Two budget fights loom — one that matters, and one that doesn’t
The looming budget fight in Washington has two components, the short term and the long term. And it’s important to keep that distinction in mind as events play out.
The short term is going to be brutal. House Republicans are itching for a spending fight, and they’re going to get one. The occasion might be passage of the continuing resolution needed to fund the rest of this fiscal year; it might be the debate over raising the debt ceiling; it might be both. The House GOP is proposing budget moves they know won’t be accepted — a 29 percent cut in the hated EPA, eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Americorps and slashing college tuition aid while defense spending increases — but they show every sign of stamping their feet and throwing a major hissy fit if the rest of Washington doesn’t bow to their every wish.
The damage those cuts would do is serious. But in terms of the deficit, the short-term fight will mean nothing and accomplish nothing. By concentrating on non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for just 12 to 18 percent of federal spending depending on how you define it, the short-term battle sidesteps entitlements, defense or taxes, which means it doesn’t address the deficit at all. Its sole impact will be to strengthen or weaken the political position of the various participants as they prepare for the longer game.
That’s where the money is, and where the change will come. For the first time, we’re seeing signs from President Obama and congressional leaders of both parties that they’re willing to work toward a grand compromise. To his credit, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is reportedly playing a major role in leading a bipartisan, behind-the-scenes discussion in the Senate in which all ideas — entitlements, taxes, defense — are on the table.
Let’s breeze through the major areas of concern:
1.) Saving Social Security is relatively easy. You don’t have to privatize it, you don’t have to slash it. The president’s bipartisan deficit commission laid out a common-sense approach of reductions in long-term benefit increases combined with slight increases in SSI taxes to make the program actuarially sound. Remember, the maximum Social Security benefit for someone retiring this year at age 66 is barely $28,000, so any effort to slash that is going to hit a lot of vulnerable people very hard.
2.) Medicare, on the other hand, is relatively impossible. We’ve got a health-care delivery system that already spends twice as much of our national GDP as any other industrialized country, and we’ve got large numbers of Baby Boomers about to retire over the next decade. That’s a hugely expensive combination.
The House GOP approach to Medicare is essentially to abandon it, converting the program to vouchers that senior citizens can use to buy health insurance on their own. However, those vouchers would be scheduled to diminish in value over time, leaving seniors to somehow pay their own medical bills. The numbers just don’t work, and the impact of that approach on seniors’ access to health care would be far more devastating than the imaginary death panels could ever have been.
Somehow, you’ve got to lower health-care delivery costs not just in Medicare but throughout the health-care system. (Doing it in Medicare alone is impossible.) You’ve also got to means-test benefits to a degree and raise taxes if necessary to cover what’s left. You can’t “solve” Medicare, but you can certainly contain it.
3.) Defense spending also has to be cut. Everyone knows it, although some refuse to acknowledge it. You cannot sustain a globally dominant military without a globally dominant economy, and if you try to do so, you weaken your economy still further. Today, we lack the means to permanently finance a military establishment that spends as much money as the rest of the world combined on defense. Those days are over.
4.) Taxes have to go up. We have to trash the nonsensical idea that tax cuts pay for themselves, because they don’t. Taxes aren’t too high — as a percentage of national GDP, they’re lower now than they’ve been in decades. If we simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as now scheduled in 2012, taxes as a percentage of GDP would still be at or below the historical average since 1970.
Those are the raw ingredients of a deal: Entitlement cuts, spending cuts, defense cuts and tax increases. How much of each will be a matter of negotiation and sometimes bitter political gamesmanship, but without all four components, no deal is possible and we’ll continue right off the cliff.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
489 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
February 16th, 2011
11:39 am
Nice Guy,
You actually tried to volunteer Mick to pay your taxes not the other way around. Write your congressman and insist that the entire debt be equally divided up amongst all tax filers. I’ll pay my share, blowhard, just to shut the yaps of people like you. Will you pay yours.
jm
February 16th, 2011
11:40 am
SoCo 11:34 – tell me what said legislation looks like
“Legislation can limit what and where the money can be used. “
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:40 am
“Delirium would be a copout in your case.”
