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

[Busch1724]

I for one and glad a third party (well not really a third party per se, but in theory) is holding this budget hostage just like the Dems and Repubs have been holding the citizens hostage for the last several decades.

I may not agree with everything the Tea Party represents, but at least most of them are following their campaign promises.

[DieselPwr44]

.

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.

This.

Why is this so hard for people here to understand.

Let's cut "X".

Oh hell no! You can't cut that!

Then how about this?

Are you crazy??

It's getting so that EVERYTHING's a sacred cow........

SS,Medicare,defense...and here recently: Cowboy poetry???

Seriously, WTF??

[The 12th Commandment]

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.

I agree with this as long as it is accompanied by the equally commonsensical rise in taxes.

[TheLongshot]

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

In general, yes, tho some larger contractors have other work, like contract proposals. More than likely, tho, if it is a short shutdown, you aren't getting paid for the time you missed.

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

What also needs to be understood too is that cuts in government spending is going to affect real people who are doing a job. That's why I get amused when conservatives talk about "job killing" this and that. Well, cutting spending is also going to kill jobs. Currently, I'm in the middle of that, since I got descoped from my last position because someone decided to save money by cutting a bunch of contractor positions. Course, when they realize that there is no one to do the work they need to get done, that trend will reverse.

I'm not saying it shouldn't and doesn't need to get done, but lets all be realistic that it is going to be painful for a lot of people. Also, most government services are a sacred cow to somebody.

[luckydevil]

Most tea party people won't even support cutting entitlement spending. Medicare and social security are popular programs.

Zoony is right. This is just culture war BS

[ABQCOWBOY]

In general, yes, tho some larger contractors have other work, like contract proposals. More than likely, tho, if it is a short shutdown, you aren't getting paid for the time you missed.

What also needs to be understood too is that cuts in government spending is going to affect real people who are doing a job. That's why I get amused when conservatives talk about "job killing" this and that. Well, cutting spending is also going to kill jobs. Currently, I'm in the middle of that, since I got descoped from my last position because someone decided to save money by cutting a bunch of contractor positions. Course, when they realize that there is no one to do the work they need to get done, that trend will reverse.

I'm not saying it shouldn't and doesn't need to get done, but lets all be realistic that it is going to be painful for a lot of people. Also, most government services are a sacred cow to somebody.

It is going to be painful but lets also be realistic here. The job cuts in the private sector have already started and are continuing. The cuts that have not really happened are in the Govy side of the house. It's entirely up to the Government to cut jobs on the Contracting side as opposed to the Government side of the house. The cuts have to happen. Where Government budget cuts are concerned, it's not a Democratic or Republican thing. It's a decision that each agency makes with respects to how their budget is used.

---------- Post added March-31st-2011 at 03:49 PM ----------

Most tea party people won't even support cutting entitlement spending. Medicare and social security are popular programs.

Zoony is right. This is just culture war BS

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. I think that most of the Tea Party folks have made it clear that they do want to cut spending and that nothing is off the table. Medicare and Social Security is an age related vote IMO. It doesn't matter if your Democrat or Repbulican, if your at a certain age, you probably don't want to see these kinds of cuts happen. I don't think this is something you can say the Tea Party doesn't want. I think that's inaccurate.

[Thiebear]

Why can't they even listen to themselves. I heard their own committee said there were dozens of duplication that could be fixed?

[Larry]

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. I think that most of the Tea Party folks have made it clear that they do want to cut spending and that nothing is off the table. Medicare and Social Security is an age related vote IMO. It doesn't matter if your Democrat or Repbulican, if your at a certain age, you probably don't want to see these kinds of cuts happen. I don't think this is something you can say the Tea Party doesn't want. I think that's inaccurate.

1) The first thing that the Tea-Party-boosted GOP did upon taking over Congress, was to change the House rules, so that repealing Obamacare and tax cuts didn't have to be "paid for".

2) And I think that the Tea Party has made it absolutely, perfectly, clear that at least one thing is off the table: Raising taxes on the top 1%, by 1%.

[Thiebear]

Being a tea party supporter there are some general insults being thrown around.

Step 1:

Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a comprehensive review of all federal programs in an effort to promote greater efficiency in government. This initiative was launched thanks to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who introduced an amendment to last year's debt ceiling increase and statutory PAYGO law that required GAO to report on "programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities...including the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication identifying specific rescissions."

GAO has certainly found some important savings. In its introduction, the report states that:

"Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services."

The report is broken down into two sections. Section I identifies 34 duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented government programs, which span the entire range of government services and even looks at reforming tax expenditures (which CRFB has championed).

However, GAO was not able to give a precise savings estimate for each of the proposed rescissions. This is mainly due to the fact that there is not enough information to determine funding levels for the specific, overlapping programs in question. For some, however, GAO does offer specific figures, such as $460 million annually in savings from restructuring the military health service system, and $5.7 billion in annual savings from ending duplicative programs that support ethanol production. A useful highlights document can be found here.

http://crfb.org/blogs/gao-report-finds-billions-potential-savings

We shouldn't have a problem with this?

