« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Eric Cantor Pulls Out. So does Jon Kyl. It Distracts From the Big Story.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 23rd, 2011 at 12:01 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Eric Cantor (R-VA) decided to pull out of talks with Joe Biden on what to do about the debt. He placed the problem in President Obama’s and Speaker’s Boehner’s laps saying there were issues relating to taxes that only they could resolve.

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a man well known on Capitol Hill to negotiate defeat from the jaws of victory, decided he would pull out as well.

Getting Kyl out of these talks is actually a good thing because Kyl’s negotiating skills leave much to be desired.

In any event, the media is breathlessly reporting this and making a big to do about taxes and tax increases being the big sticking point.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that the big news should be that Democrats and Republicans think $2 trillion in cuts over the next ten years is a serious deal. Meanwhile the debt will keep going up.

This is the same problem we see with the Gang of 5 or 6 in the Senate. Recently, Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) proudly proclaimed they were on the cusp of a deal that would raise tax revenue by $1.00 for every $3.00 in spending cuts. But the nugget everyone seems to ignore is this one:

The Gang of Six, now down to five, is trying to craft a deficit-slashing plan along the lines of the 10-year, $4 trillion package that Obama’s deficit commission put together last year. Basically, that plan called for $1 in higher taxes in exchange for every $3 in cuts to government spending and benefit programs. The nation’s $14.3 trillion debt would continue to grow, but at a much slower pace.

So, regardless of which plan, which negotiation, and which cuts and increases you want to talk about, it seems no one in Washington is serious about actually shrinking the national debt.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • RichmondG30

    No matter how much we huff and puff, we are NOT going to go from a $1.4T annual deficit to a balanced budget instantaneously. If that’s our litmus test for Conservatives, we are doomed.

    Unless we balance the budget TODAY, then the national debt will continue to grow, but hopefully at a much slower rate. This is our first bite at the apple.

    In 2013, with Conservatives in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, we can take a much larger whack at it.

    I am as Conservative as anyone, but there is no way on God’s green earth that we will balance the budget in the next fiscal year. Ain’t gonna happen.

  • barleycorn

    I don’t know what the GOP strategy (including possible exit strategies) was coming into these “negotiations” but being seen as the one who “gave up” is generally not a helpful tactic.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Now do you have anything productive to add?

  • Paul Seale

    Democrats are the ones who are refusing to move and negotiate. This comes after they are jacking up spending hand over fist.

    Cantor’s “get serious” move is welcome.

  • BA Cyclone

    I think the point is, their best plan wouldn’t balance the budget even in TEN years.

    It will take some serious conservative leadership to move this ball on fiscal policy. Even merely going back to 2008 budget levels will draw every possible fatalist from the left (and media). Mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together…

    Instead we need to start educating the public and selling ideas of conservative government and truly asking what we WANT government to be doing, and therefore funding. The days of pretending deficits and debt do not matter, or are relatively small are long gone. Instead we need to start attacking the federal budget with some zero-base strategies and some reforms that might make a lot of people uncomfortable.

    The morality of spending today the tax revenues our children have not yet earned (which is what we are actually talking about) must drive this debate.

  • red_oakster

    but his actions to torpedo Clinton’s test ban treaty and Harriet Miers, stopping numerous awful judicial appointments, attempts to repeal the estate tax, and his valiant effort to stop the Obama START treaty while so many other Republicans defected, make him to my mind the very best conservative senator of the generation.

    My hope is that come 2013, a new Republican president will ensconce Kyl in any of the big four cabinet jobs. The man is a gem.

  • Paul Seale

    I tend to agree with G30 to a point.

    I think Eric nails most of the problem but goes a little over the top at the end.

    200 billion reduction of a 1.5 trillion deficit is miniscule. This must be addressed without any doubt.

    However it seems that many on our side tend to be a bit blind when it comes to the fact that the only thing we can “control” is the House of Representatives.

    That doesnt mean we shouldnt shoot for the moon and give it our best.

    It does mean, however, that we arent going to be able to ask for a full one trillion dollar in spending cuts right this instant.

    To tar and feather Republicans as weak or apathetic toward deficit reduction because we dont see such a proposal on the table now is a bit troubling.

    This wont change over night. We must keep pushing forward, together, though. Triping each other up doesnt help.

    Lets be a bit smarter. :)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    surely ‘G30′s points are valid. What concerns me the most is that GOP leadership agrees to put “revenues” on the table. I would favor tax reform that ends all corp tax subsidies etc in exchange for lower rates across the board on individuals and corps and I am a supply-sider that understands that lowering rates can increase revenues, BUT

    The main fact is that we have enough revenues for two federal governments! We don’t need more revenues. we must shrink government.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the coming financial crash and econ depression.

  • Hugh

    If we are 1.4 trillion in the hole per year currently (hole is Georgia speak for deficit), in ten years we will be 14 trillion deeper in the hole. So if we cut spending by 4.0 trillion over ten years we will ONLY be 10.0 trillion deeper in the hole. WOW! That is really solving the problem.
    Anything short of reducing spending over ten years to eliminate going further in the hole is dishonest, deceitful, and political eyewash. And it will not solve the long term problem.
    Memo to my elected representatives from Georgia: Please Google “First Law of Holes”

  • JSobieski

    We could carry a 20% indefinitely. We could run deficits every year in the next 100 years and still get down to a Debt/GDP ratio that is sustainable.

    I agree with you that the deal is not particularly impressive. I just wanted to point out that adding small amounts to the debt each year actually would solve the problem . . . if we could pull it off.

    $100B annual deficits each year would resolve the problem over time, so long as the demographics of entitlements permitted such an approach.

  • JSobieski

    We could carry a 20% indefinitely. We could run deficits every year in the next 100 years and still get down to a Debt/GDP ratio that is sustainable.

    I agree with you that the deal is not particularly impressive. I just wanted to point out that adding small amounts to the debt each year actually would solve the problem . . . if we could pull it off.

