Budget Fight (FY23 and Beyond...)

[China]

Treasury Taps Retirement Funds to Avoid Breaching US Debt Limit

 

The Treasury Department is beginning the use of special measures to avoid a US payments default, after the federal debt limit was reached Thursday.

 

The department is altering investments in two government-run funds for retirees, in a move that will give the Treasury scope to keep making federal payments while it’s unable to boost the overall level of debt.

 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen informed congressional leaders of both parties of the step in a letter on Thursday. She had already notified them of the plan last week, when she flagged that the debt limit would be hit Jan. 19.

 

Yellen reiterated that the period of time that the extraordinary measures will avoid the government running out of cash is “subject to considerable uncertainty,” and urged Congress to act promptly to boost the debt limit. Last week she said the steps wouldn’t likely be exhausted before early June.

 

The specific funds affected by the Treasury’s move are:

 

The Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, or CSRDF, which provides defined benefits to retired and disabled federal employees

 

The Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, or PSRHBF, which provides postal-service retiree health-benefit-premium payments. The fund is also invested in special-issue Treasuries

 

The two funds invest in special-issue Treasury securities that count under the debt limit. After the debt limit is increased, the three will be “made whole,” with participants unaffected.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Larry]

Interesting article.  But I'm not sure it's correct.  

 

(Yahoo) Palm Beach Daily News: You're stressed over the wrong things. Floridians have most to lose in the 'fixing' of Social Security

 

Quote

 

Currently, people can get their Social Security benefits (payments derived from the decades of paycheck deductions) as early as 62 years old and as late as 70. The “full retirement age” is just the point that the monthly payments are paid at 100 percent of the primary insurance amount.

 

So there are really 96 retirement ages in Social Security, one for each month between the ages of 62 to 70. The earlier you take your benefit, the less you get; the more you wait, the higher the monthly payment.

 

. . . 

 

“When someone proposes increasing the retirement age to 68, all they are really proposing is to cut monthly Social Security benefits by around 7 percent at all 96 retirement ages,” Bruenig wrote. “A proposal to raise the retirement age to 70 is just a proposal to cut monthly benefits by around 23 percent at all 96 retirement ages.

 

“None of this is about when you retire. It’s just a straightforward benefit reduction being expressed in an opaque way.”

 

 

I'm not sure that's correct.  I suppose it would depend on the working of the (proposed) law.  Does the proposal to raise the age result in:  

 

1)  There's still 96 retirement windows.  Still age 62-70.  They just pay 23% less.  Or . . . 

 

2)  There's still 96 windows.  And they still pay the same.  All 96 of them are just pushed back 3 years.  

[China]

In debt ceiling fight, Republicans need to brush up on the basics

 

On “Meet the Press” over the weekend, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who’s sometimes described as a relative Republican “moderate,” blamed “both parties” for the fact that the United States has a massive national debt. The South Carolinian added that she believes “now is the best time” to have a “conversation” about balancing the budget — a goal the GOP only tends to prioritize during Democratic presidencies.

 

Soon after, NBC’s Chuck Todd asked the right question: Why use the debt ceiling to pursue these goals when Congress already has a budget process? Mace’s response went on for a while, but this is what stood out for me:

 

Quote

“There is a lot of hysteria around shutting down the government. But, you know, this happened under the previous administration. The government was shut down for 35 days. There was a stalemate. But people still got paid. Accounts still got filled up. And the sky didn’t fall. I would like to see the president — and so far, he has said he’s unwilling to negotiate with Republicans. That is not how to unify our country. We are very divided right now. We have $31 trillion of debt. The responsible thing to do would be to get to the table with Republicans and negotiate a way. How do we prioritize spending? How do we balance the budget? We’re not even asking to do it one year like Bill Clinton did it. Can we do it over ten years, which would be, you know, consensus and be compromised? That’s a reasonable conversation to have.”

 

To be sure, there’s a lot wrong with this answer, starting with the fact that the congresswoman didn’t get around to answering Todd’s question. If Mace and her GOP colleagues want to have a debate over spending and responsible budgeting, that’s a perfectly defensible goal. But Republicans are threatening to harm Americans on purpose unless Democrats meet their demands, and if Mace has a justification for imposing such an extortion crisis on the nation, she failed to share it.