Right back at ‘cha ToolBox.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:42 am
“I’ll pay my share, blowhard, just to shut the yaps of people like you. Will you pay yours.”
What the EFF are you talking about, ToolBox? I pay my fair share each and every day/year. Why the hell do you question the amount of taxes I pay, ToolBox?
jm
February 16th, 2011
11:42 am
BTW
“Ayn Rand cultists make a movie of ‘Atlas Shrugs’; Hollywood shrugs”
Of course they do. We’re talking about hollywood here, for cryin out loud….
MiltonMan
February 16th, 2011
11:43 am
Typical democrat – raise, raise taxes & cut defense. Of all those programs you mentioned with the exception of defense is not in the constitution.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
11:43 am
“What the EFF are you talking about, ToolBox? I pay my fair share each and every day/year”
We have a huge national debt that we allowed OUR politicians to run up. As long as the debt exists NO ONE is paying their “fair share”
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:43 am
Because, Nice Guy, you haven’t cut a check over and beyond your IRS obligation. Clearly that means, according to the implied logic you have presented before, that you are not paying your fair share.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
11:44 am
“Of all those programs you mentioned with the exception of defense is not in the constitution”
And there’s nothing in the Constitution that says defences gets a limitless paycheck either.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:45 am
MiltonMan: Defense being in the constitution doesn’t mean we should spend like we can’t get drunk enough off of nukes and planes. The first step to fixing the addiction to spending on the military is to admit you have a problem
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:45 am
Doggone: I retract my last post, in favor of yours. It was much more coherent and to the point heh
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:45 am
“As long as the debt exists NO ONE is paying their “fair share””
Now, Doggone, that logic doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Halftrack
February 16th, 2011
11:46 am
We need effective Tax reform. The current tax laws encourage tax cheaters. Simpler tax forms & law would encourage salary reporting by many folks. Unity and cohesion are encouraged when everyone knows the score on taxes. Let’s quit being P.C. and using the vocabulary as it should be, instead of code words of divisiveness and misdirection to make people think that one supports a position, when they definitely do not.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:46 am
Adam – ” Clearly that means, according to the implied logic you have presented before, that you are not paying your fair share.”
(Buzzer sounding). Wrong again.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:46 am
Nice Guy: It makes about as much sense as “Just cut an extra check if you don’t like it NEENER”
TaxPayer
February 16th, 2011
11:46 am
Thanks for the replies to “Nice Guy”, Doggone and Adam. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll get through that skull though.
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
11:47 am
Paul @9:55 am
Real question for you. Does the $1.8T deficit include the TARP expenditures? I would think so. But then where do the TARP repayments show up? Those are current-year revenues, and are being used to shift the Obama deficits downward by the amount of repayments, aren’t they?
In other words, TARP expenditures were largely loans that were counted when they were spent (increasing Bush deficit, albeit in a temporary fashion as they have largely been repaid, except for Fannie, Freddie, and the GM & Chrysler), and then when the repayments are made, Obama’s budget get credit for the “revenue”.
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
11:47 am
And Paul, I ask in seriousness because I am not sure how it is being counted.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
11:48 am
“Now, Doggone, that logic doesn’t make a lick of sense”
It only doesn’t make sense to those committed to illogicality
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:49 am
MPercy: Where is the 1.8T figure coming from. I thought it was 1.4T. Also, I’m pretty sure most of the TARP loans have already been repaid.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
11:49 am
guy
You fools that say, “well why don’t you send in more money”, are just plain silly. Does it not make any sense to you that in order to pay down the debt or pay for services that people want, then everybody has to pay their fair share? Taxes are at an all time low, if every one paid just a bit more commensurate with their earnings, it would be a start. Sorry, but that is an adult solution, I can’t help your childish ways…
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:49 am
Adam/ToolBox – you libs just keep complaining. You guys have your boxers all bunched up because I simply provided a link to Mick showing him where he can help chip away at the debt….since he said we was willing to pitch in.