    $100B annual deficits each year would resolve the problem over time, so long as the demographics of entitlements permitted such an approach.

  • juumanistra

    It’s not like there’s an opposing party that controls the executive branch and the upper house of Congress. Or that vast swathes of the American people do not seem to grasp what needs to be to actually balance the budget. Nope: Everything is the fault of the House GOP and their lacking of political will to balance the budget RITE NAO!!!11111eleventyone.

    RichmondG30 is quite correct: If the goal is a balanced budget for the next fiscal year, then the Right will surely be disappointed. The federal budget is a veritable Gordian knot: Untying it will, for better or worse, take time. In all honesty, it’s for the best: As much of the long-term debt problem is driven by structural considerations, the only way to remedy it is with deep systematic change. Change of the sort that can only be made durable via buy-ins from those on the other side of the aisle. We will also, in all likelihood, demand that good policy guide the types of structural changes implemented, and crafting that is also arduous and time-consuming. In short, this isn’t something that can be rushed.

    Ultimately, time remains on our side and provides us our greatest weapon. The danger is the Right’s grassroots, blinded by a sense of urgency, wash their hands of the GOP House over its perceived sloth and do some damn-fool thing like voting for a third party or tune out politics. At the end of the day, the best we can hope for in the 112th Congress is half-a-loaf on spending. This is a good thing, because half-a-loaf today is better than nothing, as we were treated to in the 111th Congress. What is important is to take that half-a-loaf today, and then still return tomorrow to try and make it a full-loaf: And even if you can’t get the whole loaf then, take as much as you can and then come back the day after that for more.

    But above all else, such requires patience and an eye trained on the long game. It was common to refer to the 2010 election as nothing more than the first round of an on-going campaign by the Tea Party and its fellow travelers in retaking the Republican Party. The fight to rein in federal spending is going to be the same kind of multiyear fight, with progress coming in fits and starts, and expectations need to be adjusted to match such.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    deficits in and of themselves are not the problem, so long as the economy grows by more the debt:GDP will steadily fall. The key is keeping the deficit to a number that is much smaller than the growth of the economy. Also, a 100% balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing as it can distort the market more by forcing money (that would otherwise like to invest in treasuries) to chase other (less safe) investments.

  • jaykali

    Bc we all recognize that 14 trillion is a ridiculous number and it will only get worse. I mean how many years are we away from 16 trillion, 18 trillion, 20 trillion? How far away are we from a 2 trillion budget deficit?

    The worst part is, is there light at the end of the tunnel? I mean we have a very good chance of winning the Senate and the white house in 2012. But is that going to fix everything? It’s become apparent that cuts always get watered down. So when they propose big spending bills we end up paying more, and yet trying to cut anything is like trying to cut your arm off.

    I just feel like things have to get much much worse before politicians will do anything. It will only be when we’re closer to a Greece-like state that we give in to very drastic austerity measures and it’s going to hurt a lot worse.

    We were set on this trajectory a long time ago, somewhere around the time of the ‘New Deal’ and the time to pay up has come. People learned a long time ago they could vote themselves money and it can never last. There are never enough rich people to tax (as if that could ever be a real solution). Just ask Greece.

  • barleycorn

    Perception my boy, perception.

    Early coverage of this event amounts to “Cantor bails on talks after Dems agree to two trillion dollars in cuts”.

    Given that the mass media hates Republicans and conservatives (and increasingly libertarians), great care must always be taken with perception.

    Cantor’s main job as it relates to the PR coming out of this negotiation dog and pony show, is to convince that tiny sliver of voters who supported GWB in 2004 and BHO in 2008, that the GOP won’t throw granny off a cliff.

    He who best manages perception wins.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    First, growth solves most of these problems, as the nominal dollar numbers of debt are meaningless unless referenced to GDP (ie, I don’t care of we have 16 trillion in debt if the GDP was 100 trillion).

    Second, we were not set on this trajectory a long time ago, it really happened in the 80′s through 2000′s when we decided it was ok to run big deficits during economic expansions and use the SS surplus to offset some of that spending so it wouldn’t look as bad. Now we have to pay the piper (also known as the seniors).

  • victrola

    I’ll take a Senator Kyl that actually makes things happen over other GOP Senators who are just interested in dishing out rhetoric

  • Paul Seale

    Given the past election and current situation I believe Americans understand this process a little more than you might believe.

    If we follow your statement’s logic then Democrats have _all_ the political leverage and can run the show and propose what ever they like without consequence.

    Truth is, most Americans understand the problem isnt the need for higher taxes. Our problem comes from out of control spending.

    Cantor walking speaks miles to the fact Democrats are not serious about reducing the debt.

  • RichmondG30

    If they manage to split us off from the GOP, the Left will be in charge until the Conservative v. RINO war is settled. If that happens, we can be assured of a Greek-style debt crisis. You can take that to the bank!

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    most Americans do in fact favor higher taxes (at least on the top 1%), which even includes over 60% of Republicans. If this turns out to be an issue of us backing out over the sole reason of no higher taxes, I think it will be a political loser for us.

  • victrola

    I’m normally of the opinion that Republicans should NEVER raise taxes, but I would be willing to compromise if I saw REAL entitlement reform (like say raising the age of Medicare and SS to 69 or restructuring MediCaid) My goal at the end of the day is to shrink government, and reforming entitlements will achieve that far more than holding the line a few percentage points on tax rates.

    The reason is simple, reforming entitlements is nearly impossible, especially if we insist on keeping the filibuster in the Senate. We’ll never have over 60 Conservative GOP Senators; and no Democrat will ever sign on to any changes unless they get their tax increases. Cutting taxes, however, is usually pretty easy, it would be very simple to go back and make changes to the tax code after a deal on entitlements was made.

    If we’re just talking about trading discretionary spending cuts for tax increases that aren’t structural changes to long term entitlements, then Republicans should absolutely pull out and hold the line on no tax increases. We don’t have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

  • streiff

    you ignore the other component of the equation: GDP growth

  • RichmondG30

    The readers of Redstate understand this process very well.

