Fergasun Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Last night the House passed and completed work on the FY2011 budget. According to a press release by Boehner, they were able to hit the $100B in cuts promised. I haven't been able to confirm this in the Congressional Record, nor have I seen reports of it. The House was in session until 4:30 AM last night. Media reports yesterday were that the House GOP was able to cut $61B (have to see where Boehner is getting the extra ~ $39B from). *I've seen it confirmed that the House cut $61B* *Why is Boehner touting $100B in cuts?* So, this thread is for a discussion on the level of cuts we are going to get with the budget. Are you happy with less than $100B in cuts (this is mainly for the GOP/TEA supporters). Does this make you less likely to support GOP members in 2012 for more hard-core TEA folks? What do you think the appropriate level of cuts in the Senate should be? Quite honestly I don't think $61B is too big of a number, and I'd support the Senate passing those budget cuts. I have no idea how much of that number is the "political" things. The House passed a number of "political" items such as defunding health care and planned parenthood; the Senate is certain to strip those out. In my mind here are the scenarios and blame that I think would lead to a government shutdown: 1) Senate makes "paltry cuts" or fails to pass a budget (like I said, "paltry" would be only cutting <= $45B). My blame would go to Senate Democrats/Obama for failing to recognize political support for some cuts. 2) House GOP/TEA doesn't agree to any reduction in their cut level. That would be something like them getting mad that the Senate got rid of some of their cuts, but there are still a more than "paltry" amount of cuts. So if the Senate got rid of some things but were still looking at > $45B in cuts. I'd blame the House GOP/TEA for failing to realize that they don't have political control in the Senate. 3) House GOP/TEA upset because health care is funded. I would blame the GOP/TEA again, because they don't have political control in the Senate. This is a very sticky situation for McConnell and Reid, as well as Obama. I was one of the people who thought Obama's budget was insanity; this put Reid in a poor situation. McConnell and the Senate GOP run the risk of angering the TEA party faction (however the TEA party failed to flex much muscle in the Senate races). Reid and Obama run the risk of angering independents who support cutting the deficit and don't buy the "spending is investments" argument. If the Senate is able to negotiate and get cuts to something like $50B... I think that would be reasonable. All of this fighting will not only take place on the Senate floor, in two weeks but will spill-over into the conference committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The extra 39B appears to be in the amendments. Won't pass for obvious reasons. It would be nice if the Senate countered with defense cuts and it passed with some semblance of bi-partisanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 61 billion and very little from defense. Pathetic on the part of the House Republicans and the Tea Party freshmen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Good Faith too hard for some of these people? They couldnt get rid of 1/2 the troops in Korea.. At least the new recruits as the jail there is 70% new recruits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 The $39B was in amendments that didn't pass. There was one that would've cut DHS/DoD by 3.5% across the board... it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It would be nice if the Senate countered with defense cuts and it passed with some semblance of bi-partisanship. Actually, what I'd like would be for the Senate to respond by adding in the Deficit Commission as it was originally proposed. (In the original proposal, the commission would provide a list of recommendations for deficit reduction, every year, and Congress was compelled to have a straight, up-or-down, roll call vote on whether to pass or reject the recommendations, as a single package, no amendments.) Unlikely to happen. (IIR, when the Senate tried to do it last year, the GOP unanimously filibustered it, and several Democrats joined them. I don't see anything to make me think things have changed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 id be okay to use the commission results we paid for as it seems to fall within the boundaries of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The Dems will have to show cuts that at least match the Republican proposal or they will get hammered. They can take the whole amount of Defense if they want to, but they have to show a willingness to cut somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The Dems will have to show cuts that at least match the Republican proposal or they will get hammered. They can take the whole amount of Defense if they want to, but they have to show a willingness to cut somewhere. My gut feeling says that there is nothing the Democrats can cut and not get hammered. Case in point: A year ago, the Democrats proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare. The Republicans yelled "death panels" and unanimously filibustered it. You thought the last election was ugly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 My gut feeling says that there is nothing the Democrats can cut and not get hammered. Case in point: A year ago, the Democrats proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare. The Republicans yelled "death panels" and unanimously filibustered it. You thought the last election was ugly? A year ago we had a one party government. Things are different now. Both sides are going to get hammered for the cuts they propose (the Republicans are already hearing it over their proposal) but this time both parties have to propose SOMETHING. If the Dems fail to show up at the cost cutting party, they're