« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How is this reform — because Republicans are not voting for a tax increase?

By: Dan Perrin (Diary)  |  July 24th, 2011 at 08:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It is irrational to expect different results from promising cuts in the future and raising the debt limit immediately.

The Dem trap is simple, wait out and refuse any real cuts, and then use Wall Street and the Federal Reserve and others to force Congress into granting new debt immediately, with promises of cuts in ten years.

The new deal sounds like the same old formula, it will change nothing. This is not serious reform.

No cuts ever stick — USG deficit spending always increases — especially now with the super spending catalyst of ObamaCare — that the Dems refused to amend or change.

With the debt limit gun to their heads and screaming that the GOP is behaving irresponsibility, the Dems refuse serious cuts — you know “automatic” cuts to entitlements or a balanced budget amendment.

With their new found debt limit in hand, under this new deal, they will rejoice and spend, spend, spend and never cut because they can borrow, borrow, borrow.

Here is a newsflash: no one believes the Dems or the Rs will cut — and an immediate debt limit increase coupled with “we promise to cut, really, we promise” just like every other debt limit increase, is not believable or credible.

Trust us, it’s different this time, uh, no.

In order for it to be different this time, the GOP has to do something really different.

How did we get from no taxes, cuts, and a balanced budget to serious cuts off the table, no balanced budget amendment — with an immediate debt limit increase now?

We win on no new taxes? Isn’t that where we were before, why 83 Frosh House members were elected?

How is this reform — because Republicans are not voting for a tax increase?

But are raising the debt limit immediately?

And only the usual, never make it into law, scored by CBO later as pitiful cuts, making Republicans calls of cutting spending look silly and idiotic and worse, seriously undermining GOP credibility are played up by the media.

Under these conditions the responsible thing to do is stop the spending by not voting for any immediate debt limit without serious “automatic” cuts to entitlements or a balanced budget amendment — which, of course, the Dems refuse to do.

The only way to force the Dems to accept a balanced budget amendment or any serious cuts that will bring us into balance, is to vote against an immediate increase in the debt limit.

Stopping their access to the cash is the only thing they understand — once that happens, serious cutting will start, not the let’s-pretend-and-promise, check-in-the-mail, business as usual stuff.

Somehow, the GOP expects Americans to believe “we will cut future spending without a balanced budget amendment” when they say it, but to disbelieve it when the Dems say it.

Really?

The financial markets may want the stability of a debt limit increase, but the economy will hate the new debt, and it will not react well to new debt now, with promises, promises, promises of “serious” cuts and “reform” later.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • inovrmihd

    Geithner and the White House have been telling everyone who will listen that if we don’t get a deal by then, the world will come to an end if we don’t have a deal by then. As has been pointed out many times, we will have enough money coming in to pay debt service, social security and the military. Additionally, it should be very obvious to anyone that Geithner has a few more days? leeway. He announced August 2nd as a drop dead date months ago without knowing exactly how much money would be coming in over the next few months. The idea that he didn’t give himself a little room is absurd; he would get impeached if after telling everyone4 they had until Aug 2nd, he had to move the date forward because he overestimated the revenue coming in to the government.

    If we don?t have a debt deal on Aug. 3, interest will still be paid on our debt and we won’t get a ratings downgrade. Social security checks will still go out, and our soldiers will still get their paychecks. A lot of other things like public parks will be closed, but it will not be the end of the world. Up until August 2nd, Obama can sign off on any Republican deal by saying he had no choice, the Republicans were threatening to destroy the country. When August third comes and the world hasn’t been destroyed, this will simply be seen as a fight over spending. Obama and Geithner will have lost all credibility, and the Republicans will have upper hand with the American people.

    • jaykali

      Unfortunately with the media we have all the headlines will have real sensational headlines and will freak everybody out and the Republicans will be made out to be the bad guys. So I think a short term deal is probably better than missing the Aug 2 deadline but I agree that it’s not a drop dead date.