 

But let’s also not brush past the substantive disconnect between the question and the answer: The “Meet the Press” host asked about the debt ceiling, and the Republican answered by arguing that government shutdowns aren’t that important.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fergasun]

The "Senate Freedom Caucus" had a press conference led by Ron Johnson thst himself, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Mike Braun spoke at. Johnson emphasized the size and structural problem of the debt although he conflated spending and debt ceiling bills.  Ted Cruz browbeat the media for repeating Joe Biden talking points.  Rand Paul actually made to most sense and admitted both defense spending and welfare (he used that term) would need to be looked at.  The other folks blamed our debt for inflation and high interest rates and also spoke about "raising revenues via tax cuts that pay for themselves." 

 

The media didn't ask the question I cared most about which is "Why quiet during Trump years"?  and "If spending caps so good, why did you all get rid of them?"  They were trying to pin the GOP on specific cuts... no one was biting. 

 

GOP is angling for a 2011 plan again with the debt ceiling and caps.  

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

GOP is angling for a 2011 plan again with the debt ceiling and caps.  

Problem is, everybody (or at least me) remembers 2011. 
 

Republicans shut down the government. And then ran in front of the nearby cameras to claim that Obama Did It (because he didn't comply with our demands). 
 

The voters didn't buy it, and blamed the Republicans. 
 

When the polling data came in, the Republicans realized they made a mistake, and needed a way out. But weren't willing to be perceived as backing down. 
 

The Dems gave them a way out:  sequestration. Congress votes to restore funding, for a brief time, in exchange for a promise. Congress would create a committee, I think with 12 members. 3 each R reps, D reps, R Sen, and D Sen. The committee had a brief time, (like 6 weeks?) to come up with a proposal to cut the deficit by $X, and both chambers guaranteed a straight up or down vote on the committee's package. 
 

If the deadline happens without the passage of a package, then the deal's poison pill kicks in. Automatic cuts to defense and social spending, mandated for a fixed time (5 years?), designed to be painful to both sides. 
 

The deal passes. Government resumes. R's trumpet their success at forcing the stubborn D's to make concessions. 
 

And the R's intentionally place 6 people on the committee, all of whom have promised in advance that they will not permit the committee to make a proposal. If any proposal gets a single Dem vote, then all 6 R's promise to vote against it. 
 

The committee, as promised, fails to produce a bipartisan proposal. The deadline is reached. The poison pill kicks in. 
 

And the Republicans immediately begin introducing legislation to undo the R half of the poison pill, and pay for it by demanding that the D half of the pill be doubled. Predictably, none of these proposals passes. 
 

And every Republican returns to their districts and runs for reelection, by railing against the way those dastardly Democrats had crippled our military, with that dastardly sequestration that Obama had done to the country. (While claiming that it was the Republicans who were responsible for sequestration's deficit reduction).

 

And enough voters didn't buy it. And the R's lose some power. 

 

----

 

And this time, it looks like at least some of the R's are remembering that the last time they triggered a recession and claimed it was the Dem's fault because they didn't give us our demands, the voters blamed the R's for it. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Larry

[Renegade7]

Had a reorg meeting yesterday, and one of the more damning takeaways specific to this topic was that we were already tight on money and trying to gather resources for the potential ****-show budget battles for FY2024 to help make sure we get through it.

 

So back to where I was in the 118th thread, this is already coming too close to home for me, why I never found what was going on in the House funny at all.

[Fergasun]

I see that Manchin and McCarthy met within the past day and Manchin is claiming Social Security and Medicare are off the table. This pisses me off on multiple levels.  I am going to rant here.  

 

I do think that interest and the national debt is a real threat to the United States.  If so, why wasn't $10T, or $20T seen as a redline?  Why is $40T kind've the redline?  

 

Can the GOP explain why they eliminated sequestration pre-Trump and why they didn't fight against Trump and use the Debt Ceiling as a lever in the 2015 to 2019 window?  Why?  Because everyone thinks that spending caps hurt the American voter.  

 

As someone who is "younger" I see this akin to your parents and grandparents running up the credit card, and now giving you the bill.  But they don't want to touch the spending that benefits them... which is actually most of the credit card spending.  This is actually what most of the debt hawks have said for 20 years.  