    The watchers of “American Idol” and “The Bachelorette” understand only what they see on NBC Nightly News.

    Which population do you think is larger?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    is good at STOPPING things, and while that is very very useful, it does not mean that he is all that good in negotiating a change in something, or a new approach to something.

    He might be, but we can’t tell from your examples.

  • BA Cyclone

    I don’t consider “REAL entitlement reform” to be monkeying with eligibility ages or payout percentages. In my book, that is tinkering with band-aids.

    Instead, real reform would be market-based personalization of these things.

    “Social Security” could be a totally elective program, like a public 401(k).

    “Medicare” should have regulations cut by ~90% and go completely market-based, with at most a pro-rated voucher system. I’d prefer an HSA system with a pro-rated premium for high-deductible private insurance policy.

    Then all that is left is “Medicaid” which would be a truly need-based system for actual poor folks — but it would remain a market-based system that drives efficiency through people doing their own rationing by vouchers or a HSA system.

    The problem with the costs associated with these entitlements is the “taker” has no visibility to the “cost” associated with the benefits. Promises of benefits are made without any ties to what people put into the system. By the very structure, they are doomed to bankruptcy and failure. The government entitlement structure needs to be torpedoed.

  • Hugh
  • audax

    So, here is where we can begin budget cutting up to $1.866 Trillion in the next Federal Budget. These numbers from the 2010 Federal Budget.

    $78.7 billion (?1.7%) ? Department of Health and Human Services. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $72.5 billion (+2.8%) ? Department of Transportation. This was in the Post Office Department i.e. Post Roads in the First Federal Government but as our Republic has evolved should now be the provenence of the individual States. CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $47.5 billion (+18.5%) ? Department of Housing and Urban Development. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $46.7 billion (+12.8%) ? Department of Education. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $42.7 billion (+1.2%) ? Department of Homeland Security. If there was EVER a waste of funds, this is it! Important parts to the Department of Justice (i.e. The FBI) or Department of Defence.

    $26.3 billion (?0.4%) ? Department of Energy. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Nuclear stuff to department of Defence.

    $26.0 billion (+8.8%) ? Department of Agriculture. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! If individual Staes feel they must ?help? their farmers, then let them.

    $18.7 billion (+5.1%) ? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let private enterprise explore space if they feel there is a profit motive in it.

    $13.8 billion (+48.4%) ? Department of Commerce. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let State Department handle any ?important? areas that need to be covered.

    $13.3 billion (+4.7%) ? Department of Labor. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $12.0 billion (+6.2%) ? Department of the Interior. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! SELL OFF Federal lands or give to individual States.

    $10.5 billion (+34.6%) ? Environmental Protection Agency. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let individual States handle how they keep their State clean.

    $7.0 billion (+1.4%) ? National Science Foundation. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $5.1 billion (?3.8%) ? Corps of Engineers. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Transfer back toMilitary, the Military functions, then let individual States handle anything else.

    $5.0 billion (+100%) ? National Infrastructure Bank. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $1.1 billion (+22.2%) ? Corporation for National and Community Service. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $0.7 billion (0.0%) ? Small Business Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $19.8 billion (+3.7%) ? Other Agencies. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $105 billion ? Other. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $571 billion (?15.2%) ? Other mandatory programs. Are these in the Constitution? If not, CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $453 billion (+6.6%) ? Medicare. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $290 billion (+12.0%) ? Medicaid . Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    Once we turn these programs over to the individual States and get the Federal Government OUT of areas they have no Constitutional business being in, then we can ?negotiate? from there?.

  • audax

    Here is where we can begin budget cutting up to $1.866 Trillion in the next Federal Budget. These numbers from the 2010 Federal Budget.

    $78.7 billion (?1.7%) ? Department of Health and Human Services. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $72.5 billion (+2.8%) ? Department of Transportation. This was in the Post Office Department i.e. Post Roads in the First Federal Government but as our Republic has evolved should now be the provenence of the individual States. CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $47.5 billion (+18.5%) ? Department of Housing and Urban Development. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $46.7 billion (+12.8%) ? Department of Education. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $42.7 billion (+1.2%) ? Department of Homeland Security. If there was EVER a waste of funds, this is it! Important parts to the Department of Justice (i.e. The FBI) or Department of Defence.

    $26.3 billion (?0.4%) ? Department of Energy. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Nuclear stuff to department of Defence.

    $26.0 billion (+8.8%) ? Department of Agriculture. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! If individual Staes feel they must ?help? their farmers, then let them.

    $18.7 billion (+5.1%) ? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let private enterprise explore space if they feel there is a profit motive in it.

    $13.8 billion (+48.4%) ? Department of Commerce. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let State Department handle any ?important? areas that need to be covered.

    $13.3 billion (+4.7%) ? Department of Labor. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $12.0 billion (+6.2%) ? Department of the Interior. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! SELL OFF Federal lands or give to individual States.

    $10.5 billion (+34.6%) ? Environmental Protection Agency. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let individual States handle how they keep their State clean.

    $7.0 billion (+1.4%) ? National Science Foundation. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $5.1 billion (?3.8%) ? Corps of Engineers. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Transfer back toMilitary, the Military functions, then let individual States handle anything else.

    $5.0 billion (+100%) ? National Infrastructure Bank. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $1.1 billion (+22.2%) ? Corporation for National and Community Service. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $0.7 billion (0.0%) ? Small Business Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $19.8 billion (+3.7%) ? Other Agencies. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $105 billion ? Other. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $571 billion (?15.2%) ? Other mandatory programs. Are these in the Constitution? If not, CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $453 billion (+6.6%) ? Medicare. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $290 billion (+12.0%) ? Medicaid . Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    Once we turn these programs over to the individual States and get the Federal Government OUT of areas they have no Constitutional business being in, then we can ?negotiate? from there?.