You guys are pathetic.
getalife
February 16th, 2011
11:49 am
Looks like the President has them trapped on entitlements.
“setting of a political trap for a Republican Party divided between conservatives pushing for major changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and a GOP leadership wary of the political peril of tinkering with Americans’ retirement security.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49613.html#ixzz1E8pOGZhT
gop civil war.
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
February 16th, 2011
11:50 am
jm
I’m not familiar with writing legislation. However, it seems as if GA can write special legislation for SPLOST funds to do specific things with taxes collected, it shouldn’t be too friggin hard for the feds to do likewise. Also, if a private corporation or enterprise, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, can keep foreign funds separate from domestic funds, can’t someone from that group show legislators how to do likewise?
Trust me, if I knew how to write such legislation, I would have already submitted to the house of jackasses already.
Adam
February 16th, 2011
11:50 am
Nice Guy, regarding your ridiculous “cut the extra check logic,” I defer to Mick’s last.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:51 am
“It only doesn’t make sense to those committed to illogicality”
Riiight. Let the drunks/addicts in D.C continue to spend our future away, ever increasing the debt. And you’ll keep saying, ‘Gee, we still have debt so I must not be paying my fair share.’
I expect better from you, Doggone.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:52 am
“Does it not make any sense to you that in order to pay down the debt or pay for services that people want, then everybody has to pay their fair share?”
Makes perfect sense to me, Mick.
“Taxes are at an all time low, if every one paid just a bit more commensurate with their earnings, it would be a start”
A start? Meh. Perhaps. Spending has to reeled in for those taxes to make a dent.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
11:53 am
“Let the drunks/addicts in D.C continue to spend our future away, ever increasing the debt”
Nope, I never addressed that. I was speaking solely of the EXISTING DEBT. We owe it, and the only way to reduce or eliminate it is to PAY IT DOWN. We can’t do that with spending cuts, it IS going to take tax increases. We ALL know it, but some people want to pretend there’s another way…any other way, some other way…oh please, oh please, there MUST BE another way.
There isn’t.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:54 am
Just as all the whiners really start to cry….wouldn’t you know it, duty calls. See you cry babies in about an hour…I’ll have some warm milk when I return.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
11:55 am
“I was speaking solely of the EXISTING DEBT.”
Maybe, but you didn’t say that.
~~~~~~~~~~~
See ‘ya real soon!
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
11:56 am
“Maybe, but you didn’t say that.”
Actually, I did. I referenced the debt we HAVE. I said nothing about any future debt we might add to it.
jm
February 16th, 2011
11:58 am
SoCo 11:50 – well, HOPE was a new entitlement, not new funding used to displace existing spending.
Truth is, here’s what happens, then I gotta go. Let’s say you just wanted SS to be spent on “infrastructure” to use one example. Well, the the pols go: “well, we don’t have to fund that with general revenue or gas taxes any more”. So they use that money to go spend on other things.
The problem is simple, and I’m not being ideological here. Once it is in their hands, it is a slush fund. They can and should do whatever they deem is the best use of those funds. The only option is a sovereign wealth funds, but those are incredibly messy also. So the only real option is putting some individual control over it, with guardrails there to prevent people from doing something incredibly stupid.
People don’t ask the government to drive their card. And they can manage their investments as well, within some very strict parameters. Cheers, folks, we’re screwed
@@
February 16th, 2011
12:02 pm
Getalife:
That’s what’s so sad about all of this. The country is in dire straits, fiscally speaking, and our politicians waste time setting political traps.