    • littlehouse18

      Aug. 2 sounds completely arbitrary, but few have questioned it

    • cordpt

      As I feared and predicted, the outcome would be worse than McDonnell’s deal. We gain nothing in terms of policy except some vague promises and at best it’s a political tie. Now Obama can go to the election as the guy who presided over a bipartisan spending cut planning… without cutting any spending at all!

      Should have taken McDonnell’s plan. Best solution Republicans had on the table. Lost opportunity to score a major political victory.

      • cordpt

        nt

        • dajeeps

          It just doesn’t make any sense that if we were to just stop borrowing that we’d be downgraded – now, does it? We don’t hear much about agency debt, the off budget stuff that doesn’t show up on the debt clock, and includes liabilities from Fannie and Freddie (and only God knows what else). As of 12/2010, the agency debt level was 80% of public debt in treasuries. Add that in and it puts us well on the way to 180% GDP of government debt. It is simple math that says we have enough income to pay investors in treasuries, but isn’t clear, at least to me, if that also includes the other stuff that one has to dig to find – like loan guarantees and so forth. I have a suspition that there isn’t any clear understanding by the general public of where all the bodies are buried or how many of them there really are.

          • Dan Perrin

            money the USG has guaranteed to pay or back if bad things happen — like the Fannie and Freddie mortgages.

            But the unfunded liabilities are clearly a risk that if one put them on-budget the USG would simply fail economically and financially — instantly.

  • jaykali

    The political game is that the Democrats turned cuts for debt to cuts paired with taxes for debt. They were able to change the conversation so that in the end we end up being happy with just ‘no taxes’ – well we could have had no taxes with a clean debt limit vote. There is nothing the president can do to make Republicans raise taxes. He didn’t raise taxes in a lame duck, and he’s not going to raise taxes with a House majority. It’s all political gamesmanship, and thus far the Dems are winning at it. Bc that’s all they do, they don’t try to do anything serious like I don’t know write down a plan that is actually score-able by the CBO and subject to scrutiny. “But if we did that, you know people might criticize it!” – they say. Very frustrating.

    I thought we had some shared ground as far as tax reform goes. Take out some loopholes and lower the rates. Revenues are raised, but from loopholes – this is popular and rates are lowered – everybody’s happy. But seems like the Democrats are too greedy. They want loopholes closed as payment for cuts + the debt limit raise. So I think this is just them trying to do everything in their power to cut as little as possible. Bc the worst thing EVER would be to cut ANYTHING from govt spending. Even tho they increased it by 1.5 trillion in a couple years cutting a few hundred billion like soon would ruin this great recovery we’re having (can’t you tell?!). But wait, the fact that we threw all this money at stimulus and other great stuff is okay bc it’s temporary spending, that’s what I keep hearing. The long term costs like 2 wars + tax cuts is the real problem. So in what world does blowing a couple trillion dollars OK bc it was done in the span of a couple years?!? (Honey I just blew all our savings in vegas, but it’s cool bc we aren’t locked in anything longterm – except the loss of all that money plus the debt I racked up – but don’t like logically put the pieces together)

    What exactly is their next move? They spent all this money and the economy hasn’t recovered. Raising taxes is more likely to result in less economic growth, not more (unless you ask a liberal). Obama’s going to run on a vision of more of the same? I mean how can you run as an incumbent and win when things are perceived as actually WORSE now than when you got in? Oh ya, Bush! The ditch! Man we’re out of it, isn’t that great?! Plus other great stuff like ending all these wars we’re in and closing guantanimo, stuff like that. And yet Juan Williams is convinced Obama can beat anybody. Someone ask Juan if Obama could beat Ronald Reagan, he’ll say yes I promise. Delusional.

    OK I’m done.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      You could have continued, as far as I’m concerned. You should write a diary of all the lies told, promises broken, idiotic schemes planned. Do you have the next 5 years free to write it? I think it would take AT LEAST that long.

