Last night our lawmakers got a deal done to balance the budget and raise the debt limit. A powerpoint was released by Boehner’s officer:
But here are the highlights from Jake Tapper:
- More than $900 billion in deficit reduction over 10 years through discretionary spending caps . $350 billion of that comes from the Pentagon;
- Debt limit increased by at least $2.1 trillion — through 2013…see below for more on how that happens;
- Bipartisan super-committee is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23 presumably through tax and entitlement reform. There will be 12 members of the super-committee. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., each get to pick three members;
- Congress must vote on recommendations made by the bipartisan Congressional deficit reduction committee by December 23;
- If Congress fails to pass the committee proposal, triggers are enacted that spur at least $1.2 trillion in cuts and those will be close to 50/50 split between domestic/defense spending. But the triggers exempt cuts to Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low income programs. The cuts will take effect on January 2, 2013.
The way the debt ceiling is raised is very complicated:
- Immediately after passage of this bill, the president certifies the US government is within $100 billion of hitting the debt ceiling and is given authority to raise the debt ceiling by $400 billion.
- That also triggers a request to increase the debt ceiling by $500 billion — with a process in which Congress can vote to disapprove. The expected outcome: the president vetoes the disapproval, Congress fails to override the veto, and the President is given the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $500 billion.
- The second tranche comes in December. If the super-committee fails to produce a path to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion, or Congress fails to pass it, the president makes a request for the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion. Congress votes to disapprove, the president vetoes it, Congress fails to over-ride the veto, he gets the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion.
- OR the super-committee succeeds in finding anywhere between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction and Congress passes it. The president automatically is given the authority to raise the debt ceiling by an equal amount, with no disapproval process.
Lots of people from both sides of the aisle like the deal, or like it just enough to give it a yes vote. Of course it hasn’t been voted on yet but I find it unlikely that they would even schedule a vote if they thought they couldn’t get it through. Biden was conferring with both chambers to ensure they have the necessary votes and Boehner has supposedly scheduled a vote for 2pm EST. But all that can change if it seems the votes aren’t there.
Like Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson:
“Even right now we are supposedly talking about a deal that will be $2.4-trillion worth,” Johnson said. “Think about what that is: $2.4-million-million worth. You just have a couple people negotiating this. I mean, it is ridiculous. We’re talking about the federal government’s budget here.”
One of the problems, he said, was that the deal didn’t meet the rating agencies’ requirements for the federal government to hold on to its pristine debt rating.
“Here’s the first problem — the rating agencies, everybody is keying in on that,” Johnson said. “You know, they say we need $4 trillion, you know, to afford it, to avoid a downgrade in our debt. This is only going to be about $2.4 trillion.”
The freshman Wisconsin Republican, who was an accountant before coming to Washington, said there was some fuzzy math in the first few years of the deal.
“Let’s put it a different way then: What is happening right now is we have doubled spending in just the last 10 years,” Johnson said. “Ten years ago we spent $1.8 trillion. This year we will spend $3.6 trillion, and more. What the president’s budget would do after 10 years: Increase that from $3.7 to $5.7 trillion. He would spend $46 trillion. And all we are doing is lowering that by, what, $900 billion?
“We have got to begin controlling spending in Washington. This is business as usual. I mean, this is a spending culture in Washington and it is bankrupting America. I came here to see if I could do something about changing this culture.”
The problem with the deal, he said, was that it was too small on a relative basis.
“This is totally inadequate,” Johnson said. “You know, it’s sad: It may be a step in the right direction but it is not fixing the problem.
In the House there are some conservatives who have already stated they will not vote for the bill such as Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.)
“I am probably a no,” freshman Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., a tea party favorite, told Fox News. ” … We need a bold solution and this isn’t it.”
and Rep. Louis Gomert (R-Tex.).
Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Texas, one of the few remaining holdouts, emerged from a caucus meeting Wednesday feeling the pain McCarthy promised. “I’m a beat-up ‘no,'” he reported.
Much of the opposition is because of the possible cuts to defense which take effect if Congress fails to follow through with recommendations the “special commission” gives to reduce the deficit.
Completely understandable because any cuts to defense is totally inappropriate. But the Democrat yes votes will more then make up for any incoming no votes from conservatives so in the end I think we have a deal done and voted on by this evening.
UPDATE
Michael New from the Cato Institute likes the deal:
…I am on largely board with Speaker Boehner’s compromise debt-ceiling plan. Politics is the art of the possible, and this plan avoids a government shutdown while offering some spending cuts with no real tax hikes. As most NRO readers know, the long-term fiscal health of this country depends largely on entitlement reform. Unfortunately, the Obama administration never really proposed anything serious in this regard.
On the good side, the spending limits are a positive development. Spending limits can be useful at reinforcing a broad consensus to limit the growth of government. Furthermore, when budget deficits are a salient political issue, Congress has shown the ability to limit non-defense discretionary spending. Adjusting for inflation, non-defense discretionary spending actually fell during the 1980s. In fact, between 1981 and 1996, non-defense discretionary spending increased by only three percentage points in real terms.