“The White House has decided to play rope-a-dope for a while in hopes that the GOP punches itself, improving Obama’s bargaining position,” said Brookings scholar Bill Galston, a former adviser to Bill Clinton. “The problem is that you have to eventually address this … and in the meantime, you are going to get called out for a default of presidential leadership.”
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:02 pm
“So the only real option is putting some individual control over it, with guardrails there to prevent people from doing something incredibly stupid”
do you ask your insurance company to give you “individual control” over the money you send them?
Midori
February 16th, 2011
12:03 pm
jm — I suppose Obama personally introduced AIDS to the country, and shot BOTH the pope and J.R.?
Dudley (you're just jealous cause the voices ain't talking to you)
February 16th, 2011
12:04 pm
Dire straits. Sultans of swing. Yeah
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:04 pm
“The White House has decided to play rope-a-dope for a while in hopes that the GOP punches itself, improving Obama’s bargaining position,”
Sounds JUST like what you hear when untion/company contract negotiations are about to begin. Both sides present their choices, and each side lambasts the others. Big deal. Doesn’t mean a thing until the actual “contract” is ready to sign. I never pay any attention to those preliminary bargaining points…because that’s all they are.
JKL2
February 16th, 2011
12:05 pm
-Saving Social Security is relatively easy. You don’t have to privatize it
Instead of lowering payments, why not let people invest 4% and get twice as much money on the back end? Sounds like a reasonable investment unless your a Democrat.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:06 pm
“Instead of lowering payments, why not let people invest 4% and get twice as much money on the back end?”
Sound like a plan! Wonder if my car insurance company would go for that?
getalife
February 16th, 2011
12:07 pm
@@,
We are back to business as usual and do not need to kick the seniors to the curb.
Sorry, perhaps after the next collapse you can steal their safety net.
RW-(the original)
February 16th, 2011
12:09 pm
and shot BOTH the pope and J.R.
Now, now, Midori, It was Justice Alito that shot the Pope
/drive by
Midori
February 16th, 2011
12:13 pm
woof, woof, RW
Dudley (you're just jealous cause the voices ain't talking to you)
February 16th, 2011
12:14 pm
Rw
That was freaking hilarious
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:16 pm
Headline: “Possible Mexican Military Incursion On U.S. Soil”
Hummmmm ……………….. Poncho Villa ?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:18 pm
Headline: “BROS CLERIC: ‘UNITED MUSLIM NATIONS’ ”
Oh, this is just wonderful news.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:20 pm
“Possible Mexican Military Incursion On U.S. Soil”
It’s a MIRACLE! We were invaded and it only took 10 minutes…and no one knew anything about it, but we’re ALL in danger. Danger Danger
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:30 pm
Doggone/GA:
Tell that to the families of the two ICE Agents on the border that were just shot …….. one killed.
You’re a piece of work.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:31 pm
“Tell that to the families of the two ICE Agents on the border that were just shot …….. one killed.”
They weren’t shot by the Mexican Military, or by the guys in that truck…so the two indicidents are totally unrelated
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:32 pm
Does anyone know why Sports Illustrated is reporting on the Westminister Dog Show with photos, etc. ?
Are those chubby trainers who run with the dogs supposed to be athletes ?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:33 pm
Sorry, there have been cases where the Mexican military is suspected of having been directly involved or protected the assailants.
You’re a piece of work.
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:36 pm
One of the definitions of “sport” is:
“diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport
John Birch
February 16th, 2011
12:37 pm
Wow, I agree with three out of four points today! Medicare simply is not viable in the long term. 130 million (non farm employment) workers cannot provide state of the art health care for 300 million people. Not if they also want food and shelter, the numbers just don’t work out. The only answer long-term is benefit denial. Considering how many people incur more than half of their lifetime medical expenses in the last year of life, that’s the logical place to start. Bring on the death panels, we need death panels! BTW, altough the demographics are different, the same fundamental long-term problems with Medicare will bring down Obamacare1
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:39 pm
Doggone/GA
February 16th, 2011
12:36 pm
“One of the definitions of “sport” is:
“diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport”
Ah, so that’s why Kammy calls everyone “sport” !
buck@gon
February 16th, 2011
12:40 pm
“You cannot sustain a globally dominant military without a globally dominant economy, and if you try to do so, you weaken your economy still further.”