 

We shouldn't let these people take the lead on this issue.  I hate us voters.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

I want to believe now even the psychos in the House know a default is a bridge too far...more likely to see a shutdown before a true debt default ever happens at their hands, for sure...

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, Fergasun said:

 

I do think that interest and the national debt is a real threat to the United States.  If so, why wasn't $10T, or $20T seen as a redline?  Why is $40T kind've the redline?  

 

Honestly, debt ceiling has gotten so ridiculous we should jus get rid of it.

 

How often does it actual force the federal government to change its spending habits or address the deficit versus getting raised? 

 

Now it's used more as a weapon of mass destruction that several compounds predictability in our economy and financial standing in the world then it's original intent.

 

We don't need this type of threat to get our books in order, we really don't, we jus think we do, and it isn't working anyway.

[Fergasun]

Just saw news that the House GOP is thinking of moving the debt ceiling date to Sept 30, thus linking the FY24 spending bill and the debt ceiling in the same fight.  This actually makes sense.  If the fight is unpopular, fight it once.  

 

I am fairly certain that the GOP will get something for this fight.  And then both parties will blame all the bad things about it on each other. 

 

Capping spending to FY22 levels shouldn't be much of an issue.... but they still refuse to look at the medical side of things.  

[China]

Never again: How a 'lesson of 2011' shaped Biden's no-negotiation stance on debt limit

 

n 2011, after faltering debt limit negotiations with House Republicans brought the U.S. to the brink of economic calamity, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden sat by the fireplace in the Oval Office, with their top aides on the couch. While relieved at having narrowly averted disaster, they were stunned by what had transpired.

 

Obama and Biden made a vow: Never again.

 

They agreed that going forward, “Nobody can use the threat of default or not increasing the debt limit as a negotiating tool,” said a former Obama official involved in the fiscal discussions, who recounted the Oval Office meeting and the “lesson of 2011” they all discussed. “It made you hold your stomach. You couldn’t believe you were at this situation," the official said.

 

The U.S. had just suffered its first credit downgrade. Markets were rattled. Consumer and business confidence was shaken. Stocks took a hit. And the recovery from the Great Recession was in question.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fergasun]

From what I gather, McCarthy and Biden are meeting tomorrow. I hope Biden rolls out with, "we expect the same courtesy you had with Trump".  I am still reading comments from House members that indicate they think the debt ceiling fight is a budget fight.  

 

I think "cap at FY22 levels of discretionary spending which will save $2.2T over 10 years" is the best the GOP can get.  

 

The problem is, the GOP does not want to put plans down, because once they do, it will get attacked.  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

Scaling back disability benefits for veterans?  Do veterans really still not see how the GOP does not support them? If I'm the Dems, I'm blasting that loud with ads on Fox News that McCarthy and the GOP want to cut veterans benefits.

[Fergasun]

I don't get why folks are saying that the GOP hasn't proposed a budget.  Yes, they didn't.  But the "Republican Study Committee" of the House has for FY22. It's garbage journalism.  These are the ideas they will pick from.  An example.  

 

Re: Veterans Affairs

"The RSC budget would ensure individual benefits from VA for disability are reserved for people injured as a direct result of their service.  Right now people can get benefits for diseases or injuries suffered in the military, but not a direct result of their service.  These payments are duplicate to SSDI. The RSC budget would also modernize the VA ratings schedule for disabilities to be more in line with modern technology and the labor market."

 

So they would pay less for less things than the VA cover currently. 

[Larry]

Hey, the GOP has done lots of budgets with the things they want to cut. The GOP passed like six Paul Ryan budgets while Obama was President. 
 

Every one of them passed a huge tax cut, off the bat. And then paid for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare by 8% a year, for 30 years. (While keeping the taxes the same). 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 hours ago, China said:

Scaling back disability benefits for veterans?  Do veterans really still not see how the GOP does not support them? If I'm the Dems, I'm blasting that loud with ads on Fox News that McCarthy and the GOP want to cut veterans benefits.

 

I can't find any source or details about the veterans benefits cuts and the NyTimes article barely even mentions the word "veteran".  A Google search doesn't seem to have any other results for this.  Seems like just a click-bait article.

