Budget Deal on the Table, $31-$37B (oh, and the TEA party is mad over this)

[Fergasun]

It sounds like there is a budget deal on the table between the House GOP and the Senate Democrats. The overall number of cuts appear to be something from $30B to $37B from the FY2010 baseline (this would represent a $70B to $77B cut from the President's proposal). Even though I'd bet the parties are negotiating in good faith, there is extreme outrage from the right-side of the blogosphere over this. I'm convinced the right-wing (by that I mean Tea Party) did not learn from the budget shutdown in 1995, has deluded themselves into thinking the whole country is sympathetic to them, and is completely insane in their position. Given the fact that that the maintain control over ONE HOUSE IN THE CONGRESS (not two!) and DON'T CONTROL THE WHITE HOUSE. To ***** and complain about Boehner and Cantor is hilarious to me. They are not "moderates" they are pragmatists; and your message should be, "If you wanted us to cut more than we need more GOP in the Government".

I find the arrogance of GOP supporters to be amusing. Schumer spoke about this a couple of days ago, maybe yesterday and he was spot on. He's actually poking a stick at the tea party folks by complementing Boehner for going to the negotiating table.

I really don't understand the hard-line position either. A deal will need to be made at some point... are you going to shutdown the government for weeks or months?

[Hubbs]

I'm not sure why you think they're insane. Only 1/3 of the Senate and 0/3 of the presidency has faced an election since the Tea Party really became a movement. You want them to go back on their campaign message solely because of the fact that we have different terms for different parts of the federal government?

[Fergasun]

I'm not sure why you think they're insane. Only 1/3 of the Senate and 0/3 of the presidency has faced an election since the Tea Party really became a movement. You want them to go back on their campaign message solely because of the fact that we have different terms for different parts of the federal government?

I'm sympathetic to the Tea Party; but what does the Tea Party want the GOP to do? Shut down the government until the Democrats say "okay, we give in, $61B in cuts!"? Is that realistic? Or, is the realistic thing to say "We have no control over the Senate, so in order to get anything done, we need to compromise." It'll remain to see how the GOP/TEA party does in 2012.

Why should the Senate and President act like the TEA/GOP party has control over Congress and the Presidency? The Senate is still 52-48 Democrat, partially because it moderates movements like the TEA party. Was it a movement against the 2010 health care plan or is it something more? I completely understand the logic in trying to deliver for your base, but the GOP has to call it victory that they were able to parlay their hand into $70B more (compared to Obama) and $30B more (compared to the Democrats) in Federal budget cuts.

Personally, I think its more important to work on the FY12 budget; but you know what I'm predicting? I'm predicting the Democrats will perform an in-kind filibuster of the GOP when they attempt to run through the FY13 budget, and then they can claim "Oh, well this is a budget the GOP couldn't pass... blahblahblahblah". It was obvious months ago they were going to need to compromise, and it was also obvious the GOP wasn't going to be able to deliver the cuts they wanted to. Of course the response of the GOP members and grassroots organizations is to want to vote them out and primary them.

[Hubbs]

Ferg, you keep saying that the Tea Party is insane for not throwing up its hands and giving up, but, erm... so far, without the Senate or White House, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of demanding more. Look at how tremendously difficult it was to pass the health care law when the Dems had 59 in the Senate and control of the House.

[Fergasun]

Here's the deal. HR1 had $61B in cuts. It could not pass the Senate. The Senate had their own bill with only $10B in cuts (Democratic bill). It could not pass the Senate. The only way a bill is getting through the House and Senate is through this type of negotiations. The Tea Party position in negotiations is "don't negotiate". They are having a rally this week to basically say, "don't negotiate". This is going to play into the hands of Democrats completely; because they can paint them as unwilling to do what the parties do... keep government running by compromising on these types of issues.

Incidentally, this is why parties go to the extreme rather than the pragmatic when they do have power (and why I prefer at least some form of shared government).

[sacase]

We need a lot bigger cuts than this.

If we quit the deficit spending and start paying down our debts I will be happy. We need to start cutting things, even if they are good programs.

[endzone_dave]

The Tea Party is going to be responsible for millions of people (feds and contractors) staying home and not working for a while. Thanks, good job. Just what this country needed.