In WMJ logic then, spending on magical entitlements doesn’t weaken the economy. Somehow military spending has this effect exclusively.
Kamchak
February 16th, 2011
12:41 pm
Ah, so that’s why Kammy calls everyone “sport” !
No.
Another episode of one word answers to simple(ton’s) speculation.
Paul
February 16th, 2011
12:42 pm
MPercey
Real question for you. Does the $1.8T deficit include the TARP expenditures? I would think so. But then where do the TARP repayments show up? Those are current-year revenues, and are being used to shift the Obama deficits downward by the amount of repayments, aren’t they?
In other words, TARP expenditures were largely loans that were counted when they were spent (increasing Bush deficit, albeit in a temporary fashion as they have largely been repaid, except for Fannie, Freddie, and the GM & Chrysler), and then when the repayments are made, Obama’s budget get credit for the “revenue”.
Darn fun question.
Excuse the lack of cites, but what I read is that at the outset, Treasure and CBO had different ideas how to account for it. Got to the heart of your question. But, although the Administration had authority to use about $700 billion, they used less than $500 billion. Then the repayments started and the cost, near as I can tell now, is about $50 billion (what’s not repaid). So, without using this as an excuse not to do my taxes and taking any more time, it appears the way it’s been handled is, there was the initial estimate, what the gov’t could be on the hook for, then as they actually used the money it was a revised amount (why it takes a lonnnng time to get actual budget numbers for a prior fiscal year) and then it was paid back and it’s revised again.
So although this affecta the totals for 08 and 09 and 10, and give more or less ammo to the ‘who’s at fault for how much’ arguments, it does even out in the cumulative debt.
Remembering that TARP was Pres Bush’s plan that was embraced by Pres Obama, I kinda look at any bottom-line costs as charged to Bush. It’s like ‘you broke it, you fix it.’ Obama has much more political exposure on the cost of the stimulus – but the difficulty there is, it’s nearly impossible to quantify ‘was it worth it?’ With TARP at least we can say ‘system stabilized and here’s what hadn’t been repaid.” With the stim it’s “we spent this much and….. here’s where we are….. and….. it would’ve been this much worse……” It’s a pick your side and make your argument scenario.
Break’s over. Back to taxes.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:43 pm
Healine: “The Obama administration will cancel shortwave radio broadcasts by Voice of America into China this year, as Beijing is expanding its propaganda operations in the United States and around the world.”
It figures.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 16th, 2011
12:43 pm
Kammy:
Hey ! I woke you up !
Kamchak
February 16th, 2011
12:48 pm
Kammy:
Hey ! I woke you up !
No.
Good to see that you’re still consistently wrong.
Left wing management
February 16th, 2011
12:48 pm
Tea Party fun and games hits brick wall with public protests in Wisconsin as thousands turn out to protect attack on public sector unions.
According to police estimates, some 13,000 demonstrators appeared outside the state capitol in Madison on Tuesday, a number that far exceeded expectations. They were joined by hundreds of local high school students who walked out of class to join to protesters.
Any interest in a post on this topic, Jay?
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
12:53 pm
“Good to see that you’re still consistently wrong.”
Funny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dare I chime in…..
Kam is always awake, or so it seems, he’s just not always visible.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
12:54 pm
“They were joined by hundreds of local high school students who walked out of class to join to protesters.”
There’s your sign of a truly miserable and irelevant protest.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
12:56 pm
Here’s an interesting proposal-
http://www.salon.com/news/taxes/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/16/recih_andrew_leonard
Left wing management
February 16th, 2011
12:59 pm
Nice Guy: “There’s your sign of a truly miserable and irelevant protest.”