…Overall, in the absence of Obamacare, I might have urged the Republicans to take a harder line in these negotiations. However, as I have argued previously, the best thing that could happen for the long-term fiscal health of this country is a repeal of Obamacare. If the 2012 elections are about the faltering economy and Obamacare, Republicans have a good chance to win. Conversely, a focus on Medicare and entitlement reform would not work to the advantage of Republican candidates. Since the window of opportunity to repeal Obamacare will probably close after the 2012 elections, Republicans would do well to accept this compromise and not risk the political fallout that might accompany a partial government shutdown.
UPDATE
Everyone is proud of Boehner it appears and some Republicans who said they were going to vote no yesterday, will vote yes today:
“I’m doing great.” So said Speaker John Boehner as he left this afternoon’s GOP conference meeting. He was all smiles, for good reason: Numerous House Republicans appear to be supportive of the debt-limit deal and of Boehner’s leadership, just days after his speakership was potentially in peril during a tense vote for his revised debt-ceiling plan. “I’m pretty amazed that he got the deal he got,” says Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the Budget Committee chairman.
“We are going to be okay,” says Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.), a tea-party star who supports the deal. He denies that Boehner is in trouble with conservatives. “No, he is not,” West says. “The president is in trouble — the president surrendered.”
Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R., Ill.) admits to being disappointed with the final deal, “to a degree.” Still, he says, conservatives should not be throwing a tantrum. “We fought a fight as hard as we could fight,” he says. “This thing will probably pass today. I am not going to vote for it. But look at how the world has changed.” In that, he says, “I take heart.”
Looking at the big picture, Walsh adds, “this is clearly a win for all these troublesome conservative Republicans who came here to change the world.” Boehner, he notes, retains his popularity behind closed doors. “Everyone in that room loves him,” he says.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) confirmed the love-fest. “In fact, I stood up at the end and said, I could not be more proud of how our leadership has handled this,” he says. “Even to those of us who oppose the bill, he has been exceptionally good. I am a bigger supporter of John Boehner now than I’ve ever been.”
UPDATE
See author page
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Please. As if this hasn’t been discussed over and over. There are plenty of Conservative ideas to bring down health care costs. You know this, and I have to assume you forgot, because you don’t strike me as the type of person who is intellectually dishonest.
@Ivanski: Please link the warnings you gave about Boehner. Really, I mean I would like to read what you said.
Will you even answer me?
@antics: Thanks, that’s very helpful. I knew the details, but I didn’t have a handy link.
What this shows is that honest people can change their positions, over time. For example, at one time, I was religiously Born Again and a conservative Republican, and my mother lived and died as a conservative Republican. At some point along the way, I changed my views. Earlier in his life, Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat and a union organizer and union President. Earlier in his life, because of life’s experience, Obama was much more to the Left of where he is today, as President.
Time passes. Views change. So do people.
My point in reminding people about the Heritage Foundation, Grassley, Dole, and Romney is simply to make the point that what we are all fond of calling ObamaCare is not a socialist takeover of health care, but simply a program which seeks to maintain the current, private health care system, while expanding coverage, and introduce a structure for eventually controlling costs.
Earlier in this thread, Retire05 and I were arguing the results of malpractice reform in Texas. As in the case of so many situations, the best and most reliable data come from studies of the Medicare population, because of the comprehensive and uniform records which are available for data extraction and analysis. It’s possible to tweak the Medicare system and examine the impact, with respect to both cost and outcomes, in a way that’s not possible outside of Medicare (the Kaiser Permanente system is one other system from which somewhat comparable data are available, but even Kaiser can’t approach Medicare with regard to a national provider network, covering all socioeconomic strata). That’s why solutions to the health care cost problem are much more likely to come out of a Federalized monitoring system (especially considering the fatal flaw of private, laissez-faire health care, which is that the sellers make the purchase decisions for the buyers).
P.S. to antics: The big conservative ideas for controlling health care costs have to do with allowing the selling of insurance across state lines (which won’t do one thing to lower costs, for several reasons) and, also, malpractice tort reform (which reduces malpractice premiums but which doesn’t lower health care costs in a meaningful way, as shown by the experiences of both California and Texas). Is there another strategy on the table? Well, there are HSAs, which I’ve already acknowledged are a good conservative idea, which are compatible with ObamaCare, by the way. Private health care hasn’t healed itself, and the Republicans didn’t even try to do anything with it, during the 6 years that they controlled the Presidency and the legislature. I don’t recall a single speech from the Bush bully pulpit about it, in marked contrast to Obama, who made it the signature issue of his campaign and of his Presidency. You can criticize Obama and ObamaCare all you want, but he’s the only one to actually do something about health care, since Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a national health care system in the early 1900s.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@anticsrocks:
No, neophyte. I’m happy that my ability to act as a soothsayer has once again been proven right.
Had I been wrong, like Aye and Mata were, I’d be committing myself to an mental institution.
Rest well, though, knowing I’ll call it as it will be.
Aye will continue to blather about pablum day-in and day-out.
@anticsrocks:
You do the search; it was back in January. I’m a busy person and I’m the one who asks the questions around here.
I did. Be patient. I’ll get to you when I have the time.
Well, it looks like Boehner broke his pledge to post all legislation on-line for a three-day review.
Well, didn’t Pelosi also make, and break, the same vow?
Pelosi = Boehner = Liberals.