[Homercles82]

The Tea Party is going to be responsible for millions of people (feds and contractors) staying home and not working for a while. Thanks, good job. Just what this country needed.

No, the congressmen and women not being able to work together to get a budget passed are responsible for it. Stop misplacing the blame.

A budget needs to be passed, and if this is the best they can do, then do it.

[Popeman38]

Schumer spoke about this a couple of days ago, maybe yesterday and he was spot on. He's actually poking a stick at the tea party folks by complementing Boehner for going to the negotiating table.

Schumer is on tape handing out talking points to his colleagues, marching orders from the Democratic caucus to label any GOP proposed cuts to the budget as extremist. You really want to hold him up as a bell cow for how to handle the budget issues? What you complain FoxNews does, Chuck Schumer did, on a recorded line with multiple journalists.

[Bliz]

Meanwhile, the House GOP is taking steps to ensure they still get paid if the government shuts down, and the tea party's polling is dropping like a rock.

It didn't take a keen observer to see that the GOP was walking a very fine line with the tea party. Embrace them too much and you look like radicals to key independent voters. Ignore them too much and you risk a third-party candidate siphoning away votes in 2012. I agree with Fergasun completely. They're playing right into the Dems hands, they're just too (politically) unsophisticated to realize it or care.

[Madison Redskin]

We need a lot bigger cuts than this.

If we quit the deficit spending and start paying down our debts I will be happy. We need to start cutting things, even if they are good programs.

And tax hikes.

[Fergasun]

sacase,

Do you realize that even under the fiscal commission our national debt would go up to something ~ $22T until we actually see it stop going up? This is a bigger problem than just one year. My recommendation months ago was for the GOP/TEA to focus on FY12 and for them to adopt the Fiscal Commission recommendations (with the ability to box Obama in for since it was his fiscal recommendations). They don't want that, because it will not allow them to wage the ideological campaign they want to wage.

Its my opinion that if the TEA/GOP party over the budget, they need to do it over the FY12 budget rather than the FY11 budget.

This situation isn't without danger for the Democrats either. Obama looks like a fool for proposing a budget that increased spending by $40B. The Democrats did not want to go beyond $10B in FY2010 cuts. Unfortunately for them, they do not look like the party willing to get the deficit under control. If Obama had proposed the fiscal commission recommendations as his FY2012 baseline, that would be something different.

[zoony]

If you really wanted to piss off the Tea Party, propose $100 billion in defense spending cuts. Every single one of those hypocritical *******s would crap their britches.

It's not about reduced spending for them, it never was.

...

[Bliz]

Fergasun, if they shut down the govt, will you be deemed essential personnel?

My understanding is that, while congressmen are making sure they will still get paid even though they're not working, those essential (middle class) personnel will have to continue going to work, for no paycheck. Maybe to get back-pay after this whole thing is resolved, maybe not.

[Wrong Direction]

I think the OP is confusing three mutually exclusive topics: pragmatism, politics and the art of negotiation.

The Tea Party caucus and the Republican leadership wouldn't be representative if they weren't asking for big cuts. That's the politics part.

Similarly, both Obama/Democrats (with their bare bones offers for cuts) and Republicans (with their $100 billion bill) have issued proposals based on deliberations with their caucus and their constituencies. Both proposals are somewhat separate from what they're actually willing to accept. Think of this like baseball negotiations for arbitration eligible players. Player comes in high, team comes in low, they either meet in the middle or risk totally winning/losing. This is standard in any negotiation.

Finally, it appears as if the Dems and R's have agreed to meet in the middle. This is pragmatic in this environment. The Dems can say they want to cut spending, the R's can still say they want to cut more, but both got it done to 1) avoid the politics of a shut down and 2) forestall this battle until the next budget cycle, later this year.

And that's the bottom line. Both parties have now decided that spending will be a major campaign issue. Paul Ryan's budget is supposed to come out soon, and that budget will supposedly take on entitlements. The Democrats will defend those to the hilt. The Republicans will call them irresponsible. The nation will decide in 2012.

I don't see what the problem is.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We need a lot bigger cuts than this.

If we quit the deficit spending and start paying down our debts I will be happy. We need to start cutting things, even if they are good programs.

End the wars and then tell me when the Right is serious about cutting deficit spending.

[Popeman38]

End the wars and then tell me when the Right is serious about cutting deficit spending.