[Cooked Crack]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I can't find any source or details about the veterans benefits cuts and the NyTimes article barely even mentions the word "veteran".  A Google search doesn't seem to have any other results for this.  Seems like just a click-bait article.

This is the guy who's advising Republicans

 

Quote

 early December, CRA released its budget proposal to act as a roadmap of sorts for conservative lawmakers. The document is called "A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government," and includes a long list of right-wing grievances aimed at federal agencies that Vought claims are pursuing social and racial justice policies to the detriment of conservatives. Central to this push is Vought’s effort to create a narrative that the Department of Justice and the FBI are organs of the left bent on suppressing the right – a claim that is wrong both in the current moment and historically.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/center-renewing-america-has-plan-unleash-fbi-its-political-enemies

 

https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

16 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

This is the guy who's advising Republicans

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/center-renewing-america-has-plan-unleash-fbi-its-political-enemies

 

https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf

 

Unpopular opinion time.

 

I've only gone over the VA portion and glanced at a few others.  Take out all the references to "woke", and a good portion of their recommendations I actually support.  I cherrypicked one detail to make it look bad and posted it on a veterans FB group but.......

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Unpopular opinion time.

 

I've only gone over the VA portion and glanced at a few others.  Take out all the references to "woke", and a good portion of their recommendations I actually support.  I cherrypicked one detail to make it look bad and posted it on a veterans FB group but.......

 

Unfortunately, their membership have been specifically told to use "eliminating woke" as the cover phrase for "cuts".  

[China]

Why do I suspect the GOP won't include any of this in their cuts:

 

Congress gears up for another farm bill. Here's what's on the menu

 

Lawmakers drank thick milkshakes brought to them by the Pennsylvania Dairymen's Association as they listened to farmers, ranchers, and community leaders from around the state talk about their needs and wants for the 2023 farm bill.

 

The Pennsylvania Farm Show in Harrisburg served as the perfect curtain opener for House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson to begin discussions on the measure that funds many parts of the American food supply chain and rural development.

 

"We're working on crunch time here," Thompson said to open the listening session on Jan. 13. "This is an industry that's important, not just to those of us who live in rural America. This is probably the most important industry from the standpoint it touches the lives of every American family more times a day than any other industry."

 

The once-every-five year piece of legislation is a hodgepodge of policies. The bill is made up of multiple titles — 12 to be exact — that blended together make up a bill known as the biggest safety net for American farmers.

 

However, a very short timeline and infighting among House Republicans are raising questions over the feasibility of passing a large measure in time.

 

Meanwhile, mayors, crop advocacy groups, labor advocates, utility companies, and more are already vying for their piece of the farm bill pie ahead of the September expiration date for the 2018 bill.

 

One such group is the Center for Employment Opportunities. Based out of Harrisburg, CEO is the largest non-profit organization providing pay for training to formerly incarcerated individuals across 12 states. The organization serves about 8,000 people annually.

 

Kia Hansard, program director at CEO, came to the listening session hoping lawmakers take the opportunity to see that the bill expands beyond animals and crops.

 

The biggest portion of the bill is the nutrition title. It makes up about 80% of the bill's spending and helps to manage nutrition assistance programs, such as food stamps. Although nutrition programs are funded through regular budget bills, the farm bill helps make the rules for how the programs will work and who qualifies.

 

Hansard argued the 2023 farm bill should increase investment in what's called "SNAP Employment and Training." The program allows SNAP recipients to get employment training, provides transportation, childcare and clothing allowances as participants find employment.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fergasun]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Unpopular opinion time.

 

I've only gone over the VA portion and glanced at a few others.  Take out all the references to "woke", and a good portion of their recommendations I actually support.  I cherrypicked one detail to make it look bad and posted it on a veterans FB group but.......

This budget maim's a few agencies outright. 

 

HUD, HHS, Dept of Labor, National Science Foundation, cuts half of State Dept and foreign aid (but no cuts for Israel support!).  Suspends NATO and WHO dues.  Although not shown in the top line, it kills benefits for Vets (comments about burn pits) as I described a few posts above.  Also screws over Federal employees whose job benefits should be an example of a gold standard not some race to the bottom crap.