in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 The GOP head of the House said "we're broke". Yeah, nice talking point, are you taking credit for that as well? How the heck can you give a nice tax-break 3 months ago, and then say "we're broke". You are broke because you smoked a hole in the budget with tax cuts you didn't pay for, and didn't pay for wars we wanted to fight, didn't pay for senior citizen health benefits, didn't pay for a financial bailout, and didn't pay for a stimulus package. I hope everyone takes notice. When we wanted to go to war in 2001 and 2003, no one said "we're broke". When we wanted to give a nice fat medical benefit to senior citizens, we didn't say "we're broke". When we wanted to bail out the financial industry, we didn't say "we're broke". When we wanted a stimulus package, we didn't say "we're broke". Nice. I agree, "we're broke"; but to ask the same fools that put us in this broke situation to manage our finances out of it is just insanity. Maybe people might start asking, our government is broke but big corporations seem to be doing okay; can't they pay more... maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 The GOP head of the House said "we're broke". Yeah, nice talking point, are you taking credit for that as well? How the heck can you give a nice tax-break 3 months ago, and then say "we're broke". You are broke because you smoked a hole in the budget with tax cuts you didn't pay for, and didn't pay for wars we wanted to fight, didn't pay for senior citizen health benefits, didn't pay for a financial bailout, and didn't pay for a stimulus package. I hope everyone takes notice. When we wanted to go to war in 2001 and 2003, no one said "we're broke". When we wanted to give a nice fat medical benefit to senior citizens, we didn't say "we're broke". When we wanted to bail out the financial industry, we didn't say "we're broke". When we wanted a stimulus package, we didn't say "we're broke". Nice. I agree, "we're broke"; but to ask the same fools that put us in this broke situation to manage our finances out of it is just insanity. Maybe people might start asking, our government is broke but big corporations seem to be doing okay; can't they pay more... maybe? And that question doesn't apply... when, exactly? I'm not trying to say that it doesn't. In fact, I won't. We're broke, and we should acknowledge that fact. But when exactly does pushing forward our social contract even more to expand services fail to pay off? When does it bridge the gap from well-intentioned ideas to a set of bad ones? When does the Department of Awesomeness become the Department of I Wish This Actually Worked? I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again. Find me the program that's supposed to fail. Find me the Department of Screwing Up. When you do, I'll tell you that sometimes the DHS doesn't need to be cut because, quite frankly, the DHS should be cut, and we shouldn't be paying quite as much as we do for that given department anymore. Everyone thinks they deserve their budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 I wasn't going down that path. How can you credibly have a social agenda which you aren't willing to fund? Isn't that near criminal? I was more going along the path of, what happened to government in the past 20-30 years? "Broke" How about private corporations... not broke. There's some disconnection in me to look at private companies, not broke; government broke. Our private corporations aren't just as broke as the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Maybe people might start asking, our government is broke but big corporations seem to be doing okay; can't they pay more... maybe? What percentage of the GDP do you believe the government should spend? If we don't settle on an appropriate percentage there will never be enough tax to pay for the goodies politicians promise their constituents. Combined, state and federal taxes are already 40% of GDP. I would like to see that number decrease by 5 to 10 percent (back to 2000 levels) and then raise whatever taxes we need to balance the budget. Total: Federal: State: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Combined, state and federal taxes are already 40% of GDP. I would like to see that number decrease by 5 to 10 percent (back to 2000 levels) and then raise whatever taxes we need to balance the budget. That pretty much echoes my sentiments (though I'd be even happier to see it drop even a bit further, to say, 1960s levels). Take everything back to pre-W./Hastert levels. For all the hatred Gingrich gets, and as much of a sleazebag he may be personally, he may have been the most effective post-war legislative leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 I think I've heard it put at something like spending should be 20-25% GDP. Spending doubled during the great depression... (never got brought down inline). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That pretty much echoes my sentiments (though I'd be even happier to see it drop even a bit further, to say, 1960s levels). Take everything back to pre-W./Hastert levels. For all the hatred Gingrich gets, and as much of a sleazebag he may be personally, he may have been the most effective post-war legislative leader. Agreed. Apparently, he's an absolute turd of a person, but frankly (God I wish someone would take that word out of Newt's head) I'd be more confident in our fiscal strategy with Newt back in charge. I think I've heard it put at something like spending should be 20-25% GDP. Spending doubled during the great depression... (never got brought down inline). Federal spending was at about 10% of GDP during the great depression but is up to about 25% now. According to the chart above, it looks fed spending really blew up after WWII. So you'd expect defense to be a major reason for our current deficit if spending grew during a war and never dropped again. But while defense spending did spike to about 