Aye stood up for Boehner back in January when I attacked him.
Typical of Aye to choose the side which would betray the conservative cause.
Shame!!!!
@Ivan: What’s the matter? Too cowardly to show me where you warned about Boehner?
I guess you can’t back up what you blather on ad nauseum about. Come to think of it, “nauseum” is the perfect word when used in conjunction with you.
BTW, when you try to insult someone you ought to remember a couple of little items.
1. I am not a neophyte, I have been a conservative all my life.
2. Correct grammar is a wonderful thing…
“an” mental institution??
I mean are you really as dumb as a bag of hammers, or am I giving you too much credit with that assumption?
Anybody else like to hazard a guess?
While the committee is debating for six months, how much will the USA have borrowed and how much will the National Debt have increased? Compare this to the amount that will be reduced and will it wind up that the debt is reduced or increased?
There will be a 12 member committee, 6 republican, 6 democrat. It is obvious to me that this will result in a tie vote. What happens in a tie vote of the committee? NOTHING! This just gives the republicrats in congress 6 more months of their shark feeding frenzy.
@anticsrocks:
I didn’t figure Ivan would have the stonz to actually step up to the challenge.
He never has so far.
@johngalt (44) & James Raider (45)
I’m with you guys. I have to agree that the Establishment Republican leadership got played again. They should have listened to the Tea Party caucus, but no, they decided to fold at the end and accept the ridiculous so called Senate “compromise.” This should only encourage us to continue to support Tea Party candidates and vote out of all the progressives of both parties, and gullible establishment Republicans. We must continue to elect Tea Party types to Congress, and also take control of the Senate.
@Ivan:
You’re calling me a liar? Really?
All right, prove it Scooter. Prove it right here for everyone to see.
Link to posts or comments where I’ve lied or engaged in prevarication.
Prove it… for the sake of your honor.
@retire05 (41)
I certainly never got a chance yesterday to read any of the bill that the Senate sent down to the House, All I caught was what has been posted on FA and from the talking heads on the news. The above part of this thread finally sunk in and I just now put 2 and 2 together. If what you and the others said above about the bill is correct, then that tells me that what Harry Reid did was gut the bill the House sent, stuck in pretty much his own bill that the Senate had already rejected, adding a Democratic version of the BBA, and they sent that back down to the House, and like a damn fool, Boehner and the Republican leadership threw it out for a vote before anyone could read it. If that is indeed what happened, then I’m hopping mad!
Ditto, they did those hypocrites actions with THE PRESIDENT BUSH’S BILLS,
AS MISSY MENTIONED SOMETIMES AGO ,
so you might be in to something there, they are master of deceit.
deceiving the AMERICANS IN FULL MEDIA SCREEN,
and if it’s discovered the CONSERVATIVES should demand the bill to be nullified for fraud actions from THE DEMOCRATS,
THIS TIME, for the sake of all the other time they did,
Vying for the ”SuperCommittee” just got uglier.
If possible.
I was watching this AM as one Senator after another politik’ed for a spot.
Now this:
No senators who vote against the debt ceiling deal will be eligible to serve on the so-called “supercommittee” for deficit reduction that the legislation creates.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fiscal-conservatives-barred-supercommittee_581921.html
@Ditto: #60
After the November elections, I can see the Tea Party people encouraging its members to form a third party to try to take our country back, if there is any left to take back.
@Smorgasbord: Absolute way to give the White House back to OBAMA!
Does G.H.W Bush/Perot/Clinton ring any bells? GOOD-GRIEF!
@Nan G: “Unbelievable” ..No, we should have expected something like that. SCDP [same crap different packaging]
@Ditto: #62
If the bill includes the passing of the two budgets, it is news to me, but it doesn’t surprise me that it is “Politics as usual” again. Look how many other bills have been passed without even being read.
@Ditto:
Yesterday I called almost everyone of the Texas House Republican delegation. I was told that the bill was supposed to have been given to them Sunday night, but they didn’t get it until late yesterday morning. So a 79 page bill, written in D.C. legaleze, where you have to refer to other bills to determine the meaning of this bill, was not, as the leadership claimed it would be, available Sunday night.
We have been punked. I understand that the Democrats agreed to not stand in the way of the bill (Nancy Pelosi telling her members to ‘vote their conscience’) but to make Republicans thinks that they were really against it. IOW, it was a head fake by the Dems. Louie Gohmert knew it. Jeff Sessions knows it. Mike McCaul knew it.
So what does the bill actually do? It removes the budget debate, gives Obama an increase in the debt limit with no requirements on how he spends it, all issues removed until AFTER the November, 2012 elections. Today, the Democrats are coming out and saying that now the debt limit issue is solved, they are going to concentrate on jobs. How’s that for hypocracy?
You can cover manure in chocolate and tell someone it’s candy, but underneath the chocolate it is still crap.
@RudeCrudeAndSociallyUnacceptable: #66
When I said “…after the November elections….” I meant in 2012. We no longer have a two party system, just one party with two branches. Just like we have to do with some other plants, we need to trim those two branches way back. I still go along with Goooh’s philosophy of throwing them all out and starting over.