  • juumanistra

    “Where is this in the Constitution?” is not an argument. It’s a fine rhetorical point, but if that is the extent of your critique, you’ll have to do much better. Especially when you jump up and down shouting it, as if it’s dispositive of anything. Reductionist textualism of the sort you seem to embrace is a fool’s errand that leads to bizarre logical conclusions like the U.S. Air Force being unconstitutional, because Art. I, Sec. 8 only provides for the raising and maintenance of an army and a navy.

    P.S. Would it kill you to proof-read the segments you copy and paste? It’s embarrassing to see two dozen iterations of “CUT!CUT!”.

  • izoneguy

    The democrats have a spending addiction,

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/baucus-revenues-in-debt-limit-deal-should-match-medicare-cuts.php

    He also made an impassioned case that new tax revenues be part of any deal to raise the debt limit that involves significant cuts to entitlement programs.

    You see, the real problem is that we have too many socialists in our government.

  • barleycorn

    I neither stated nor implied that “Democrats have all the political leverage”.

    Political leverage is made up of various ingredients but it is NEVER wise to lead with one’s chin.

    “Cantor’s walking” may give you a tingle up your leg but unless perceptions are managed properly it won’t help elect conservatives.

    You wrote: “I believe Americans understand this process a little more than you might believe.”

    Frankly this is setting the bar quite low but in any case vast swaths of the American public don’t have a clue.

    If they did BHO wouldn’t be President.

  • acat

    WWIII

    (WWII ended the Great Depression, so WWIII will be needed to end the Great Recession)

    BTW, how’s Cockstradamus? Haven’t heard him crowing in a bit…

    Mew

  • Flagstaff
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Just wrote these today since none of you libertarians did it!

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/06/23/biggest-killer-camels-chevy-volts/

    http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=196241820423150&id=1163541571

    From last week on immigration and new GA law

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/06/18/big-ag-jobs-georgia-immigration-laws-and-obamatms/

    Not doing very well acat. This recession is devastating me. Life is not good except when the Braves and USC are on TV!

  • phenne

    Me thinks you are soft.

    “Won’t work.” “Good luck, sucker.” “Nobody cares.”

    Wow. Thankfully, the group of Fore Fathers who pushed the populace to get this country/nation started, weren’t like yourself.

    Care to critique my ass-ertion?

  • phenne

    Well? He asked you a question.

    Prove to us this crappola from the Statists in power leads to any discernable (read:worth anything) “growth” in our economy.

    I may be all wet on this, but I see no movement in the health of our economy.

    If we are standing still, we are actually going backwards. If you need me to explain that to you, I cannot help you.

    Anybody who plans to end up better than they started (in anything) knows “standing still” is a loser strategy to the aforementioned goal.

  • aeternalis

    Is the fact that increases in federal revenue have generally been accompanied by increases in federal spending.

    Though the current administration has no problem spending what it doesn’t have, I’m sure they’ll try to make it more palatable to the public by saying “thanks to our tax increases, we now have all this extra money… to spend.”

    Will it take a Greece-level disintegration for people to actually get serious about getting a handle on our financial problems? I hope not.

  • phenne

    [see above comment]

    You assume much.

    We are sooooooo done with this “Hopey-Changey-Thingy”

  • streiff

    I know “growth” doesn’t fit in your world view but it is happening. As a matter of fact, in has to happen so long as our population increases.

  • audax

    Are you saying the 10th Amendment is a dead letter?

  • phenne

    [see MY above comment]

    You assume much.

    We are sooooooo done with this ?Hopey-Changey-Thingy?

  • streiff

    to share your fantasies with me. I find empirical data to be sufficient,.

  • RichmondG30

    1. Growth, combined with a discretionary spending freeze can solve that part of it. Growth absolutely cannot solve the runaway entitlement spending. That must be addresses structurally.

    2. We can’t wait to fix it until “we’re closer to a Greece-like state”. Our collapse will likely come with much less warning than did Greece’s. If it hits us with little or no warning, we will drag the entire world economy and financial system down with us. Not a pleasant thought.

  • phenne

    This is getting tiring …… ;-(

    [see MY above comment]

    You assume much.

    We are sooooooo done with this ?Hopey-Changey-Thingy?

  • audax

    Your argument re the Air Force is absurd.

  • acat
  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Anyone who expects the US Congress, regardless of who runs it, to hold spending constant after you hand them more money, is like Charlie Brown lining up to kick the football.

  • streiff

    Getting rid of agencies doesn’t save the money.

    For instance, HHS. So we give this back to the states. Doesn’t this imply the states are going to have to raise their taxes by that amount? Maybe by more because you’d create 50 (or if Obama was president 57) new mini-HHS headquarters. What about the parts that deal with public health, like the Public Health Service? One of the reasons we are the leader in life sciences in the world is because of the research money administered by the NIH. Do you want to kill that? Or divest it to the states and create more bureaucracy?

    Corps of Engineers is part of the US Army. It has been for 235 years. Mission accomplished. West Point’s curriculum is engineering for a reason.

    But the bottom line here is that with few exceptions you are not advocating cuts in government spending, you are advocating keeping government spending the same but placing the burden of funding it on each state rather than doing it collectively.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    since the economy as a whole doesn’t care all that much. And yes, so long as we grow the economy at a pace faster than we grow the debt we will be quite fine in the long run. You do understand compounding don’t you?

  • Flagstaff

    “Maybe it?s just me, but it seems to me that the big news should be that Democrats and Republicans think $2 trillion in cuts over the next ten years is a serious deal. Meanwhile the debt will keep going up.”

    Claiming to “cut” anything from future budgets is essentially meaningless, except for items that we know have a continuing drag on the economy, items that are already projected to be at some certain level, items such as SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, federal employment levels, capital expenditures, mandatory government health insurance, subsidies of all kinds, non-essential programs such as CPB/PBS/NPR. Even at that, it does little good to simply “reduce” them, they must be “reduced” enough to drag the total below expected income. Cuts MUST be “cut” from something that is real.

    “But it’s all Bush’s fault. He cut taxes, started two wars, gave tax breaks to the rich, lied, stole and cheated. It was his fault that we have these huge deficits and an exploding national debt.”