40% during WWII it eventually dropped back down to the 5% to 7% of GDP its at now. Total federal spending is steadily climbing as a percentage of GDP while defense spending is steadily falling. There may be cuts to be made in defense spending but it obviously isn't the cause of our spending increases and cuts in defense can't be the long term strategy for breaking the curve. Edit: In addition to the increases in federal spending over the last 60 years or so, the federal government has passed a huge chunk of spending over to the states. If the Federal government still funded those activities, they'd be over 30% of the GDP. Just looking at federal spending masks a chunk of extra spending. Only the total of federal, state, and local expenses can give an accurate feel for the sharp rise in government spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 any new news on the fy11 budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 It's in the hands of the Senate (and Obama). Everything from Senators indicates to me they are all playing poker. The GOP Senators were begging their House counterparts to get to the $100B cut-level so they can have a strong negotiating hand. The House was only able to pass $61B in cuts. I've only seen statements from GOP Senators saying "we can't accept a budget without cuts" and Democrats saying "these cuts are unacceptable". The Democratic Senate staff is pouring through the cuts trying to see where they are going to draw the lines on (White House is also involved). They are all trying to strategize and figure out where the other guy will blink. The Senate GOP is also probably drawing a line on the bottom-line cuts... I postulated it would be $45B. Because of the rules of the Senate, each party can essentially block the amendments of the other side. I don't see how a budget doesn't get done without some type of bargain in the Senate and then another grand bargain to bring the House-Senate-White House all together (I suppose one could lump the White House as part of the Senate). No matter what it's going to piss off the tea party and most likely piss-off the left side of the Democrats; which is typically how things should work with the political system we've set up. I want to laugh at all the tea party folk who voted with the GOP and are now going to be angry and claim betrayal over not getting the $100B cuts promised in the GOP "pledge to America". The tea party folk need to realize the need to get about 8 more Rand Paul types in the Senate and something like 30 more hard-core tea party folks in the House. BTW this will mean running primaries against GOP politicians ala Christine O'Donnell, running against folks like Eric Cantor and maybe even Boehner. That would be interested in 2012, but I think the GOP is going to blow it with their own over-arching agenda. Unfortunately the Democrats aren't much different, the moderate business friendly Dem's essentially bolster the status quo, but you can't blame Democrats for pivoting some of their party in that direction. It clearly helps them get some corporate backing. I'm at the point where I think America is suffering from chronic near-sighted-ness regarding government spending for 30 years. Sure people felt richer when they had more money and less taxes; but the country and governments as a hole are now getting imploded and blown up due to the budget holes. It's all because no one wants to fund their pet policy; even if it might be a good idea. They have been trying to hide it for however long its been happening but now there's so much a smoldering hole in many areas its too hard to ignore. If we wanted to fund Social Security we could've done so without raiding the trust fund. If we wanted to fund Defense we could've funded defense at an appropriate level. But we didn't. The country has chosen government handouts, wars, and pointless tax breaks but didn't fund the programs fully (yes, I know theres disagreement over whether a "tax cut" should be offset with spending adjustments). And its the same jokers who got us in this mess that we'll trust to get us out of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 tea-o-con failures abound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Ferg, that's all well and good, but none of this is happening in a vacuum. If democrats propose $40 billion in spending increases and the republicans propose $60 billion in cuts, you can bet I'll take the party who proposes the cuts. If the democrats don't show up to the budget cutting party, the republicans win by default. And it seems your narrative is losing out to this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022003749.html The $1.2 trillion bill, which includes historic cuts totaling more than $61 billion, passed the House on Saturday and now careens toward an uncertain future in the Senate. On Sunday, the Democrats who control the Senate denounced the plan as draconian and warned of a possible government shutdown if a compromise is not reached with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) before existing government funding expires March 4.In making deep cuts to programs historically supported by their party, House Republicans sought to establish credibility on the one issue they think matters most: cutting the size of government. But they also left themselves open to criticism from their constituents, especially the independent voters who propelled them into the majority last fall, who may be alarmed by the breadth and impact of the cuts. The democrats are going nuts already because the republicans are trying to cut too much. If anything, the republicans are going to hurt themselves by being too aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I've been saying is that the Democrats will propose cuts, but not to the scale of the GOP/TEA (I thought I made that clear). Were I a Vegas odds maker I'd put the odds at right about $45 Billion in cuts. I don't think they'd be tone deaf enough to propose