[Larry]

Being a tea party supporter there are some general insults being thrown around.

Step 1:

http://crfb.org/blogs/gao-report-finds-billions-potential-savings

We shouldn't have a problem with this?

Admitting that there really isn't much specific, there.

But I think the GAO has some credibility. I certainly think that if they claim to have found some waste, then somebody should look at it. Sounds like a good place to start, at least.

[Thiebear]

Step 2:

Congress takes the NYTimes Budget test and the top 20 entries that are picked to cut are reviewed for a percentage with 4% minimum.

Dems pick the sacred cows of the Repubs

Repubs pick the same for the democrats

probably get a nice 12/8 split and both will be unhappy.

sounds dumb but that widget the NYTimes has is an eye opener.

[Larry]

Step 2:

Congress takes the NYTimes Budget test and the top 20 entries that are picked to cut are reviewed for a percentage with 4% minimum.

Dems pick the sacred cows of the Repubs

Repubs pick the same for the democrats

probably get a nice 12/8 split and both will be unhappy.

sounds dumb but that widget the NYTimes has is an eye opener.

Never happen. Because there's a chance that one of the options that the voters pick would be to repeal some tax cuts. (Maybe more than one, in fact.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

1) The first thing that the Tea-Party-boosted GOP did upon taking over Congress, was to change the House rules, so that repealing Obamacare and tax cuts didn't have to be "paid for".

2) And I think that the Tea Party has made it absolutely, perfectly, clear that at least one thing is off the table: Raising taxes on the top 1%, by 1%.

This is not entirely accurate but let's not get pulled into the weeds on this. Defunding Obamacare is a strategy the GOP is using to combat this Bill. At this point, there are more Democrats who are crossing over so I think you have to say that it's not Tea Party. It's cost.

I think that they believe, and we are seeing this now, that raising cost on business is only serving to provide incentive for these business' to relocate. As example, I think we can look at G.E. and see that this is the model. There is only one country in the World who has a higher corporate tax rate then the U.S. and that's Japan. That strategy has not served them well. I am in favor of everybody paying taxes. The problem is not that we collect to little. The problem is that we spend too much. Until this problem is solved, it doesn't matter how much we raise taxes. We are always going to spend more then we take in because we have no controls in place to prevent this.

[Larry]

As example, I think we can look at G.E. and see that this is the model. There is only one country in the World who has a higher corporate tax rate then the U.S. and that's Japan.

Uh, if you're going to spread the sound bite about how terrible our corporate tax rate is, maybe you shouldn't point at a giant corporation which didn't pay a penny in taxes.

Just saying.

[Fergasun]

If one of the parties was serious about shutting down the government the first thing I think they'll do is pass a defense budget. If you see a defense budget come out of the House or Senate, that's the first step that they are serious about a shut-down showdown. The Tea Party has given the GOP the upper hand in negotiations here; it was the Tea Party faction that drove the initial cuts to the $61B level; in fact the Republicans opened with a $30+B budget initially at some point (I don't know if that was what was on the table during the last Congress). From what I've seen and heard over the past day, I think a deal is in the works and hope it passes Monday or Tuesday. There's been *nothing* leaked today on negotiations. I think that bodes well for a deal. The Tea Party had their outroar, GOP needs to keep them in line.

What's lost in this is that the Democrats are really losing the budget battle. The GOP just introduced a balance budget amendment in the Senate. I don't want the GOP to win because I don't like the way they go after workers rights; but I do agree with their working on getting Federal spending out of control.

[spjunkies]

I just know they better work this **** out. I have bills to pay and not being able to work would have a severe impact on that.

[Predicto]

I'm not sure that it matters that Tea Party people are grouchy about this, because the Tea Party may well be losing its force as a political movement.

For example, the lead story in the Washington Times today was about how the Tea Party was going to "storm" the Capital today with a major rally to warn Congress to stay in line. Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, Steve King, Jim DeMint and Allen West were the featured speakers, all of the major lights of the tea party movement.

Unfortunately, only 200 or so Tea Partiers showed up.

[Fergasun]

Eh, I still write it out like GOP/TEA party. The "Tea Party" was a branding to make everyone forget about Bush. They came out against the TARP at first; but then quickly dropped that (even after FreedomWorks threatened a lawsuit!). Had the Democrats been shrewd and passed only a $700B stimulus, they could've completely owned the GOP/TEA folks; passing a bill that went further than TARP was a tactical mistake.

I think the Democrats might be in trouble over budget/fiscal issues. It'll be interesting to see what the GOP fights for in FY2012. The base is itching for an entitlement fight (or so it seems). There's some stuff that Social Security is not going to be on the table for Ryan? The easiest and best course for the GOP is to simply adopt the fiscal commission recommendations and box Obama in that way. They are a bunch of idiots for not doing so, because they want to go after Obamacare. When HR 1 was being debated at the very last moment one of the GOP appropriators, LaTourette of Ohio introduced a bill with more cuts; only his was across the board. I support that, a non-partisan budget cut over the partisan GOP cuts. He was basically saying "if this is about cutting spending, than do so in a non-partisan way". And the House didn't want it because they got mad... of course they got mad because "Democrats made partisan cuts too; so why shouldn't we." Gee, its because maybe people don't like partisan hacks!