Exactly what was said of the Egyptian one in the early going.
Which makes me hope they keep it up – and step it up.
Maybe we can throw a wrench in the wrench in the Tea Party wheel which will cause the belt to fly off and the engine to grind to a halt. That would be truly sublime.
Paulo977
February 16th, 2011
1:00 pm
USinUK @10:17am “don’t anyone tell Vinny that he US has had positive GDP growth for the last year ” Aw don’t be cruel … too much for him to figure out!!!
jconservative
February 16th, 2011
1:00 pm
Nice column Jay and every point you made was right on target.
But I disagree on Medicare being such a problem to solve. Tie the eligibility age for Medicare to the eligibility age for full Social Security. That solves the problem as dozens of studies show.
The real demon in health care is Medicaid. Medicaid is tied to health and income, and administred by 50 states as they choose within federal guidelines. So if you are unhealty, can’t work, 50 years old, you will soon qualify for Medicaid. This is the real test of our ability to rein in spending over the next 30 to 50 years.
And Pentagon spending is a demon. A large percentage of the population have been “conditioned” to believe that the USA should police the world.
That must change before any meaningful controls can be put on Pentagon spending.
Notice my use of Pentagon spending. A two focus groups were fed the same data on Pentagon spending. One group got the data as cuts in “defense spending”. The other group received the data as cuts in “Pentagon spending”. A large majority said NO to defense cuts. A large majority said OK to Pentagon cuts. Go figure!
Mick
February 16th, 2011
1:02 pm
left wing
Let’s see how much media coverage this gets. Ever notice that if you can get five or more tea partiers together, all the networks dive in?
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:06 pm
“Exactly what was said of the Egyptian one in the early going. ”
Um, Leftwing, the average age of the protesters in Egypt was mid 20’s. Not 16. And they were protesting, among other things, the 30% unemployement.
Mighty large difference, bubba. But, you keep hoping for that wrench.
Jefferson
February 16th, 2011
1:06 pm
I guess you folks see now those elections in November didn’t really change nothing.
Normal
February 16th, 2011
1:07 pm
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/3-billion-battle-over-839971.html
I guess y’all have seen this. To me this is symbolic of how I will view the GOPs stance on budget reform. The only people, person really, who wants to keep this in the budget is Boehner. Why? Because it’s being built in his state. If the GOP can kick this one off the budget, then I’ll be willing to listen to making other comprimises, even social ones. But you know what? I don’t think they will get rid of this engine and then, ladies and gentlemen, we will know exactly where the GOP stand on budget. “Make other people pay, but leave mine alone.”
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:08 pm
“I guess you folks see now those elections in November didn’t really change nothing.”
Think what you will. But, if nothing else, thus far, those elections have helped BHO understand that his drunken sailor spending habits (i.e. election victory lap) was unsustainable and dangerous.
Left wing management
February 16th, 2011
1:09 pm
Mick 1:02 : Let’s see how much media coverage this gets. Ever notice that if you can get five or more tea partiers together, all the networks dive in?
That’s for sure. Well I hear that FOX News now has crews set up at the protest site, doubtless so they can start spinning their demagogic hay about socialist agitation. So guess that means CNN will be dragged along grudgingly.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:10 pm
“Make other people pay,”
You’re right! That is a frequent mantra on here. Soak the rich. Do it now. Do it over and over.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:11 pm
“So guess that means CNN will be dragged along grudgingly.”
Right, Left Wing, because Rachel Maddow never, EVER spins any demagogic hay.
Scoff.
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
1:12 pm
“If the Executive and Legislative had done their jobs, Pres Obama would have entered office with a signed budget underway. But the Executive and Legislative didn’t do their jobs.”