      Great mini-diary!

      • jaykali

        Feeling particularly snarky lately, can you tell?

    • dajeeps

      All throughout modern history, the government has collected an average of 18-19% of GDP in taxes regardless of rates, loopholes, AMT, death tax, marriage tax, &c. The last couple of years it has been less, ~15%, but that’s what happens when the economy takes a dump. Even if we recovered enough to get tax revenue back up to 18%, the additional $75B/yr is hardly going to solve any of the problems. Assuming that were factored in over 10 years, $750B won’t solve it either. And there is this thing, the Laffer curve, that says any discussion about trying to use the tax code to collect an extra $800B or $1.2T, whatever number they happen to be discussing,over and above that is B.S., especially when they are talking about trying to get it from people with accountants and tax attorneys. It just will not happen.

      And of course this is just an other example of the level of dishonesty that abounds in D.C.

      • jaykali

        Don’t talk ab Laffer curves to a liberal, their head will explode. If we think allowing Democrats to eventually cut off Bush tax cuts for 200k+ earners not going to happen. Just look at California. They can’t stop raising taxes. It’s bc it goes to their core belief systems, private industry = greedy, govt spending = good, taxes = great – even if you showed them a big graph illustrating – LOOK, if you lower taxes you can increase revenues – everybody’s happy! They can’t do it. It doesn’t fit in their ideology.

    • Dan Perrin

      “They were able to change the conversation so that in the end we end up being happy with just ?no taxes? ? well we could have had no taxes with a clean debt limit vote. There is nothing the president can do to make Republicans raise taxes.”

      • jaykali

        Great post btw

  • radioone

    is Congress to pass some kind of a tax and spend piece of legislation that he has nothing to do with. He is then “forced” to sign it. Then, on the campaign trail, he can claim this “terrible” piece of legislation is not his fault, and voters should give him 4 more years to “right this wrong”!!

    A Community Organizer NEVER has to take responsibility for ANYTHING. Their whole mantra is how “bad the MAN is”. As we can see Obama is now “the MAN”, but is not capable of taking any kind of responsibility.

    • usadying

      That’s why he “moved the goalposts”.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    what each one of us, individually, is going to do about it?

    Half of the precinct committeeman slots in the Republican Party are still vacant.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • popdaddy

    Listening to Boehner & Wallace on Fox News Sunday left the notion Boehner wanted to stick to a variation of CCB that might mean CC. I admire the efforts of the House to force a balanced budget
    amendment now but am realistic enough to believe that is going to require one more election cycle November 2012.

    However, what is wrong with saying ?Look Moron, you have ran up the national debt like it was Newt?s credit card and that is stopping right now. Here is a $1 trillion increase to ease market fears you have caused but that is all. It?s your responsibility to trim $1T+ in planned spending in the next 15 months until you are sent packing.?

    I know it might work if Boehner was dealing with a rational being but there are a lot of cards to fall between now and Nov 2012 starting with the 2012 budget as noted in the previous post. The Moron, Reid and other democrats are not going to play fairly or rationally.
    It?s time for a mark in the sand and it?s up to Boehner and the House GOP to draw it.

    • Finrod

      Make a short-term debt increase be purely short-term. One trillion is too much, but $100 billion is probably too little. I’d be in favor of an amount that we won’t hit again until sometime after September 30, which is when the budget is supposed to be in by (like it ever is).

      We pass a clean debt limit increase, and say “ok, we’ll raise the debt limit again AFTER you find the same amount of savings that we’re authorizing in debt increase now in the FY2012 budget ALONE. No more future savings that never happens.”

      A few months down the road, they won’t have found any such savings, and we’ll be in this whole hit-the-debt-limit situation again, but then Iowa and New Hampshire will be gearing up and we’ll be in a better position to hang this thing around their necks then.