SMORGASBORD, HI,
I think that the TEA PARTY HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO GET QUITE A FEW IN THE GOVERNMENT ,
DULY ELECTED, and that should be done before going for a 3rd party from now to 2012,
the election ,this time is the first and formost priority for AMERICA. TO GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME.
NO LAZINESS, FROM NONE IS TO BE TOLERATED, EVERY CORNER OF AMERICA IS TO BE FILL WITH VOTERS FOR AMERICA’S INTEREST FIRST,
AND a third party could be confusing the masses of AMERICANS WHO WANT TO DEPOSE THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT IN POWER .
THERE IS STILL MANY WHICH ARE NOT SURE TO CONVINCE THAT THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE OF HISTORY OF THIS NATION, IT REQUIRE A LOT OF WORK AND IF YOU SHIFT THAT ENERGY ON A START OF NEW, IT WILL SPREAD THE FORCES IN A DUAL WORK TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS AT THE END,
THE IMPORTANCE IS TO WIN MORE THAN EVER, OR SINK IN AN SITUATION SO DEEP
THAT THE PEOPLE WON’T BE ABLE TO GET OUT.
MANY HERE HAVE SAID THE WORD ” DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA IS THE AGENDA NOW ”
WE MUST LISTEN TO THEM, WE MUST SEE THEIR VISIONS OF TERROR AND SORROW AND PAIN, FOR ALL, IF THIS IS NOT TURN BACK IN 2012 ELECTION.
WE MUST STAY FOCUS AT ALL TIME
It also doesn’t prevent any tax increases. Lovely, eh?
Lest we forget, this particular ”debt bill” also assumes the Senate has passed the next two annual federal budgets.
That means it will definitely be at least four years between federal budgets.
(It has already been more than two years.)
However there is a bit of good news today.
The General Accounting Office has told Obama that his stimulus plans and bailout plans were not justified.
There will be no more of them.
CNBC reported it this way:
1. In explaining the basis for these exceptional credit extensions, Federal Reserve Board officials cited the continuing strains in financial markets and concerns about the possible failures of these dealers at the time. However, the Federal Reserve Board could not provide documentation explaining why these extensions were provided specifically to affiliates of these four primary dealers.
2. …without more complete documentation, how assistance to these broker-dealer subsidiaries satisfied the statutory requirements for using this authority remains unclear. Moreover, without more complete public disclosure of the basis for these actions, these decisions may not be subject to an appropriate level of transparency and accountability.
As you all probably knew, Obama’s Administration had been stonewalling any and all attempts to comply with FOIA regarding these cash giveaways.
On June 3, 2011, an appellate court panel ruled that if a government agency simply makes the claim that information can be withheld under Exemption 5 the courts must assume that releasing the information will harm the agency’s decision making process – even if no proof of harm is put before the court.
Judicial Watch is now requesting that the appellate court hear the FOIA matter en banc (or in full, rather than merely a three-judge panel). Here’s a squib from their brief.(PDF)
Now Judicial Watch has the GAO on their side.
Should be interesting.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #71
As I mentioned earlier, in my opinion we don’t have a two party system any more. I am also tired of putting people in office who were groomed for it from childhood and haven’t even held a regular job. A lot of politicisns have come from generations of politicians. I don’t like politicians being in office for 40-50 years and dieing in office. Once you are in you are very seldom kicked out.
One major problem is that to get elected to a Federal office the candidate has to promise to do what the ones donating to them want or they won’t get money for the next election. Money ALWAYS wins in congress. We need to come up with a way for candidates to run for office without spending any money. That way the only ones they haave to pay back are the ones who voted for them.
The next issue regarding this is the Treasury actually being able to sell this debt. China and other nations have hinted at reluctance to buy any more of our debt, and there is not going to be a mad rush by Americans to purchase more Treasury bonds. That leaves the Fed Reserve to purchase that debt by printing more money, which will further weaken the dollar. When that happens, the debt service will get larger, leaving even less monthly revenue available to pay out to other programs, meaning that more debt, per month, will be incurred. Anyone with a lick of sense can see how this will end up snowballing into fiscal disaster.
If they had shown more fiscal sanity, and had a “plan” that moved the government towards a balanced budget, even if it was ten years down the road, those Treasury bonds would look more enticing than they do now.
@John (#75): I think that you are correct in your assessment, as depressing as that is. I know that you think the best way to handle our fiscal situation is with drastic entitlement cuts, but, in the real world, you can’t get everything you want.
China is investing an enormous amount of money on higher education (they currently have ten times the number of post grads in PhD programs in science and engineering than we have), infrastructure, and R&D, including the sort of basic research which industry eshews but which leads to the true breakthroughs (a great example being Nixon’s War on Cancer, which didn’t cure cancer (yet), but which spawned our fabulously successful biotech industry).
At one time Boehner and Obama had a deal on a 4.3 trillion dollar fix, which included less than 1/4 of it in increased revenues, from tax code adjustments. In my opinion, this would have been a much better deal for the country, all things considered, than what we’ve got going on now. But it didn’t go anywhere, because of the philosophy that the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@retire05: #69,
It’s really about perception, and who most effectively controls, or affects, that perception.
Conservatives have not been so effective of late. Obama can tell outright lies on a daily basis, yet it’s rare that we ever see anyone carving him a new one on the lies.