Just to clarify, in the case of a budget the Executive can do nothing without the Legislative. The President cannot sign a budget bill if one fails to emerge from Congress. A Congress controlled by the opposing party severely limits the ability of the President to get a budget passed. About the only thing the President could have done would be to have vetoed the Continuing Resolutions. Pres. Bush did submit a budget in early Feb. 2008, and Congress sat on their hands.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
1:12 pm
guy
Why are you a toolbox for the rich? Are the hammer or broken level perhaps?
John Birch
February 16th, 2011
1:13 pm
Gee Normal that’s exactly where the Dems stand. Pork isn’t party specific, see Obama exempting unions from health care reform.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:14 pm
“Why are you a toolbox for the rich?”
What makes you say that?
larry
February 16th, 2011
1:15 pm
eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
HEADLINE: As the Republicans war on the middle class continues, the republicans have opened two new fronts: 1) Stealing Grandmas social security and 2) they have invaded Sesame Street.
BREAKING NEWS FLASH: We have unconfirmed reports that Rep. Bohener has Bert and Ernie hostage.
Please keep it here for further updates.
Left wing management
February 16th, 2011
1:17 pm
Nice Guy: “Um, Leftwing, the average age of the protesters in Egypt was mid 20’s. Not 16. And they were protesting, among other things, the 30% unemployement.”
The high schoolers in Madison are no doubt in the minority here. But get em started early, I say. We’re going to need them in the thousands in the years to come, so all the better.
As for 30% unemployment, give it a few years. The phrase “we’re all Egyptians now” isn’t as big of a cliche as it may sound at first.
Mick
February 16th, 2011
1:18 pm
guy
Forget it, doesn’t really matter in the long run…best of luck in making it to the millionaire/billionaire club..
Southern Comfort
February 16th, 2011
1:18 pm
jm
You mention HOPE, and I mention SPLOST. Any examples of SPLOST funds becoming slush funds? The funds raised under SPLOST have a defined purpose to be used for. It’s nowhere near as hard as you try to make it. It is only hard because our legislators lack the testicular fortitude to do right by the citizens of this country.
Common Sense isn't very Common
February 16th, 2011
1:20 pm
It has always amazed me that Drug Companies have multiple pricing for the same products. If you have private insurance the prices may vary versus, Medicaid or Medicare.
Also the same drugs are shipped to other countries and priced differently.
The USA pays for the majority of R&D for the drug companies with tax breaks and lack of price controls within the US.
Products paid for by the M&M (Medicare and Medicaid) vary drastically. Why doesn’t vendor management exist within these programs?
Waste is the major problem with the M&M. Also there and many people declared disabled who are not. Some of the disabled can work (possibly parttime or temporary jobs) but are disallowed because of the disability rules.
But the bottom line is the waste of limited assets of the Fed. and the unwillingness of the private sector to create jobs or pay training wages until their tax rates hit ZERO.
Left wing management
February 16th, 2011
1:20 pm
Nice Guy: “Right, Left Wing, because Rachel Maddow never, EVER spins any demagogic hay”
No actually she’s pretty fair and balanced.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:21 pm
“Forget it, doesn’t really matter in the long run…best of luck in making it to the millionaire/billionaire club..”
Cheers.
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
1:21 pm
“But get em started early, I say. We’re going to need them in the thousands in the years to come, so all the better.”
Left wing management – Well said.
And many of those High School Juniors and Seniors will be voting in 2012.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:21 pm
“No actually she’s pretty fair and balanced.”
Ooookkk. Right back at ‘cha.
So is Limbaugh.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:24 pm
“And many of those High School Juniors and Seniors will be voting in 2012.”
Too bad they’ll get their news from shows like ET and the Kardashians. Ah, yes, thousands of ill informed voters. Perfect.