      And if Obama thinks he can veto it? I’d like to see him try. Then we can hang this thing around his neck *now*, plus we get to clobber Democrats in the House and the Senate when we try to override his veto. Big fun!

      • cordpt

        because “they never happen” how are you going to cut spending in a meaningful way? What’s the point of the Ryan plan or the CCB?

        The amount of spending that needs to be cut is too high – it’s not feasible to do it in 1, 2 or 3 years.

        • Finrod

          Then they can find $400 billion to cut. It’s just a question of having the political will.

          Future savings never happens. So it’s pointless to count it for anything meaningful. Savings either happens now or it doesn’t happen.

          • cordpt

            The CCB cuts $111 billion.

            My point is that it’s impossible to balance the budget in 1 or 2 years. Or 3. Cutting $400 billion as you suggest isn’t nearly enough to get it done.

  • Tbone

    Part of their mantra is the “Republicans are no different than the Democrats.” I hope they are wrong.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      you referring? I’ve found many on the web. Do you have a link?

      You bring up a very good issue. So far, in my experience, most of the the “tea party leaders” and the heads of the other various grass roots conservative groups do not want to go the third party route. However, lack of resolve by Boehner and McConnell now and over the course of the next few days could make them change their minds. I try to convince them that a much better strategy is to fill up all the empty precinct committeeman slots where they live and unite inside the Republican Party. Over half of the slots are still vacant.

      The strategy works. It’s just common sense.

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

      • Tbone

        Isn’t it true that darn near as many people identify themselves as Independents as opposed to either Republicans or Democrats?

        These people want to see a difference between the two, if they don’t, they just won’t vote.

  • snowshooze

    That will demonstrate our level of respect for the Obama/Geithner drop dead date.. hey.. that is their date, not ours.
    And then resurrect CCB. It isn’t that we don’t trust the Democrats… it’s that we don’t trust any of them.

    • acat

      Hate for Obama to have to either hold a fancy (and expen$ve) birthday gala for himself (on the taxpayer$ dime) during a fiscal crisis…

      Mew

  • izoneguy

    There is not a lot we can do to move the ball forward.

    Let’s not set up the circular firing squad just yet.

    We can hold and not let Obama & the dems move forward.

    Obama will try very hard to move his Marxist agenda forward in 2012.

    We have to try even harder to stop it. If that means shutting down the country
    until we can re-gain control – then that is what we need to do.

    But we better not stop because you know those socialists don’t take any holidays. And we better not let Obama get 4 more – or everything is toast.

    • vamoose

      is to reform the party. In this case it simply means not caving in, not losing ground gained in the 2010 election. Reforming the government’s spending habits will take another election.

      We know Dems are quite comfortable ignoring the budget. They don’t care if they get a deal now unless it’s on their terms. Obama holds the trump card: he can unilaterally raise the debt limit using a bogus 14th amendment claim. He can just come out and say. “Congress has failed and as president I have to act.”

      • izoneguy

        then the next Republican President can lower the debt limit using the same argument…..

        Sorry, we don’t need ObamaCare, can’t afford MediCaid any longer,
        no more welfare, foodstamps or unemployment…..

        I know, I know mass chaos and riots……

        • lineholder

          If Repubs can find a way to inspire confidence in the business community, that they will implement business friendly policies, then maybe we will see jobs pick up pace, which would be a true boon and blessing going into 2013.

          • acat

            Anyone see another way out? Sooner or later, as Margaret Thatcher put it, we must run out of other peoples’ money to spend, eh?

            Just a matter of now or later….

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            tread water the best that we can until the 2012 elections, win in 2012, and reform the government in 2013. There will be a lot of screaming in 2013, but if we do things right, there will be some positive results by 2014,

            My first priority is to make sure Obama loses in 2012 since the field of the possible is much slower while he is in office.

          • snowshooze

            Tread water.
            I am worried if we do not spill some blood, and show results now, we might lose the momentum.