spending increases. I'm confident that McConnell and Reid (by extension Obama, perhaps?) will be able to come together with something that will pass the Senate. I'm not as confident that the House GOP/TEA will accept a reduction in cuts, nor they will accept de-fudning health care. Would the TEA party members throw a fit? What if the TEA party members *and* the far left members of the House both opposed a final bill and it didn't pass? I don't think the GOP/TEA budget is unreasonable, except for the Obamacare cuts and some of the other social BS they put out (planned parenthood cuts, I'm not a supporter but I don't believe for a minute these cuts will make the final bill). The political sales pitch is going to be shaping up for 2012. Elect more GOP/TEA members plus a President and we'll see more cuts with especially big cuts to "liberal programs"; but defense will be protected. Elect more Democrats and Obama and you're government programs will be protected. As I've been advocating for 3 months now, I'll support the first party to take up and fight for the fiscal commission recommendations. Both parties are more interested in protecting their "favored protected classes". I'm more inclined to support middle-class workers over corporations, I don't think that there should be large swaths of folks dependent on government handouts to live. At the same time the GOP action in Wisconsin is something I think goes too far toward destroying the middle-class (I only speak of their efforts attacking collective bargaining, I don't think the other changes are unreasonable, although they should be done when the contract is up). I probably support more protectionist/populist policy... the middle class is getting destroyed in this country; because the policies have been dictated by big business (H1B, insane financial bailouts, corporate entitlements, tax code that favors corporations). If the GOP weren't so clearly in the pockets of big business, they should campaign on raising taxes for the purpose of paying down the debt saying only they can be trusted to take the extra money and not spend it. Instead they propose tax cuts, even though "we're broke". The unfortunate truth is even the fiscal commission recommendations would end up raising our national debt to levels of ~ $20T. I've heard GOP/TEA members attacking this already, as if we're not on this course already. In my mind someone should ask the GOP/TEA why $13T became the "magic number" and why they haven't said "we're broke" for the past two decades. Although credit to them because the Democrats don't believe "we're broke". This is why I support splitting our government as much as possible. Both sides bring half the truth (they also bring more than half lies). So when you do the math we get the truth, but we also get an equal if not greater amount of lies and BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 As I've been advocating for 3 months now, I'll support the first party to take up and fight for the fiscal commission recommendations. Both parties are more interested in protecting their "favored protected classes". Actually, I thought that the Dems had a real opportunity, the last two years, to literally take the "fiscal conservative" title away from the GOP. The tax commission. (The one they originally proposed. The one that actually had power.) Reducing the growth of Medicare. ("Death Panels".) Make the middle class tax cuts permanent. Pass those measures (and especially, pass those measures over a unanimous GOP filibuster), and 20 years from now, if a Republican tries to claim he's a fiscal conservative, he'll get laughed off the stage. But that wold have required some short-term political unpleasantness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Lets clear this up. 1) The budget for this current year that started last Oct was never passed. Instead, the gov has been issuing "Continuing spending resolutions" that keep the budget what it was 2 years ago. 2) The Budget that was on the table had a savings of 40 billion from the previous years. So - Dems have been saying their budget saves 40 billion...which is kinda of a smoke screen cause it was 40 billion for the year from Oct to Oct. Since we are already months into it, it is no longer actually 40 billion...) 3) the Republicans have attached 60 billion in additional cuts for the Budget proposes last year, which already had 40 billion in cuts. SOOO . 60+40=100 billion. now - Lets review - currently we are projected to be 1.6 trillion in debt for JUST this year. If the Republican plan passes, which eliminates 100% funding for some things, we will only be 1.5 trillion in debt for this year - If NONE of their amendments were attached, and the current budget bill passes as is, we would only be 1.56 trillion in debt for this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Lets clear this up.1) The budget for this current year that started last Oct was never passed. Instead, the gov has been issuing "Continuing spending resolutions" that keep the budget what it was 2 years ago. 2) The Budget that was on the table had a savings of 40 billion from the previous years. So - Dems have been saying their budget saves 40 billion...which is kinda of a smoke screen cause it was 40 billion for the year from Oct to Oct. Since we are already months into it, it is no longer actually 40 billion...) 3) the Republicans have attached 60 billion in additional cuts for the Budget proposes last year, which already had 40 billion in cuts. SOOO . 60+40=100 billion. now - Lets review - currently we are projected to be 1.6 trillion in debt for JUST this year. If the Republican plan passes, which eliminates 100% funding for some things, we will only be 1.5 trillion in debt for this year - If NONE of their amendments were attached, and the current budget bill passes as is, we would only be 1.56 trillion in debt for this year. excellent yet disturbing synopsis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.