Larry
February 16th, 2011
1:24 pm
Agreed – as long as tax hikes go up for everybody and real spending cuts (not cutting this years budget but slashing spending, unadjusted to pre-Bush era levels). It’s time to wean off the welfare mentality and every citizen needs to do thier share. If we hike taxes by 5% for everybody, and reduce spending by 25%, we can get out of this mess.
In regards to the tax hike, as shown in the Bush tax cut, between 2/3 and 3/4 of the cut went to the “non rich”. A 5% hike accross the board would solve the revenue side and would also remind everyone that spending is not free. We have way too many non-essential programs and give aways (read transfers of wealth). Why should the citizens of southern California or Florida contribute to paying someone’s heating bill in Massachusetts? What good has the Dept. of Energy done. It employs 16,000 federal workers and keeps another 100,000 contract workers busy doing what? Their goal was to reduce our need for foriegn oil. Since they have been growing their organization and eating billions every year, our dependance has grown from 305 to 70%. HUD has so much duplication of programs that you can’t find anyone responsible. There is plenty of opportunity for cutting spending but it has to be real cuts, not hollywood accounting.
jm
February 16th, 2011
1:25 pm
what a joke
“If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49603.html#ixzz1E9DTPvPZ
Southern Comfort
February 16th, 2011
1:25 pm
Too bad they’ll get their news from shows like ET and the Kardashians. Ah, yes, thousands of ill informed voters. Perfect.
Just a tad bit presumptious and stereotypical, don’t you think???
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
1:27 pm
Mary Elizabeth 11:04 am Southern Comfort @ 10:06 “Personally, I don’t think health care should be a for-profit area, as I think it’s morally wrong to try to make a profit based on the wellness or sickness of a person.”————————————————————————————–I agree. I believe both health care and education, should be, basically, non-profit.
I agree, and further, since food is critical to life, I think food should be basically non-profit as well. Well have to heat our homes and drive our cars, so those should be non-profit too. And since information is the lifeblood of our economy now, then access to that information should be non-profit too.
“I don’t think health-care should be a for-profit area”. Well, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with it being a for-profit area. Our thoughts/beliefs are directly in opposition. If you believe health-care should be non-profit, then get yourself a bunch of like-minded friends, put up your money and start some non-profit health-care centers. You can compete with the for-profit centers me & my friends put up.
Except that I suspect when you say not-for-profit, you really mean government (taxpayer) funded. Those are two very different things…
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:27 pm
“Just a tad bit presumptious and stereotypical, don’t you think???”
Nah, I see it first hand.
jm
February 16th, 2011
1:27 pm
fine. go have the serious conversation mr. president. i’ll reserve judgment until when you guys are done. In the meantime, I’m shorting treasuries.
“It’s a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49603.html#ixzz1E9DyIoZ9
jm
February 16th, 2011
1:28 pm
larry. uninformed voter.
“If we hike taxes by 5% for everybody, and reduce spending by 25%, we can get out of this mess”
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:28 pm
MPercy @ 1:27
but….but….but….those…people…their health….
Granny Godzilla
February 16th, 2011
1:30 pm
Nice Guy says:
And many of those High School Juniors and Seniors will be voting in 2012.”
Too bad they’ll get their news from shows like ET and the Kardashians. Ah, yes, thousands of ill informed voters. Perfect.”"
To which I suggest that as ET has been on the air since 81 there is a large possibility you got your news from that and maybe Dallas…..
AND
I like young folks….
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:30 pm
“I’m shorting treasuries.”
ticker TBT much?
MPercy
February 16th, 2011
1:31 pm
Oh, and Mary Elizabeth and SoCo, it turns out many health-insurance companies are structured as mutual companies, i.e., profits are returned to policy holders. Many others (like some Blue Cross) are structured as cooperatives, providing similar non-profit status.
Nice Guy
February 16th, 2011
1:31 pm
“To which I suggest that as ET has been on the air since 81 there is a large possibility you got your news from that and maybe Dallas…..”
Only back in my younger days, when I was an ill informed voter.