Rep. Leadership doesn’t seem to know how to get ahead of the message either.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Not true, Larry. While I am a conservative, and promote adherence to original intent regarding the Constitution, I do not feel that drastic immediate cuts in entitlements will be any more beneficial than doing nothing, which this “deal” basically does.
I came up with a solution the other day, in which the budget would most likely be balanced, or very close to it, by the end of the next decade, and all without raising taxes. Remember, this “deal” does not actually cut spending, only the rate of spending increases. And it only cuts it from about 4% down to 3.5% per year.
Instead, what they should have done is hold the line on spending for everything but SS and Medicare, as more people will join the rolls of those programs, so spending for them will increase. But, as far as everything else, hold the line on their budgets, without increases. This would serve two functions. One, it would force every dept. and agency in the government to become more efficient, as inflation would force them to start cutting the waste in their programs. And two, by becoming more efficient, and cutting waste, the size of their dept.’s or agencies would shrink.
As for revenue, a modest 3% average increase in GDP will result in an average 3% increase per year in revenue, to where by 2021 revenue will be within less than a $100 Billion of expenditures, and maybe even more than expenditures. This is balancing the budget.
What’s more, by doing that, although debt to GDP will initially go above 100%, it will start dropping again and be on a steady drop downwards, ending less than 100% at the end of that ten years.
Once that point is reached, the federal budget should be limited to .5% less growth per year than the preceding year’s revenue increase percent. For example, in 2022, if the 2021 revenue growth was 3.5%, then expenditures must not exceed 3% growth. This would keep spending always under revenue, and allow the debt principal to start being paid down, as well as be able to start removing those “IOUs” in the SS trust fund.
That is fiscal sanity, and does nothing to cut the meat and potatoes of any dept. or agency, but only the waste inherent in government. It keeps those “entitlements”, but forces the government to become more efficient in providing them. And it gets the government on it’s way to becoming fiscally sound. The current trajectory does nothing of the sort.
And on top of that, it puts certainty back into the marketplace by keeping tax rates steady and ensuring interest rates will remain low. Steady, good, economic growth is likely to happen, including job creation.
@James Raider:
His recent rhetoric, and that of the liberal/progressives, about holding the economy hostage, and about taking away grandma’s SS check, are perfect examples of this.
Full text of the Budget Control Act of 2011
Republicans were threatening to wreck the economy by blocking any increase in the debt ceiling. They’ve signed away the ability to repeat that particular threat through 2012.
Amazingly, they’ve also given Obama a powerful tool that can be utilized to gain revenue concessions: If the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction fails to include revenue increases in their plan to cut deficits by an additional $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the President can simply threaten to veto it. If such a plan doesn’t become law by January 15, 2012, spending limits will be reduced automatically to attain the deficit reduction goals, with half of the spending cuts automatically coming in the area of defense spending. Obama would then be able to make the case during the run-up to the 2012 elections that republicans consider the protection some of the lowest high-end tax rates in U.S. history to be of greater importance than both deficit reduction and national defense. How hard would it be to make such a case, when republicans demonstrate their priorities through their actions?
Hey, don’t blame Obama. Republicans have set things up this way themselves.
@John: I think that we are making a huge mistake by cutting things like infrastructure (on which most of the “stimulus” money should have been spent), R&D, and federal aid to higher education. Other than that, I could probably reach a compromise agreement with you, were you and I members of the “super Congress.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And what I propose would not do that, Larry. As I said, it effectively reduces spending in every dept. and agency, when one considers the effect of inflation on a constant dollar budget amount, but would force those dept.’s and agencies to become more efficient at providing those programs. I suppose that it would force some of them to effectively scrap certain programs, by reducing the amount of money available to apply them effectively, but that is a risk I’m willing to take, especially if the programs that become effectively scrapped are useless anyway.
Bringing about fiscal sanity in government involves sharing of the burden, but the current “deal” doesn’t seem to place any real burden on the government itself.
Larry, @ 76, I think you oversimplify about China.
But Obama does the same.
Remember when Obama was running in 2008 and bemoaned our crumbling infrastructure in the United States and noted that China’s state-directed infrastructure spending had produced ports, trains, and airports that were “vastly the superior?”
Well, if you actually look into it, it is turning out not to be true, isn’t it.
Now, this will sound familiar:
China now owes 35% of their country’s 2010 GDP!
Larry, wasn’t the Stimulus Bill sold to us based on improving “infrastructure?” Remember all those signs on highways that were supposed to be upgraded because of almost $800 billion in “stimulus?”
Why is the federal government responsible for state and county roads? If you don’t like the roads in your area, vote to raise taxes to support them. Do not think you have a right to tax Missourians for state and local roadways in California. You don’t.
R & D? Did government funding give us the telephone, telegraph, or any of the major inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries? Perhaps you can tell us how much money the federal government gave to Alexander Graham Bell? The private sector, not the federal government, will develope new and innovative inventions that people want to buy because there is a market for those items and development will create profits for those companies. Same with drug research. If Merck were to develope a drug that could cure HIV/AIDs tomorrow, their profits would soar as there is a demand for such a product. Same with cancer, lukemia, et al. When there is a need in the market, private sectors developers have always answered the call, not the federal government.