End the entitlement spending and then tell me the Left is serious about cutting deficit spending.

See sweeping generalizations can be made from both sides. It accomplishes nothing. The right has targeted Defense spending, just not enough. The left has not targeted entitlement spending a penny. Those are the two areas that must be addressed. As does the tax code/rates. Outside of these areas, it is just political dancing.

[Madison Redskin]

End the entitlement spending and then tell me the Left is serious about cutting deficit spending.

See sweeping generalizations can be made from both sides. It accomplishes nothing. The right has targeted Defense spending, just not enough. The left has not targeted entitlement spending a penny. Those are the two areas that must be addressed. As does the tax code/rates. Outside of these areas, it is just political dancing.

I absolutely agree, except I think you meant we need to reduce entitlement spending (not "end" it).

[Teller]

If you really wanted to piss off the Tea Party, propose $100 billion in defense spending cuts. Every single one of those hypocritical *******s would crap their britches.

It's not about reduced spending for them, it never was.

...

Brilliant idea considering we're not involved in three armed conflicts right now.

Errrr....

[Wrong Direction]

End the wars and then tell me when the Right is serious about cutting deficit spending.

Uhhhh, :secret: the commander in chief of our armed forces is a Democrat.

[joe]

Fergasun, if they shut down the govt, will you be deemed essential personnel?

My understanding is that, while congressmen are making sure they will still get paid even though they're not working, those essential (middle class) personnel will have to continue going to work, for no paycheck. Maybe to get back-pay after this whole thing is resolved, maybe not.

I can answer this. If you are essential (I am not) you come to work and eventually get paid when the budget passes. If you are not essential, you don't come to work and perhaps get paid if Congress decides to not punish you because they did not do their own job.

If you are a government contractor, you do not go to work and you do not get paid.

What needs to be understood here is that real people are affected by a government shutdown. Not the real people who will lose services temporarily, but the real people who actually do the work

As to what we should cut. I say we start with farm subsidies, This morning I saw a report that 5 teaparty members receive over 500K in subsidies and over 20 members of congress or their families do so as well. It costs billions to manipulate the agricultural market and it is not something that the government should be, or should ever have been doing.

I don't know who started it, but it needs to end now.

[Bliz]

End the entitlement spending and then tell me the Left is serious about cutting deficit spending.

See sweeping generalizations can be made from both sides. It accomplishes nothing. The right has targeted Defense spending, just not enough. The left has not targeted entitlement spending a penny. Those are the two areas that must be addressed. As does the tax code/rates. Outside of these areas, it is just political dancing.

When did the right recently make a (serious) proposal to cut entitlement spending?

I don't really remember them targeting defense spending either? I could be wrong, but I thought their proposals so far have expressly left defense, social security, medicare and medicaid untouched?

[DieselPwr44]

Boy, sure looks like that whole "change the tone" speech at the Gifford shooting aftermath really took hold.

Neither side has the cojones to seriously cut spending and get the country's finances in order.

We are blued,screwed and tattooed.

[Popeman38]

I absolutely agree, except I think you meant we need to reduce entitlement spending (not "end" it).

You are correct. Reduce entitlement spending, cut defense spending by 30% (dead serious), reduce overall spending by no less than 25%, and raise taxes across the board (marginal raises, from 1% on the lowest end to 5% on the high end; eliminate the 0% pool)

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you really wanted to piss off the Tea Party, propose $100 billion in defense spending cuts. Every single one of those hypocritical *******s would crap their britches.

It's not about reduced spending for them, it never was.

...

Same would happen if you proposed 100 Billion cut in Entitlement Program spending. I believe that the President's Defense Budget was proposed for something like 548 Billion for defense budget this year. The GOP proposed 534 Billion for defense. That was rejected by Gates.

The GOP has actually proposed a 2.5 Trillion dollar reduction over 10 years to Government Spending and not all of it, believe it or not, is cutting benefits.

If we can't find a way to cut 60 Billion out of the budget, you may as well forget about it. We are done.

---------- Post added March-31st-2011 at 11:52 AM ----------

End the wars and then tell me when the Right is serious about cutting deficit spending.

Which War? The one in Iraq that has been dialed back, the one in Afghanistan that has been dialed up or the one in Libya that has just recently been started?