          • lineholder

            Yeah, snowshooze, I’ve wondered about that one as well. I do think Repubs will have to stand their ground on various issues, just to keep the fighting spirit “kicking”.

            As to the extent of options we might have economically after the election…that’s the trillion dollar question right now, isn’t it? We don’t have any way of knowing for certain how much damage will be done economically between now and the election by the policies that this admin is or may still put into place.

            But when I look at what’s been going on in WI during the past few months, I can’t help but wonder if perhaps individual states could present options that we wouldn’t necessarily have at a federal level.

          • izoneguy

            Obama’s 4.5 Trillion spendorama has done them anygood???
            9 times out of 10 the answer will be no!!!

            Tell your friends to look at their kids and ask them if they
            want to pile up more debt on their shoulders?

            Get friends involved who say they never get involved in politics.

            I have opened many eyes myself and will continue to do so until
            I take my last breathe.

          • lineholder

            Too stubborn for my own good, as the saying goes. I do what I can in what ways I can. But I still think that if Repubs can find a way to earn, gain and/or inspire confidence in the general public, it could take voter motivation to a whole different level.

          • acat

            …about devolving the federal beast and returning to a more .. laboratories of democracy model.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            I’m seeing this in a far more positive light than I might have in the past.

          • Spiral

            Yes. Scott Walker and the Republican legislature in Wisconsin have accomplished a great deal for Wisconsin as a result of the 2010 elections.

            However, notice that in Wisconsin, the GOP controls the State House, the State Senate and the Governer’s mansion.

            This is the precondition that must be met before large changes can be made. This is especially true at the federal level because the federal government, unlike state government, has very large entitlement programs that cost huge sums of money. To chance those programs, you need a GOP president and a GOP Senate.

            If Wisconsin is our model, we must win in 2012.

          • Spiral

            People think that the GOP won a mandate to cut spending in the 2010 elections because they won the US House of Representatives.

            That’s only partially true, in my opinion. They certainly had a mandate to make that part of their agenda. However, given that the Democrats retain control over the US Senate and White House, one more election is needed.

            This is what Michael Barone wrote.

            To Get a Mandate, GOP must win another election

            And the Senate, two-thirds of which was elected in the Democratic years of 2006 and 2008, retains a Democratic majority that, though unable to pass its own budget, can frustrate House Republicans’ attempts to deliver on their more recent mandate.

  • wbb1950

    Dan: you are right. This is indeed the bottom line. Only when you cut off their air supply will they change their behavior. Without that it is all just words, business and usual, and inevitable road to bankruptcy.

    “Stopping their access to the cash is the only thing they understand ? once that happens, serious cutting will start, not the let?s-pretend-and-promise, check-in-the-mail, business as usual stuff.”

    • Dan Perrin

      who are so weak.

  • fortcollins

    I agree with Boehner on one point. The three-way negotiations are absurd. Giving the Democrats two chances to gripe about any GOP idea is not productive.

    None of the existing options are pretty. Door #1: The House rejects any increase in the debt ceiling. The ratings agencies will downgrade U.S. debt. Door #2.: The House caves and goes with the Senate “compromise,” creating both a debt ceiling increase and tax increases. The ratings agencies still downgrade U.S. debt because of the amount of the debt. Door #3: The House and Senate leadership accept a two-tier proposal. The tax increases and debt ceiling take effect first, and budget cuts are only symbolic. House conservatives will be thrown under the bus by House leadership, forcing a choice either to leave the GOP Caucus and relegate Boehner to a minority leader status or to remain in the GOP and be crushed with the rest of the House Republicans in the 2012 election.

    There are some complicating factors for any solution. In 1974, Nixon tried to restrain spending by impounding appropriations. The Supreme Court ducked the issue, but the Circuit Court held that the Executive Branch was required to spend all appropriated sums, implicitly up to the debt ceiling. Congress reacted by enacting legislation incorporating the gist of the court ruling, requiring that appropriated funds be spent.

