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.
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Dan Spencer
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Let's get real
RichmondG30 Thursday, June 23rd at 12:15PM EDT (link)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.
Thank you, Debbie Downer
Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:26PM EDT (link)Now do you have anything productive to add?
RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Hmm?
Paul Seale (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:32PM EDT (link)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.
I'm with G30 on this one, too
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:54PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
I'm with G30 on this one, too
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:54PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
Gamecock has evolved to favor NOT raising the debt ceiling, but
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:36PM EDT (link)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.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Because counseling patience in the face of irrational haste is being unproductive?
juumanistra (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:08PM EDT (link)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.
Exactly!
RichmondG30 Thursday, June 23rd at 1:39PM EDT (link)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!
Heh. Only the bank will be closed. nt
Flagstaff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:02PM EDT (link)Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
What would a "Greek" style look like in America?
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 6:29PM EDT (link)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?
Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed; they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” – Atlas Shrugged
Fire Island? NT
kyle8 (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 6:52PM EDT (link)“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Respectfully, time is NOT on our side.
zooboy Thursday, June 23rd at 7:56PM EDT (link)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.
agendadocumentary.com
The conservative stool needs all 3 legs in order to stand.
It doesn't have to be *next* year.
BA Cyclone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:30PM EDT (link)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.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison
“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint
BA Cyclone’s blog
BA Cyclone on Twitter
I think the only thing that will cause the GOP to shrink government will be
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:37PM EDT (link)the coming financial crash and econ depression.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Hope you're right, GC. Otherwise, it's going to take ...
acat (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:55PM EDT (link)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
——
Caveat Suffragator
Latest crowings in between legal work, job search and Braves, Gamecock baseball
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:04PM EDT (link)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!
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Here are $1.866 Trillion in ONE year Federal Budget
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:12PM EDT (link)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….
Audeamus pro audere est facere
Thank you for providing a prime example of the phenomenon that needs to be nipped in the bud.
juumanistra (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:38PM EDT (link)“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!”.
It's in the 10th Amendment, that is where it is in the Constitution!
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:27PM EDT (link)Are you saying the 10th Amendment is a dead letter?
Audeamus pro audere est facere
Hardly: Nor is the Ninth Amendment an ink blot, for that matter.
juumanistra (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:34PM EDT (link)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.
Department of War was one of the Original Four Departments under Washington
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:30PM EDT (link)Your argument re the Air Force is absurd.
Audeamus pro audere est facere
he's absolutely right
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:48PM EDT (link)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.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Baucus: Revenues In Debt Limit Deal Should Match Medicare Cuts
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:46PM EDT (link)The democrats have a spending addiction,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/baucus-revenues-in-debt-limit-deal-should-match-medicare-cuts.php
You see, the real problem is that we have too many socialists in our government.
Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed; they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” – Atlas Shrugged
jummanistra
phenne Thursday, June 23rd at 3:16PM EDT (link)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?
“Liberals ‘libel’ ’cause the can’t ‘stand up’”!
I'm sure that hyphen was purely accidental.
juumanistra (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:00PM EDT (link)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.
there are a few good ideas in this maelstrom of crazy
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:38PM EDT (link)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.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
I call this the John Kasich approach
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:46PM EDT (link)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.
I Call This The James Carville Approach
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:51PM EDT (link)No matter what the topic, or who is involved, always find a snarky way to trash Republicans!
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
This isn't snarky
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:27PM EDT (link)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.
Yes, Kasich has been a disappointment
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 7:20PM EDT (link)Rick Scott and some other the other newly-christened Republican governors have been much better.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
No. It's not just "pushing it down to the States"
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:03PM EDT (link)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.
Audeamus pro audere est facere
I was reacting to what you wrote
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:11PM EDT (link)perhaps it would be useful if you read what you wrote before disagreeing with me.
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.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
The First Postmaster General was Benjamin Franklin who...
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:51PM EDT (link)..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
Audeamus pro audere est facere
The problem is less mathematical than it is political:
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 7:16PM EDT (link)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.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Tactics and strategy
barleycorn (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:18PM EDT (link)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.
Um, no.
Paul Seale (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:28PM EDT (link)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.
Um, yes.
barleycorn (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:24PM EDT (link)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.
Still no.
Paul Seale (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:32PM EDT (link)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.
Except as polls show
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:41PM EDT (link)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.
People arent as dumb as you may think
Paul Seale (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:59PM EDT (link)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.
Depends which Americans you are talking about
RichmondG30 Thursday, June 23rd at 1:49PM EDT (link)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?
Your reading comprehension needs work
barleycorn (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:51PM EDT (link)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.
Yes, you did.
Paul Seale (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:05PM EDT (link)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.
We must not be timid
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:51PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
We must not be timid
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:51PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
Well its "dead" I'll grant you that.
barleycorn (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 6:17PM EDT (link)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.
Not sure which negotiations involving Kyl you are referring to,...
red_oakster (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:30PM EDT (link)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.
Agreed, Kyl is one of the best
victrola Thursday, June 23rd at 1:31PM EDT (link)I’ll take a Senator Kyl that actually makes things happen over other GOP Senators who are just interested in dishing out rhetoric
actually what you are saying is that Kyl
kyle8 (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:51PM EDT (link)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.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Sorry, but no
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 7:24PM EDT (link)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.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Some basic arithmetic.....