@Greg:
There is an inherent problem with this, Greg. And to understand the problem, one must understand how funding of the military is done. For every soldier in the field, sailor at sea, and AF pilot in the air, there is a corresponding, much larger number of support personnel providing the support for their missions. And that support is required for those soldiers, sailors and pilots to be effective and efficient in their missions. So, reductions in spending in Defense can be a hazardous proposition.
-One, if support is cut, and this includes both personnel and equipment, without a corresponding cut in those soldiers in the field, sailors at sea, and pilots in the air, then their individual missions become much harder to maintain efficiency and effectiveness, and the overall military effectiveness degrades.
-Two, if both support and those “in the field” are cut, in corresponding numbers, it maintains the effectiveness and efficiency of the individual missions, but at the cost of overall military effectiveness. Essentially, you take away from the desired personnel required to complete the overall mission, making it harder on those left to maintain effectiveness and efficiency in the overall mission.
-Three, and this is the only one I approve, is to cut the military footprint required. Essentially, you cut the number of missions the military is tasked with. Then, by cutting support and those in the field, in corresponding numbers, you maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the individual missions, and the overall, but now reduced, mission of the military. There are several possibilities here, including reducing the US footprint in NATO, and our footprint in the UN. The hazard here is that we reduce our military footprint worldwide too much, allowing undesirable influence by nations such as China or Russia to take over in a region.
It isn’t as simple as just cutting the Defense dept’s budget, Greg, although I will admit that there is waste overall that can be gotten rid of. Unfortunately, much of that waste comes about due to “crony capitalism”, which both political parties seem to engage in with fervor.
I was thinking, and I think that BOEMER AND REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES AND TEA PARTY, HAD THE SAME THOUGHT,,
THAT IS, if they would have had to deal with A GEORGE BUSH IN THE SAME CONTEXT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE TRUST IN THE NEGOTIATIONS AND MORE OPEN FACE REPLY AND DEMANDS FROM BOTH SIDES, BUT THEY KNEW THE DEAL WAS WITH ONE THAT NOBODY TRUSTED, AND THEY HAD TO SECURE RIGHTFULLY THEIR IMAGE AND DO THE SAME RETURN THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA ON THE MEDIA PAINTING THEM AS UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE WHICH WAS HIS WAY INSTEAD OF NOT COOPERATING, NOT BRINGING NOTHING ON THE TABLE ,EXASPERATING THE OPPOSIT SIDE WHICH WHERE THE ONE WORKING HARD TO GET HIM TO WORK AS A NORMAL PRESIDENT WOULD CERTAINLY TRY TO FIX THE PROBLEM WHICH WAS FROM HIS OWN SPENDING WITHOUT THINKING THAT HE WAS GETTING AMERICA IN DESTRUCTION.
SO BOEMER AND HIS PARTICIPANT MUST HAVE HAD A LOT OF AMERICANS IN THEIR MIND WHICH THEY KNEW WHERE COUNTING ON NOT THE DEMOCRATS OR OBAMA, BUT THE ONE WORKING THE MOST ,WAS BOEMER ON TOP, AND THEY AT A FEW POINT IN TIME MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD NOT BRING THE DESPAIR THAT THE DEMOCRATS WHERE FEEDING WITH THEIR MEDIA,,
AND BOEMER AT THE END GOT REALY MAD AT OBAMA TELLING HIM ; GET IN LINE
AND MOVE YOU’RE BUTT ,IN WORDS THAT MEANT THE SAME,
AND THE CLOCK TICKING THEY HAD THE SURE PLAN TO PASS, THEY MADE THE LAST HOUR DECISION TO GO FOR IT BECAUSE OF THE AMERICANS’S GREAT ANGUISH, WATCHING
THEIR CLOCKS AS WELL,
THOSE WHERE THE MILITARY WE VIEW ASKING THE COMMANDER ABOUT THE POSSIBLE FAILURE QUESTION AND THE COMMANDER REPLY, I DON’T KNOW, IT WAS SOUL SEARCHING TO VIEW THEIR ANGUISH, ALONG WITH ALL THOSE IN AMERICA BEING THREATEN BY OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS.
SO THE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES AND TEA PARTY START TO DECIDE AND LEANED ON THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND DID THE LAST EFFORT .THAT BECAME THE
IT PASS FINALLY. AND THEY NEVER TURN BACK
THIS IS SIMILAR TO SOME CONSERVATIVES HERE SAYING FOR 2012, THEY WILL AT THE END HOLD THEIR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THE LAST TO STAND EVEN IF THE CANDIDAT WAS NOT THEIR CHOICE,
BUT FOR AMERICA THEY WILL,
AND THAT IS WHO THEY ARE, NOT THINKING OF THEIR OWN INTEREST BUT FOR AMERICA
THEY CHERISH TO THE DEATH,
NOTE THE BIG DIFFERENCE WITH THE WAY OF THINKING SELFISHLY OF THE DEMOCRATS
AND OBAMA, ONLY SEEKING THE VOTES FROM THE PEOPLE.
@nan: Yes, I read the same story about the China bullet train scandal. It’s possible to mismanage anything.