    This has left the Obama administration with no wiggle room between the continuing resolution and now. (Not that the administration wanted it or would have used it.) The core question is whether any wiggle room would exist after the debt ceiling is reached. In other words, COULD the President choose to apply revenues first to debt service, then to Social Security, then to military pay, or would the Nixon-era events require him to apportion spending across the board?

    If this interplay could compel across-the-board apportioned spending, then default really would happen. The Senate and President effectively could force this by refusing to allow any legislation to cure the problem. The blame-the-GOP strategy could have more traction in 2012.

    To avoid this, the House needs to pass SOMETHING. The Ryan budget and Cut, Cap and Balance are already on the table. A third piece of legislation could be offered, providing a mini-Cut and Cap, without the Balance. Even though the Dear Leader has threatened to veto any short-term fix that doesn’t extend beyond the 2012 election, it would be valid to pass a short-term fix that also mandates HOW funds would be spent if the debt ceiling is reached. That would force the Senate and the Dear Leader to accept responsibility for default or to yield to the legislation.

    Maybe.

    • Dan Perrin

      “Even though the Dear Leader has threatened to veto any short-term fix that doesn?t extend beyond the 2012 election, it would be valid to pass a short-term fix that also mandates HOW funds would be spent if the debt ceiling is reached. That would force the Senate and the Dear Leader to accept responsibility for default or to yield to the legislation.”

  • spinoneone

    is the 0′s big problem. He has a democratic Senate refusing to pass any budget. He has a democratic President refusing to compromise except on his specific terms. He has a republican House giving him both a Ryan budget and CCB. He is terrified that this problem will still be on the table in June/July 2012. He wants to get as much distance as possible between himself and a repeat of this issue prior to the election. He and his lap dog media will blame the GOP, but we should just be determined to get our points on every possible media outlet from now to 11/2012. We offered a budget; 0 didn’t. We offered CCB; the Senate defeated it. We should now offer a one year budget/debt ceiling and let him and the Senate Donks say, “No.”

  • wbb1950

    Begin forwarded message:

    These are all the programs that the new Republican House have proposed

    cutting. Read to the end.

    * Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual

    savings.

    * Save America ‘s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

    * International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.

    * Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

    * National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

    * National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual

    savings.

    * Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

    * Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

    * Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last

    Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion

    annually.

    * U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

    * Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

    * Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47

    million annual savings.

    * John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

    * Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

    * Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual

    savings.

    * Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings

    * Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

    * Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

    * Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

    * Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million

    annual savings.

    * Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530

    million annual savings.

    * Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

    * New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

    * Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and

    Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings

    * Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

    * Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

    * Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

    * Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

    * Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15

    billion annual savings.

    * Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual

    savings.

    * FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

    * Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

    * Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.

    * U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual

    savings.

    * General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual

    savings.

    * Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150

    million annual savings.

    * Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

    * No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million

    annual savings.

    * End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

    * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

    * IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some

    services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the

    Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion

    savings over ten years.

    * Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1

    billion total

    savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    * Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees.

    $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

    * Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use

    of. $15 billion total savings.

    * Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

    * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

    * Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings

    * Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

    * USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

    * Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

    (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

    * Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.

    $56.2 million annual savings.

    * Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million

    savings.

    * Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..

    * HUD Ph.D. Program.

    * Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

    * TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

    My question is, what THE HELL is all this doing in the budget in the

    first place?

    Send to everyone you know.

    • Dan Perrin

      Just more of the same old promises to cut that never become law, but are reported as if they have become law.

      But they never happen.

  • Wayne

    that government can make cuts but it doesn’t want to. Cutting these funds means losing votes. And votes are all what the people in Washington are all about.

    And, what will the markets do? After the “adjustment” they will grow and grow at a faster pace than we have seen in decades. As more money supply enters the economy, it will create real goods and services that people want. Not what government wants. Left to their own devices in a free market system, there will job creators and there will people who work for job creators.

    Tax revenue will increase. And, a balance budget amendment will insure continued economic growth.