write all the rules in this country.
We have just come through a financial crisis that saw the middle class get raped to the tune of trillions of dollars by the wealthy elite in this country, and the stupid serfs on the right don't even have the wits to recognize what just happened. Utterly incredible. And then we have so-called "leaders" like the rich white guys in O'Donnell's cadre come up with ... sorry, it is just so infuriating I'm quitting here.
Fantastic comment, especially your first graf. Their anti-patriotism and greed and immorality seems to me to be at the core of the matter and it is the key to shaming them.
Shaming them won't work- they are literally shameless...
Could this panel have been more skewed? All center-right neoliberals, which seems to be the milieu in which O'Donnell is most comfortable.
Yes! Eliminate COLAs for military retirees and Social Security recipients! Raise the retirement age! A dollar tax on gasoline! Right on!
Tax hedge fund profits? A small transaction fee for Wall Street? Taxing the filthy rich at Eisenhower marginal rates? Medicare negotiating pharma costs? Single pay health care? No way! These would actually save more than the solutions recommended by the panel, but would cost the upper brackets - which include O'Donnell and friends - and corporate interests a little money. Therefore "politically unfeasible.
Establishment conventional wisdom - which has worked out so well for us - is all O'Donnell seems to offer his viewers...
I absolutely agree with the post above me! Never is it realistically suggested that they take away the "Cap" for paying Social Security. That is what is needed. Besides, Congress has raided the Social Security fund for years and I think that they are obligated to keep it up for the retiree because of what they have done. Also, we need to INCREASE the amount that the "bottom" payees get! That will really help the economy and help the seniors. Also, we need to stop charging a premium for Medicare and we need to get rid of co-payments. The main problem for medicare is for profit hospitals and labs and medical supply enterprises. We must learn to encourage these industries to be non-profits. And, we must treat people before they get sick! Finally, we must simply stop going off in the world and fighting wars. I would also suggest that we bring our troups home from abroad. Why do we need troups in Korea? Are these troups really going to be able to stop N Korea if they invade? Bring them home from around the world and especially Europe. My God, WWII has been over from before I was born! It's time to bring the troups home and close down our bases. I know that the host countries don't want that because we bring them money but too bad so sad it's time we came home. We NEVER talk about these things when we think of balancing the budget and not hurting seniors or the poor! Also, what is this with not wanting to raise taxes? this is a stupid position. And, a sales tax is not acceptable. Remember, it was two wars and a tax decrease that brought on the problem.... so stop going to war. And, the poor are the ones who joined the Armed forces and fought thses wars..they shouldn't have their retirements and medical benefits and food stamps and such taken away. I am tired of everyone finding ways to hurt the poor and the aged adn the sick to balance budgets. You have to stop that. If someone needs to take a hit let it be the more fortunate.
Lawrence....please have copies of the Esquire article forwarded directly to each member of Congress, both houses, as well as to the President , V.P., and members of the Executive Branch! Bravo. Please keep this going!
Lawrence made a statement that raising taxes to pay for Social Security Shortfalls would go against the principal of SS being a 'pay as you go' system. What is never mentioned in any broadcast program is the fact that since 1983, the Social Security trust funds (OASI and DI) have run a $2.4 trillion surplus. Social security payments were accelerated by congress, on the recommendation of the Greenspan commission, in anticipation of the looming 'baby boomer' retirement crisis. Though these extra funds were not supposed to be used for federal budget purposes, they were nevertheless 'borrowed ' by congress and spent to help hide the impact of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy. The 'borrowed' SS funds were replaced with federal securities (IOU'S). Now congress wants Americans to default on those IOU'S Saying, "We can't afford it." This is outright fraud and theft. It is a vertical redistribution of wealth to cover up 'voodoo economics'. Since we have already paid $2.4 trillion in Social Security taxes to subsidize the rich, perhaps it's time they paid us back. A tax increase on the wealthy is exactly what is warranted.
These are not compromises!! Raising the social security age until people are too old and sick to function is a Republican idea. Raising the cap on salaries of the wealthy is the only reasonable solution for social security. This panel was horrible--our children will have no security as the wealthy destroy humane social programs. i am infuriated. If i want to be upset by listening to political talk, i would listen to Fox. i expect better from MSNBC.
Did you calculate the higher unemployment rate for raising the retirement age? Or the depressed wages for having more people in the work force? Labor, like any other commodity, is subject to the laws of supply and demand. The more workers, the higher unemployment and the fewer job openings. The higher the supply of workers, the cheaper labor becomes, which means lower wages.
Do you know why college students are protesting in France because they want to raise the retirement age? They get it. More workers mean less open jobs. In a nation facing 10% unemployment, raising the retirement age is one of the worst things you can do.
You want to make Social Security permanently solvent?
Lift the cap off the top (currently at $108,000, after which zero Social Security taxes are paid, Bill Gates pays the same amount as working class families). Exempt the first $20,000, tax everything above that. We could lower the retirement age, cut the rate (at least in half) and have plenty of money to fund the program. And, we could make a significant cut in the unemployment rate.
Why do these so-called “budget solutions” entail more burdens on the working class? We’re $13 trillion in the hole. Did you see any of it?
When I heard that Lawrence was getting his own show I knew he would eventually, like a good DLC democrat, betray 90% of America buy caving in to the cons. (I am really sick of these Scoop Jackson/Moynihan Dems)
This country is truly on its last legs if "liberals" reallly think cuts to SS are just. Perhaps my anger can be asuaged if anyone in this comment section could confirm, or correct me on this points-
1) Isn't Social Sec really an insurance program or annuity and not an investment vehicle and isn't it unfair to reduce the benefits on something I have been paying into the last 30 years?
2) Doesn't Social Sec have in the trust fund US treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt (not useless paper as Dubya said) and will not have to reduce benefits for at least several decades if the return on these bonds is honored?
3) When I entered the workforce at 16, Reagan enacted one of the biggest tax increases in our history when he **DOUBLED** our FICA/Med payroll deductions. And if it wasn't technically a tax increase then is this increase I have paid all my working life (which the old men on this panel have not) allowed this panels generation to collect well beyond what they have contributed and are not they hypocrites because of this fact?
Is not this panel and the catfood commision attacking our future benefits anything other than a betrayal of the majority of Americans?
Thanks in advance for any help in helping me understand this.
hypocrite
Here's a stunning bit of nonsense
"These adjustments not only decrease the annual deficit by $86 billion in fiscal year 2020; along with a proposal to include all new state and local government workers in the Social Security program (see page 161 for details), they also ensure the solvency of Social Security for at least the next seventy-five years. At current spending levels, Social Security is projected to become insolvent by 2037, at which point it would be able to pay recipients only 78 percent of their expected benefits. The commission's proposals would guarantee recipients 100 percent of their expected benefits through at least 2085."
So, as things go now, Social Security will be solvent for 27 years and will then be able to pay 78% of currently projected benefits. Under the commission's proposal COLA adjustments will cause a decrease in benefits so you should expect to get less and you will. That is some serious spin.
Why our we balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class? Retirement benefits? Wait til your 70. And a $1 tax on gasoline? Are you kidding? How regressive of you. Hopefully, you exempted truckers or diesel otherwise the middle class will see costs of any goods transported by trucks, that would be food, clothes, etc, etc. Yet if I heard correctly, we keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% in this country. With friends like you and the Dems on that panel, we the middle class really don't have anyone fighting for us in Washington. Thanks for nothing. Social security an issue? Let's raise the cap. Ta-fricking-day ... solvency. Try again without selling out the middle class this time.