    If so, why hasn’t Obama and the Democrat Congress changed most of those policies? Oh, yeah, they say they can’t because it would make the recession worse. And we had to start a new war with Libya for humanitarian reasons, but we don’t have to start one with Syria.

    OK, if it was Bush’s fault, why didn’t the deficits and debt explode sooner, why did that wait until Obama was elected? Oh, yeah, they say it was because of insufficient oversight of the financial industry, and Bush started TARP, and its all his fault, and Clinton balanced HIS budgets.

    OK, Bush started TARP. It was still less than $1T. As was Obama’s TARP II. As were all the bailouts. So, even if we give Obama a $3T handicap, IT STILL DOESN’T EXPLAIN WHY THE BUDGET IS PROJECTED TO CONTINUE WITH TRILLION-DOLLAR PLUS DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME. What are the new expenditures that cause this phenomenon? Find them and CANCEL THEM.

    “But the recession is reducing GDP and tax receipts with it.”

    If spending is cut, if tax rates are rolled back to Reagan rates (28% top rates or less), the economy will rebound as soon as the changes are perceived to be REAL and PERMANENT.

    We had much talk about “going back to the 2008 budget” last September and October. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT???? What do the American people HAVE TO HAVE in 2011 that they didn’t HAVE TO HAVE in 2008?

    There is plenty that can be cut from current spending–maybe not enough to balance next year’s budget, but plenty to make it possible in 2013. We are fighting a three-front war, and Bob Gates has been tasked to reduce his budget. Why can’t NPR do its fair share, too? Because our Fearful Leaders would rather spend and borrow than cut spending and risk somebody hollering about their ox being gored.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    to balancing the budget. Shift all the spending down the jurisdictional ladder so you can claim victory without making any real long term reforms/cuts.

  • izoneguy

    Obama did not count on the Tea Party and the shallacking the dems got in 2010.
    The next 18 months are going to get hairy.
    The Arabs have had their “Arab Spring”

    This is our “American Summer”.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    that might help you understand this, it’s called dinosaur math, I got it for my 4 year old.

  • streiff

    Department of War is now Department of the Army. Department of Defense was created de novo in 1947.

    The Constitution gives the Congress to create any departments it wishes and gives the President the authority to appoint their leadership.

    Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    1) consistent and sustained growth could fix most of it and if we coupled it with a rollback to 2000 levels (adjusted for inflation) of discretionary spending (including defense), it would solve all of it.

    2) I never said we should wait to fix it, only that the problem didn’t really start until the 80s. But, we don’t have to fix it tomorrow either, a long term plan (again plus growth) will solve the problem.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    No matter what the topic, or who is involved, always find a snarky way to trash Republicans!

  • Paul Seale

    I like to use my place of worship and work (outside of the business I run) as a sounding board of sorts.

    In both places I saw what is now known as the TEA party movement starting and gaining momentum. People who never got involved with politics a day in their life decided enough was enough and since pull themselves together to take action.

    The irony for the media is that most of those individuals were spoon fed pro-Obama/Democrat messages by the media (e.g. they didnt watch or listen to conservative media outlets – just normal “MSM” stuff). However they understood enough about what was going on and grinded against their core personalities that they decided to do something about it.

    Similarly, those same people are miffed that there hasnt been any movement in the direction they want (significant deficit reduction).

    Many may not understand enough about what is going on in government to identify the hang ups.

    They do understand spending is the problem, not taxes though.

  • audax

    It’s 1.) eliminating the spending as a Federal function. 2.) The individual States are not obligated to maintain the former Federal program. Each State legislature can decide how much to tax the voters and ratepayers in that State. If they tax too much, taxpayers can vote them out or move to a State that has more Freedom and less state Tyranny. We see that particular phenomena in action each decade after the census when we reapportion Congressional seats.

  • Paul Seale

    By saying Cantor’s move makes him look bad in the eyes of voters because they “have given up” simply due to bad media coverage you take the step of plotting a course which says anything the GOP does to anger democrats is bad.

    Cantor’s walking is more about a get serious or leave me out of it strategy that one of retreat.

    After all, Cantor isnt the only GOP member to bail. Senator Coburn, who does endorse some tax increaes, bailed on a similar committee for the exact same reason.

    Was that seen as quitting?

    If anything, we are seeing a pattern for Democrats refusing to make the appropriate cuts necessary in favor of creating headlines.

    So, my reading comprehension is dead on. Only time will tell if my analysis is as equally correct.

  • streiff

    perhaps it would be useful if you read what you wrote before disagreeing with me.

    $78.7 billion (?1.7%) ? Department of Health and Human Services. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $72.5 billion (+2.8%) ? Department of Transportation. This was in the Post Office Department i.e. Post Roads in the First Federal Government but as our Republic has evolved should now be the provenence of the individual States. CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $46.7 billion (+12.8%) ? Department of Education. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    There are more instances of this in your post. Some of your history is totally wrong, the US Postal Service is the descendant of the Office of the Postmaster General, not the Department of Trnasportation. And the interstate highway system is the descendant of the post roads which Congress is required to maintain.

  • Hugh

    However, GDP growth alone does not reduce debt. I suppose that you are concluding that GDP growth increases government revenue. While this may be true, but not necessarily, it would also follow that spending would possibly increase a similar amount.
    I’m not sure what you mean by “growth doesn’t fit in your world view”. You have no idea what my view happens to be. As to growth due to population growth, I do not believe growth has to happen for that reason. Without doing any research, I thought the US was at or near zero population growth. Unless you include illegals entering the US.
    The major point I am trying to make is the negotiations that are underway do not fully recognize the magnitude of the problem that we all face.

  • streiff

    but debt is only relevant when compared to GDP. If I say I owe $1000 it is meaningless unless tell you how much I make.