[alexey]

Hopefully the compromise will focus on fiscal issues and not Planned Parenthood.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Uh, if you're going to spread the sound bite about how terrible our corporate tax rate is, maybe you shouldn't point at a giant corporation which didn't pay a penny in taxes.

Just saying.

I think your confused. I am not spreading any sound bite that I am aware of but since you bring up the subject, I have already said that I am for a Flat Tax that cuts out all loopholes and taxes everybody equally.

As far as referencing a giant corporation, well, that's the point right? You may believe that I will absolutely reference G.E. Why wouldn't I? They are a perfect example of why the current tax plan won't work. Charge big companies more? OK but if they aren't paying to begin with, what good does it do? They will simply be avoiding more of the Taxes we all pay in a bigger and more profitable way. That is not the answer.

[Larry]

The GOP just introduced a balance budget amendment in the Senate.

Which was introduced solely for theatrical purposes, and which they, themselves, wouldn't vote for.

OTOH, last year, the Democrats actually passed, in the House, legislation which would create a bipartisan but independent commission, tasked with, every year, producing a list of legislation to reduce the deficit. Had this law passed, this commission's recommendations would have been guaranteed a roll call, up or down, vote, within some time period (30 days?), with no amendments allowed, as a single package.

The proposal was unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party, and by 3 Democrats.

The House also passed a similar bill, which would have proposed ways to slow the growth of Medicare.

The proposal was unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party, and by 4 Democrats.

But you're right. When it comes to loudly making grand gestures about the deficit, the GOP is ahead by a good stretch.

----------

I do think that the Dems are losing the war for the public's attention. I think what they ought to be doing, is to re-introduce the same deficit reduction commission law that they tried to pass last year. And this time, make the R's actually stand on the floor and filibuster the proposal on TV.

----------

I admit that I'm certainly not certain that the D's really would have passed that proposal, if it had come to a vote. At least in the Senate, all the D's have done is to say that they want to vote on it. To me, that makes them better than the folks who actively blocked the vote. Just because Senator Lardbutt didn't filibuster the proposal, doesn't mean he would have voted in favor of it.

OTOH, if the R's actually thought that the D's were bluffing about reducing the deficit, then the way to have called their bluff would have been to drop the filibuster, and call for a vote.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Which was introduced solely for theatrical purposes, and which they, themselves, wouldn't vote for.

OTOH, last year, the Democrats actually passed, in the House, legislation which would create a bipartisan but independent commission, tasked with, every year, producing a list of legislation to reduce the deficit. Had this law passed, this commission's recommendations would have been guaranteed a roll call, up or down, vote, within some time period (30 days?), with no amendments allowed, as a single package.

The proposal was unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party, and by 3 Democrats.

The House also passed a similar bill, which would have proposed ways to slow the growth of Medicare.

The proposal was unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party, and by 4 Democrats.

But you're right. When it comes to loudly making grand gestures about the deficit, the GOP is ahead by a good stretch.

----------

I do think that the Dems are losing the war for the public's attention. I think what they ought to be doing, is to re-introduce the same deficit reduction commission law that they tried to pass last year. And this time, make the R's actually stand on the floor and filibuster the proposal on TV.

----------

I admit that I'm certainly not certain that the D's really would have passed that proposal, if it had come to a vote. At least in the Senate, all the D's have done is to say that they want to vote on it. To me, that makes them better than the folks who actively blocked the vote. Just because Senator Lardbutt didn't filibuster the proposal, doesn't mean he would have voted in favor of it.

OTOH, if the R's actually thought that the D's were bluffing about reducing the deficit, then the way to have called their bluff would have been to drop the filibuster, and call for a vote.

What Bill are you referring to Larry, if you have the info? I would be interested in reading up on that.

[Larry]

What Bill are you referring to Larry, if you have the info? I would be interested in reading up on that.

I'm trying to find references to it, but all I'm seeing, now, are discussions of the deficit reduction commission that Obama formed, when Congress' attemptd to form one failed. But I'll keep looking.

Edit: Decided to confine my search to Extremeskins, to see if that would cut down on the hits.

Found this post, which certainly seems to differ from the results I remember. (And, unfortunately, twa's link doesn't seem to be valid any more.)

----------

I'm also finding some really surprising "hits": Like supposedly, last year, the federal deficit fell by the biggest amount ever.

Just found the statement on ES that "Bush did a great job reducing the deficit until Obama took over".

Edit2: Been through 10 pages of Google ES hits. (Gee, we have a lot of threads that have the words "deficit reduce bipartisan" in them). Not finding the one I'm thinking of. I'll try to come back to it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, here is what I would say about debt reduction. I do not view this as a party issue. I don't care who comes up with an effective means from which to work, the issue is much too important to allow politics to get in the way. I am in favor of passing a budget that is serious about reducing our deficit.