@retire: I am in agreement regarding the paltry amount which actually went for infrastructure, stimulus-wise. I heard something on NPR yesterday which is a great example of government wasting money. It concerned a big project here in Southern California to provide weather insulation to low income housing, as part of the “stimulus” program. Turns out that the program was a big success, but came in ahead of schedule and under budget. Result: panic — the money is going to be “lost” (i.e. returned to Washington), if it is not spent within the next two months. So, or course, there’s a mad scramble to spend the money right away — presumably on things which did not receive proper planning, etc.
Things like this apply, however, equally to the Department of Defense. It’s the nature of government — that, in most (but not all, e.g. health care) situations, the private sector will do a better job than the government.
A glaring exception, however, is research and development – especially basic research. Private industry doesn’t invest in basic research — yet basic research leads to unforeseen discoveries which have transformative economic effects.
You bring up cancer treatment (a field in which I have a degree of expertise). Well, half of the cancer drugs available for use today came directly out of government research. What private sector industry does well is taking a discovery, and then doing the necessary applied research to commercialize it. Take, for a recent example, a class of cancer drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which grew directly out of US government sponsored basic research to identify gene products important in carcinogenesis. Once discovered, dozens of pharmaceutical companies focused their research on similar agents of this class and today there are about 10 different drugs of this class that have made their way to being approved and marketed.
That’s just a single, simple example, but one of the very best investments in taxpayer money is support of basic research, in my opinion.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I don’t know about anyone else but to me this bill is an abomination. This “debt ceiling” bill was never about preventing the US from defaulting on its debt or about making sure our service members or those who rely on S.S. or welfare would receive their checks. No, what this unconstitutional legislation does is establish an smaller oligarchy of elite to run the nation. As if anyone here really expects 6 Dems and 6 Repubs to to reach a consensus on fiscal policy! Right……and my Nigerian banker is just waiting to give me an inheritance I never new about! An oligarchy is exactly what this “super congress” will be with the tie breaking vote cast by the White House, but we won’t have to worry about there ever being a tie because these 13 puppets of the bankers know exactly what they want to accomplish. Congress has already abdicated their congressional duty to send our young men and women into harms way ONLY by declaring war, now by voting for this bill congress is abdicating their constitutional duty to control the purse strings of the government.
First it violates Art. 1 Sec. 7 which states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”. Secondly it eliminates the Senates ability to filibuster and the Houses right to amend legislation! By requiring a straight up or down vote and not allowing our representatives to debate the pros and cons of legislation the “Super Congress” creates a new governmental system that will be even less accountable to the people than our current system and will be able to impose its will on the electorate in a variety of issues, like gun control.
We could pay our debts using debt-free U.S. Notes or Greenbacks, like Lincoln did to avoid crippling debt during the Civil War, or we it could eliminate the deficit with Ron Paul’s plan, which simply calls for freezing federal spending at current levels. But if THIS bill doesn’t show most people out there that the Republican and Democratic parties are not in least bit concerned with finding workable solutions I don’t know what will.
My friends the two party oligarchy currently in place is using this false “Democrat Vs Republican” charade to loot the taxpayers of this nation by keeping the electorate divided while they enrich the top 1/10th of 1 percent of the populace. The only thing that might possibly work is to revoke the Feds charter and all associated legislation and to revoke congress’s power to borrow, nothing else, not a BBA, not entitlement reform, not stopping all our current wars, nothing will be able to stop these 13 dictators with veto power in the hands of the president from destroying this nation!
@Poppa_T:
I’d say that you are as pissed off about this “deal” as I am. The thing is, even if this “stupidcommittee” can agree on “cuts”, and both houses and Obama approve it, it still does nothing of any significance regarding the real problem, which is that our government spends much more than it takes in.
For an analogy, consider a hole in a boat, and the bailing of water out of it. Before the deal, water was coming in much, much faster than the size of the bucket used to bail the water out. Now, with this “deal”, the person bailing the boat has his bucket, and is given a small cup to help with bailing the water, meanwhile, the hole is actually getting larger as time goes by. So, instead of preventing the boat from sinking, all the government has done is ensure that it sinks just a little slower than before. The boat is still going to sink. And Congress is busy clapping themselves on the back, claiming they have averted a catastrophe. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
That is kind of what I proposed to Larry, back in post #78. And I knew nothing of Paul’s proposal.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, do you think that – with your little comment about the one business venture I anecdotally mentioned – you excused yourself from all of the rest?
70% of all net profits made by China’s centrally owned enterprises in 2009 are derived from merely ten companies that have been bestowed heavy market advantages by the state!
The vast majority of the remaining state-owned companies are poorly managed or suffer from overcapacity.
1/3rd of all of China’s wind turbines are still not connected to any energy grid!
Now, this will sound familiar:
To combat the financial crisis, Beijing pushed out a 4 trillion yuan ($619.1 billion) stimulus package and encouraged lending by state banks that totaled, by some estimates, 20 trillion yuan ($3.1 trillion) in 2009 and 2010. Two years later today, Beijing is staring at piles of bad debt that may imperil China’s broader financial health.
China now owes 35% of their country’s 2010 GDP!