  • juumanistra

    But federalism is a two-way street: The states have to want to exercise their power and sovereignty for it to function as intended. For too long, the states have been content enough to simply take being plowed under in stride so long as everyone’s palm gets greased along the way. One of the most heartening developments in recent memory has been the states beginning to find their spine and make use of the tools available to them to resist imperial overreach by Washington.

    It does nothing to address the fact that you still haven’t made much of an argument: Zeroing departments is a guilty pleasure, to be sure, but you’re not exactly putting forward a coherent rationale for why most of those particular agencies need zeroing. To say nothing of the damage to your credibility which your seeming ignorance of history, which streiff’s done a good job of beating on downthread, does. I would chip in that it seems you to somewhat mistaken in at least what some federal agencies do, as you’re calling for zeroing out the Department of the Interior, when easily 90% of the work it does is directly stipulated for in Art. I, Sec. 8 in the Federal Property Clause and the Commerce Clause or falls within the Congress’s broad powers to manage relations with Amerindians. Which kind of gives lie to the whole, “Where is this in the Constitution?” mantra.

  • audax

    ..began his postal career as postmaster of Philadelphia in 1737 under the British Parliamentary Post. In 1753 he was promoted as one of two Deputy Postmasters of North America and was dismissed from his post in January 1774. When Franklin left office, post roads operated from Maine to Florida and from New York to Canada, and mail between the colonies and England operated on a regular schedule with posted times. As joint postmaster general, Franklin surveyed post roads from Virginia to New England (our first interstate road system?). Putting an odometer on the axle of his carriage, he personally measured distances between Post Offices, travelling approximately 1,600 miles. In July 1775 the Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General of the United Colonies the organization now known as the United States Postal Service. Sounds like the first “Transportation Department” to me.

    If something is in the provenece of the States, it seems they can decide to continue, reduce, or eliminate said program

  • YnotNOW

    In fact, if we somehow balanced the budget TODAY, we would still need to raise the debt ceiling. Because we exeeded our borrowing limit a month ago, and Treasury is covering with accounting tricks that they “say” can keep us paying our bills through Aug 2nd. But those bills will still come do, which will require issuing more debt.

    The fact that we have to face the debt ceiling vote is a good thing, because it forces us to face the issue that we are spending at an unsustainable rate, and need to cut. But since the bulk is in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, it will take time. Particularly because structural changes will need to be phased in to minimize impact on those already retired and dependent upon the current program. But also because it requires changes to numerous laws that obligates us to the current payment system, which will take time to pass new laws.

    It is also a good thing, because it gives us negotiating leverage with the Democrats that would rather not face this issue.

  • YnotNOW

    In fact, if we somehow balanced the budget TODAY, we would still need to raise the debt ceiling. Because we exeeded our borrowing limit a month ago, and Treasury is covering with accounting tricks that they “say” can keep us paying our bills through Aug 2nd. But those bills will still come do, which will require issuing more debt.

    The fact that we have to face the debt ceiling vote is a good thing, because it forces us to face the issue that we are spending at an unsustainable rate, and need to cut. But since the bulk is in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, it will take time. Particularly because structural changes will need to be phased in to minimize impact on those already retired and dependent upon the current program. But also because it requires changes to numerous laws that obligates us to the current payment system, which will take time to pass new laws.

    It is also a good thing, because it gives us negotiating leverage with the Democrats that would rather not face this issue.

  • juumanistra

    Thank goodness the Founders were nothing like me at all, indeed! I mean, the Revolution had nary a setback or stumble, with things proceeding from the Declaration of Independence to the Treaty of Paris in a single summer of frenzied fighting and rolling back the limey bastards. I mean, it’s not like Washington was humiliated and routed at the Battle of Long Island and his army only escaped capture by a fluke weather event. Or that in the ensuing campaign the Continental Army was continually beaten like a red-headed stepchild across New Jersey, with a string of defeats at White Plains, Fort Washington, and Fort Lee. Or that the Revolution lasted seven years beyond 1776. Nope, happened in just one summer, and the history books are wrong.

    Facetiousness aside, my point is not that shrinking the size of the federal government cannot be done. It remains, however, something that it cannot be done at a speed that will satisfy the likes of Audax. (Though it was, I will admit, not properly phrased as such in my initial comment’s title.)
    He wants to reduce gross outlays by 50% in a single year. While an admirable end-point, reductions on that scale will prove politically untenable for the same reason that Obamacare has proven to be. Furthermore, as streiff notes downthread, much of Audax’s savings derive from zeroing the federal expenditure and kicking the can to the states, which is bound to produce suboptimal results given the sheer mass of devolution in such a short amount of time that’s being contemplated.

    As said in my original post responding to Neil, you can either have patience, opposition buy-in, and a policy that will actually survive your losing power, or you can have haste, a crammed down opposition, and a policy that might survive your losing power. The Democrats tried the latter with the PPACA: I suspect they’re not terribly happy with how that decision turned out. And I would say the former is our only course of action as it is, given that we don’t have the resources to cram down the Democrats and won’t for at least another 18 months.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    As an Ohioan, I am well aware of how Kasich is balancing the state budget and much of it is on the backs of local governments. For instance, Ohio replaced its personal property tax with a commercial activities tax (CAT) under Taft, with the idea being that since the bulk (essentially all) of the personal property tax went to local governments that the CAT would first make those jurisdictions whole, Kasich simply cut out all that and kept the whole kitty (and did not cut local government mandates). He is also looking at things like transferring some felons from state prisons to local jails and other programs along those lines. He has definitely balanced the state budget without raising taxes, but he has done it through transferring costs instead of actual cost and program cutting.

  • victrola

    You’ll notice not a single elected Republican is proposing anything as radical as full privatization of both MediCare and Social Security. Does that mean any reforms short of that are unworthy of consideration by conservatives, including the Ryan plan? I certainly don’t think so. if something like the Ryan plan passed, or even raising the age of eligibility raised, I would consider that to be a huge victory for conservatives that would save trillions of dollars.