Hugh (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 12:53PM EDT (link)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”
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
Thomas Sowell
not very good math
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:47PM EDT (link)you ignore the other component of the equation: GDP growth
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
What growth? nt
Hugh (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:11PM EDT (link)Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
Thomas Sowell
streiff
phenne Thursday, June 23rd at 3:24PM EDT (link)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.
“Liberals ‘libel’ ’cause the can’t ‘stand up’”!
you don't need
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:27PM EDT (link)to share your fantasies with me. I find empirical data to be sufficient,.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
You don't get to decide what growth is "worth anything"
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:39PM EDT (link)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?
Nobody here in this thread is talking about statist power leading to growth
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 6:59PM EDT (link)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?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
about 3% growth per year
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:27PM EDT (link)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.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
This is getting deeper than I intended...
Hugh (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:21PM EDT (link)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.
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
Thomas Sowell
true
streiff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 4:32PM EDT (link)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.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
What matters is the Debt/GDP ratio
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:04PM EDT (link)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.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Agreed
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:18PM EDT (link)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.
First things first
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:57PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
First things first
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 5:57PM EDT (link)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
If not me, who? If not now, when?
J Sobieski
phenne Thursday, June 23rd at 3:26PM EDT (link)[see above comment]
You assume much.
We are sooooooo done with this “Hopey-Changey-Thingy”
“Liberals ‘libel’ ’cause the can’t ‘stand up’”!
No hopey-changey-thingy here, just talking facts
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 6:50PM EDT (link)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.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
What matters is the Debt/GDP ratio
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:04PM EDT (link)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.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
J Sobieski
phenne Thursday, June 23rd at 3:27PM EDT (link)[see MY above comment]
You assume much.
We are sooooooo done with this “Hopey-Changey-Thingy”
“Liberals ‘libel’ ’cause the can’t ‘stand up’”!
5
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 7:27PM EDT (link)I would certainly like to see less debt and government spending than 20%, but 20% would do.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Depressing...
jaykali (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:19PM EDT (link)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.
I disagree with much of this
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 1:31PM EDT (link)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).
2 comments
RichmondG30 Thursday, June 23rd at 3:28PM EDT (link)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.
answers
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:50PM EDT (link)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.
Ya I'm skeptical
jaykali (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 10:53PM EDT (link)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.
Death_of_the_Donkey
phenne Thursday, June 23rd at 3:29PM EDT (link)This is getting tiring …… ;-(
[see MY above comment]
You assume much.
We are sooooooo done with this “Hopey-Changey-Thingy”
“Liberals ‘libel’ ’cause the can’t ‘stand up’”!
There is a great Ipad app
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:47PM EDT (link)that might help you understand this, it’s called dinosaur math, I got it for my 4 year old.
I Don't Believe Democrats Will Reform Entitlements
victrola Thursday, June 23rd at 1:42PM EDT (link)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.
Real entitlement reform.
BA Cyclone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:06PM EDT (link)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.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison
“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint
BA Cyclone’s blog
BA Cyclone on Twitter
Not political reality
victrola Thursday, June 23rd at 5:28PM EDT (link)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.
Read the link on the Chilean model
BA Cyclone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 8:56PM EDT (link)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.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison
“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint
BA Cyclone’s blog
BA Cyclone on Twitter
Big difference between totally voluntary 401k and a government subsidized voucher
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 7:03PM EDT (link)I agree that market based approaches are needed, but when you start talking about eradicating SS, you really aren’t helping our side.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Not "eradicating" Social Security
BA Cyclone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 8:53PM EDT (link)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:
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison
“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint
BA Cyclone’s blog
BA Cyclone on Twitter
$1.866 Trillion of cuts in this years Federal Budget
audax (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 2:14PM EDT (link)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….
Audeamus pro audere est facere
Another Big Problem
aeternalis Thursday, June 23rd at 3:26PM EDT (link)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.
Go forth and look up "Cloward-Piven" and get back to me, 'kay? [nt]
acat (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:37PM EDT (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
Exactly
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:38PM EDT (link)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.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
Yep, I studied up on "Cloward-Piven" in the summer of 2008
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:46PM EDT (link)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”.
Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed; they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” – Atlas Shrugged
You can't cut something that doesn't exist yet.
Flagstaff (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 3:40PM EDT (link)“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.
Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
Growth in food stamps and unemployment and
carolina Thursday, June 23rd at 5:33PM EDT (link)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…..
Those were some good ideas.
Flagstaff (Diary) Friday, June 24th at 1:17AM EDT (link)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.
Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
Those were some good ideas.
Flagstaff (Diary) Friday, June 24th at 1:18AM EDT (link)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.
Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
azvick Saturday, June 25th at 11:04PM EDT (link)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.
Growth in food stamps and unemployment and
carolina Thursday, June 23rd at 5:33PM EDT (link)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…..
Anything beyond stalemate is wishful thinking
alreadyexists Thursday, June 23rd at 8:03PM EDT (link)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.
JUST SAY NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
barrowmrb Friday, June 24th at 7:33AM EDT (link)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.
The progressive/socialist party
popster Friday, June 24th at 7:48AM EDT (link)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.
I don't trust them
MidwayUSA (Diary) Friday, June 24th at 7:55AM EDT (link)$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.