And since you ignored China’s larger economic problems, I’ll add this:
China is predicted to lose 44.5 million young people (aged 15-24) during this decade. (2010-2020)
That is a 21% decline that will happen during just one decade!
The male population aged 15-24 will fall 18.5% between 2010 and 2020, but that the female population in that age group will fall a sharper 23.9% —
a result researchers tie to the confluence of
1. a preference for boys,
2. the one-child policy and
3. the increased availability of ultrasound equipment.
That’s made the lack of new job entrants more acute for manufacturers that tend to mainly employ women.
Remember the 4+2+1 problem: one child will have to support two parents and four grandparents.
China’s decline, not America’s, is inevitable.
@johngalt: What really gets me POed JG is that many of the so called TEA party representatives capitulated to the powers that be. As you can see by this poll the Libertarian Party called it right back in January. This article from the Cato institute shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that this plan cuts NOTHING from the debt, it’s all baseline mumbo-jumbo designed fool the fools that keep electing D’s and R’s.
At least I can say that my congresscritter Jon Flemming and and my whore mongering senator David Vitter voted against the damned thing. Maybe I just pestered them enough to make them come to their senses or maybe it was those horse heads in their beds that woke them up. 🙂
@nan (#90): I didn’t know all that stuff. Food for thought, and comfort food, at that 🙂 Thanks.
My one and only comment, in follow up, is that China’s debt to GDP ratio cited by you (0.35 or 35%) is actually very low (e.g. half of ours), by world standards. A debt to GDP ratio of only 0.35 is actually very healthy, economically speaking.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Poppa_T
HI, NAW THE HORSES HEADS UNDER THEIR BLANKET
when they wake up would not freak them up,
It must be something you said,
bye
I still get bad dreams on that part of the GODFATHER MOVIE.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually, Larry, as of this moment in time, our debt to GDP ratio is just a few points under 1.0. And with the looming of a few hundred billion in new debt in our immediate future, it is very likely that we go above 1.0 before the end of the year.
@John (#94): You are absolutely correct. Here are three useful links:
Historic Chart of U.S. Debt to GDP Ratio
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73364352/
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
And I despise liars, Ivan. And people who decide they want to pat themselves on the back by insisting I said things, or promoted ideas I never had. I can’t speak for the others, but I know very well that I never placed the faith and trust in the GOP that you purport I did. You’re a pathetic sort of weasal.. the kind who feels they need to tear down others to build yourself up.
And you stoop below the bog level, with lies and imaginary conversations, to do so.
@johngalt: #79
I’m a little confused. Weren’t the democrats complaining about how high the Bush budgets were? My thinking was to go back to the way too high Bush amount for our budget. But, even if we went back to the Bush amounts for the budget, the democrats are now saying that wouldn’t be enough. The old saying, “Give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves” comes to mind here, only it should be changed to, “Give the democrats enough rope and they will hang the tax payer.” It seems the republicans have an endless rope they are giving the democrats. Let’s take away their rope. They don’t know how to use it.
BTW, Ivan… here’s your Boehner bashing in January. Other than your highly intelligentual (/sarc) observation that Boehner was, in your not-so-humble opinion, demonstrating “…his mental instability for all the world to see”.., what “warnings” were you giving anyone who wanted to bother to listen to you?
Care to point out where I indulged in that thread, other than to point out to my pal, OT, that watching pig mud wrestling contest was more interesting than that thread? Or my other comment, expressing disgust that Allen West sang kumbaya with Lindsay Graham about raising the debt ceiling.
Only the most reading challenged could read in imaginary support for Boehner… or even the new GOP Congress, for that matter… from me.
Instead, most on that thread lit into you because you decided to make a personal judgment on someone because they demonstrated emotions as tears. So was that your sage “warning”?
Me? I didn’t like Boehner from the month before… Oh, but where were you when I first started railing about and distrusting the “new GOP Congress” back in December with their first f*#k up on the Bush tax policy concessions?
Oh yes… you, Mr. Supposed Conservative Purist gave them a pass.
I’ve done 59 posts since the 2010 midterms, Ivan. Easy to see them… just click on the authors link above and all my come up under my name. Why don’t you tell me how many “GOP rah rah” posts I’ve done? Might be easier to count my criticism of them.
Yet you feel the need the make up the past, when we all have access to archives, Ivan. Only the lowest of cowards makes up lies about people when they aren’t there (on this thread or in the cyber sense). And you continually prove yourself to be just that.
Gee.. here’s more “Ivan warnings” about Boehner, upset that he refused to obligate cutting an entire program to a media pundit.
Gee… I’m not anywhere in the comments on that thread, either.
Gosh darn, another comment from February, wondering if anyone would criticize him when he brought a massive spending bill to the floor.
Wow… I’m no where on that thread either.
That’s pretty much it for your prescient words of “warning”…. mostly the rantings and ravings of a man who hates another if he sheds a tear. Sounds like a personal problem to me… yours.
As far as your false and phony charge about me needing to “come clean”…. I’d say my job here was done, and you have again proven yourself to be without an ounce of credibility in anything you espouse.
@Aye:
Have done so before. If you can’t keep up that is your problem.
I still see you’re still around, thus the dishonor you carry is intact.