    In a perfect world, I would love to have all that I’ve paid into Social Security and Medicare and figure out my own solutions for retirement, but it’s never going to happen because the overwhelming majority of Americans are simply too irresponsible. The average American on the verge of retirement has something like $10k saved. You’d just end up with half of senior citizens on food stamps and living in government housing, which undermines the whole concept of trying to get people off the government dole.

    I think the most realistic approach is some sort of hybrid approach to make sure Americans are making some sort of contribution to their retirement so they are not a burden later.

  • carolina

    medicare costs are a few things that come to mind when you ask “what do we need more of now than we did in 2008?”.
    There have been a number of new tax credits that have been added – and each tsx credit reduces revenue to the govt $ for $.
    Part of our problem is demographics. The increased demand for medicare and SS benefits has been anticipated since the 70′s. The baby boom bulge is not a surprise.
    Obviously congress will not act until they are forced to. I expect we will continue to muddle along. We’ll just have to keep the pressure on by demanding spending cuts and pray that the economy grows closer to 5% than 2%.
    Any reduction in the annual deficit is a step in the right direction. As has been mentioned above, GDP growth will mitigate the total debt eventually.
    We need fiscal policies that help economic growth. 2012 will be an important election…..

  • carolina

    medicare costs are a few things that come to mind when you ask “what do we need more of now than we did in 2008?”.
    There have been a number of new tax credits that have been added – and each tsx credit reduces revenue to the govt $ for $.
    Part of our problem is demographics. The increased demand for medicare and SS benefits has been anticipated since the 70′s. The baby boom bulge is not a surprise.
    Obviously congress will not act until they are forced to. I expect we will continue to muddle along. We’ll just have to keep the pressure on by demanding spending cuts and pray that the economy grows closer to 5% than 2%.
    Any reduction in the annual deficit is a step in the right direction. As has been mentioned above, GDP growth will mitigate the total debt eventually.
    We need fiscal policies that help economic growth. 2012 will be an important election…..

  • YnotNOW

    Do not be timid in negotiations, in fear that the MSM or “joe public” will blame you. It is much better to stand firmly for principle and be perceived as strong.

    Besides, I’d rather go down fighting than give in to wishy-washy budget cuts that bankrupt the country and stagnate the economy.

    Be bold!

  • YnotNOW

    Do not be timid in negotiations, in fear that the MSM or “joe public” will blame you. It is much better to stand firmly for principle and be perceived as strong.

    Besides, I’d rather go down fighting than give in to wishy-washy budget cuts that bankrupt the country and stagnate the economy.

    Be bold!

  • YnotNOW

    Let’s cut spending and reform entitlements so that we get the growth of government under control and deficits under control. Getting to “too small” a defict is the least of my worries at this point. I’d be happy if we passed a spending plan (with realistic future path) that came anywhere close to balancing the budget within 10 years.

  • YnotNOW

    Let’s cut spending and reform entitlements so that we get the growth of government under control and deficits under control. Getting to “too small” a defict is the least of my worries at this point. I’d be happy if we passed a spending plan (with realistic future path) that came anywhere close to balancing the budget within 10 years.

  • barleycorn

    You are making the common mistake of arguing with someone who agrees with you because you never troubled yourself to understand my original point.

    You twist my words:

    “By saying Cantor?s move makes him look bad in the eyes of voters because they ?have given up? ”

    But of course I never said that. What I did say was:

    “I don?t know what the GOP strategy (including possible exit strategies) was coming into these ?negotiations? but being seen as the one who ?gave up? is generally not a helpful tactic.”

    See? I am admitting ignorance of what the GOP game plan is (given that I am not a member of the House Leadership) and that admission MODIFIES (MODIFIER: A word, phrase, or clause that limits or qualifies the sense of another word or word group) the rest of my comment where I averred that “being seen” as giving up is not a good tactic.

    Instead of taking the time to understand, you decided to argue about whether or not Cantor did the right thing. But about that, as you say, only time will tell.

    On the other hand my statement:

    “being seen as the one who ?gave up? is generally not a helpful tactic”.

    is demonstrably correct and nothing you say can alter that.

  • izoneguy

    Unionized federal employees battling federal law enforcement officers?
    IRS agents doing rogue audits? TSA and FAA employees going on strike?
    So if the government cannot pay federal employees does that mean all the EPA employees would stay home? The OSHA employees don’t show up to do inspections?

    So 20-20% of America stops working and turns to rioting? Don’t you think that would prove the points that conservatives have been making about the huge growth in government?

  • JSobieski

    We will never need to get the debt to $0
    We do necessarily need to get the deficit to $0 to make headway on the debt

    I assume nothing. Rather, I made specific factual points that are undeniably true.

    Thanks for adding to the substance of the discussion though.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8
  • JSobieski

    What is being said is the simple truth that it is the ratio of debt to GDP that matters. This isn’t arguable by a sane man. The impact of debt is relative to the wealth and income of the debtor. $1,000 is a lot of debt for someone with no income. $10M in debt is not even worth mentioning if you are Bill Gates. The same is true for countries.

    A $1.4T deficit would be instantaneously crushing to an economy as large as the US was in 1911. In 2111, it would be trivial. In 2011, it is really really bad, but not instantaenously crushing.

    Nobody (here at RS) is saying that we have any kind of real growth at present. Nor is anyone here saying that we can grow the economy without cutting spending and reforming the structural deficit of the US government (largely the result of entitlements).

    Nobody here at RS is advocating staying still either.

    If beating up on a straw man makes you feel better, go ahead.

    Maybe I should start arguing that the U.S. is a far more just society than Saudi Arabia?

  • JSobieski

    I agree that market based approaches are needed, but when you start talking about eradicating SS, you really aren’t helping our side.

  • aesthete

    No one on the Hill wants to axe a sacred cow. The trick is to find a compromise that works for enough people to get through the House, Senate and get the President’s signature. This will probably require cutting military expenditures, entitlements, discretionary spending, and raising taxes.

  • aesthete

    Rick Scott and some other the other newly-christened Republican governors have been much better.

  • aesthete

    He’s OKish at social issues and at stopping things that Democrats do, but the man who was a primary motivator for Medicare Pt D and NCLB is in no way “the very best conservative senator of the generation”. I, for one, am glad to see him go.

  • aesthete

    I would certainly like to see less debt and government spending than 20%, but 20% would do.

  • zooboy

    And serious reduction in spending MUST be rushed, if by ‘rush’ you mean this year. A Greek-style economic meltdown someday between now and ’13 may be unavoidable if we allow this 2.4 Trillion debt increase to carry the politicians through their ’12 reelection bids.
    To be credible to the markets, at least 300 to 500 billion would need to be cut now, and each year thereafter. That 300 would be 11% of this year’s budget. If the Demos won’t agree to that, OK. Doing nothing is a de facto Balanced Budget Amendment.
    A compromise to less than 300 B, and a 2.4 Trillion free ride to get them past the ’12 elections, would be national economic suicide, and political suicide for Republicans, who would see Conservatives desert them in droves.

  • alreadyexists

    Congress will remain in stalemate for the next 18 months. The economy will continue to worsen and no meaningful changes will occur until 2013 at the earliest. Politicians will continue to BS the public with promises of future responsible conduct and the press will continue to run interference for the Democrats. This isn’t being cynical, this is simply the fundamental nature of our political reality.

    Plan for the worst and assume that Congress will kick the can down the road until the Ponzi scheme collapses. As crazy as it sounds, the sooner we go over the cliff the better. Yes this will lead to hardship, but it’s the only medicine that can cure the disease of entitlement-fueled dependence and sloth.

  • BA Cyclone

    but drastically reforming it to something that has an actuarial shot at working. My 401k comment was a nod to the structure that you have an option above some minimum to put in MORE if you want to get more than the standard amount from the government system. Per the link:

    Instead of paying a 12.4% Social Security tax as we do here, Chilean workers must pay in 10% of their wages (they can send up to 20%) to one of several conservatively managed and regulated pension funds. From the accumulated savings, they get a life annuity or make programmed withdrawals (inheriting any funds left over).

    Over the last three decades these accounts have averaged annual returns of 9.23% above inflation. By contrast, U.S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) return, and even less for new workers.

    Long-Term Boom

    History shows that pension funds prudently invested in a diversified portfolio appreciate significantly over long periods of consistent saving. In 1981, the Dow industrials stood at 900; today, despite three market crashes, it’s nearly 13,000.

    In 2005, New York Times reporter John Tierney worked out his own Social Security contributions on the Chilean model and found that his privatized pension would have been $53,000 a year plus a one-time payout of $223,000. The same contributions paid into Social Security would have paid him $18,000.

    The system is doable here, but does require citizen education and political resolve.

  • BA Cyclone

    dig deeper if you have to on that and get back to me. I didn’t mean to imply a pure 401k system, although I agree that would be perfect reality.

    We simply must inject “more than half” of a market-based system into each of these things, or they are gone. The socialist ponzi schemes they are now, are destructive to our culture and also to what is left of the medical care / insurance market as a whole.

  • jaykali

    Certainly another ‘boom’ would be great. Maybe the US comes up with the next big thing, certainly has happened before, maybe most recently when Al Gore invented the Internet by himself.

    But here’s the thing, when times are good politicians are even less likely to deal with austerity measures. Good economic times cover up problems, such as entitlement spending. Structurally we have so many problems and the public still doesn’t seem to get it. Most people are completely detached from the political process and the ones that are (ie liberals) don’t know what the hell they’re doing. So I am naturally cynical. We are 1.4 trillion in the hole just for this year. The federal budget is so insane I just don’t know how we recover until people really get their crap together.

  • Flagstaff

    My suggestion would be that the best way to eliminate those extra demands on food stamps and unemployment benefits and medicare is to get the economy moving. In the meantime, pay those extra expenses by taking the money away from programs that are not critical needs.

  • Flagstaff

    My suggestion would be that the best way to eliminate those extra demands on food stamps and unemployment benefits and medicare is to get the economy moving. In the meantime, pay those extra expenses by taking the money away from programs that are not critical needs.

  • barrowmrb

    NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT.
    NO TO NEW DEBT
    NO TO RAISING THE DEBT CEILING
    AND NO TO ANY CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT DOES THESE ITEMS.

    ENOUGH ALREADY.

    IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN RAISE TAXES, SPEND MONEY, ADD NEW LEGISLATION, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST CLOSE DOWN AMERICA.

    YOU CLOWNS ABOVE WHO SAY “IT CAN’T BE DONE” ARE THE SAME GROUP WHO WHERE AGAINST THE FLIGHT TO THE MOON, DEFEATING THE AXIS, AND EXPLORING THE NEW WORLD. YOUR THE HAS-BEENS. NOW GET OUT OF THE WAY.

    WE DON’T NEED NEW LEGISLATION, OR BIG GOVERNMENT,OR NEW TAXES OR POLICING THE WORLD.

    LEAVE US ALONE.

  • popster

    seems to have become regressive. There is no compromise to save the Country, just stop this inane spending. Tax increases are not going to solve the problem. Both parties have one thing in common “tax and SPEND or borrow and SPEND, this common denominator has got to be changed, drastically. If they, in government, can’t see this they must be replaced with common sense people not more politicians.

  • http://www.conservativeone.zoomshare.com MidwayUSA

    $1 of increase for every $3 cut sounds good in theory, but those increases are real and permanent, while the cuts could be accounting tricks, gimmicks, etc. I still want to see something like a balanced budget law with strong curbs on spending, penalties for increasing taxes, and serious entitlement reform.

  • azvick

    Tax credits ultimately increase revenues to the government because the more of his own wealth the citizen keeps, the more productive the private sector becomes. Far from reducing revenues to the government, this is the way to increase revenues. Tax increases depress the economy and ultimately decrease revenues. The best way to increase economic growth is to lower taxes. After that, and just as important, is getting rid of the onerous regulations that business must operate under. Thank you for your comment. And yes, Congress must cut spending.