House leaders are unfortunately restricting their proposed budget cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 to nonsecurity discretionary spending in an attempt to tame a $1.3 trillion deficit. This approach is especially shortsighted since the Federal Treasury loses twice as much revenue due to tax breaks than Congress appropriates on all nonsecurity discretionary spending.
The chart below compares the 10 safety-net programs slated for deep cuts with the cost of the tax breaks that should also be considered for reduction or elimination to bring the budget into balance. The column on the left is a list of safety-net programs that have already been targets of the House leadership’s budget ax. The column on the right is the cost to specified tax breaks (see bottom of page for sources).
Huh. Does that just seem amazing? Remember this when the GOP comes crawling for the middle class vote, trumpeting their commitment to early-childhood education, better teacher training, the unemployed ("putting America back to work") and alternatives to ObamaCare.
So I've been harping for a year that this whole "fiscal responsibility" movement is largely a sham. Not that we don't need it, but it's been my feeling that the Obama-hating right just uses this as a meme to tie Obama to the stereotype of a tax-and-spend liberal.
They might scream for fiscal responsibility at the town halls, but what they really mean is 'screw the poor and the blacks and the Mexicans'. I've wanted to see what happens when and if deep cuts happen. Do you think angry grandpa is going to be happy when his Medicare gets slashed? Do you think angry roughneck is going to like the gigantic 8-foot pothole in front of his driveway that doesn't get fixed for 3 years? Do you think mama grizzly wannabe is going to be happy when her child's Head Start funding is cut?
Hell no.
And that's why this whole thing is a crock of shit. The Tea Party likes slashing programs in theory, as long as the theory is that it's minorities and liberals getting hit. The reality is that cuts as deep as they want are going to wreck many of the programs they depend on.
The poll finds that in general, more Americans think deficit reduction is a more important priority (49 percent) than spending to help the economy recover (46 percent). But check out what happens when Americans are asked what they think about spending on specific programs:
More favor an increase in spending than a decrease on 15 of 18 issues tested in the poll. Now, these numbers aren't all that clear-cut. But the overall conclusion is clear: Once you start to talk specifics, the public's aversion to government spending rapidly evaporates.
This is why the Tea Party can't be taken seriously. It's populated by people with an agenda. an agenda that can be boiled down to "Gimme mine and screw the rest of you."
The Tax Foundation did a study in 2007 (that they're seeking to update) that shows Federal Spending per dollar of federal taxes. Basically, do you get back more or less than you give. Here's the chart for 2005, and next to it is a map I put together based on the Tax Foundation data:
You can't overly generalize. But it's not hard to see where the biggest tax hogs are. Anyone care to overly a Tea Party activity map on this?
The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.
This is great, of course. Now it's up to the Democrats to pass the thing and then the very important work of making sure voters know about these praise-worthy details.
1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.
2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.
3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.
4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).
The emerging narrative in political circles is that the White House has a deficit problem. Glenn Beck, over at Fox News, insists that Obama is "spending us into oblivion." Politico called the recent round of job-stimulus appropriations a "spending binge." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) deemed this an era of "fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility," the extent of which is "shocking to the American taxpayer."
(B)udget analysts say...the hysteria over the deficit misses a fundamental point: the country's fiscal problems largely aren't due to Obama but rather his predecessor.
A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.
Gov. Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill, passed unanimously by the state Assembly and Senate, that he felt was a waste of taxpayer funds, given the financial crisis Californmia is facing.
Here is the letter he sent back with the bill. Note the first letter of each line. The Governator claims, naturally, that this is a coincidence. Here's to him, because we know it's not.
Craig T. Nelson, a "fiscally responsible grandfather," he's not going to pay taxes or "fund things he refuses to fund."
Nelson is complaining that, because voters in California refused - via the polls - to fund California's (admittedly broken) budget, Gov. Schwarzenegger is now having to make historic cuts. (See below video for story).
Nelson rightly complains that education and firefighters are being cut. But then, so how is not paying taxes gonna fix that?
Further lamenting lack of responsibility, he says "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No. They gave me hope, they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision."
JESUS H. CHRIST IN A SIDECAR!!!! YES THEY HELPED YOU OUT, DUMBASS! "They" "help you out" with WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS?
You know, "food stamps and welfare" the shit that Cali is going to cut because a bunch of rich Republicans bankrupted the system and then Cali voters said 'screw social services'.
Do you not get -- I...but...but -- are you unclear on the concept of -- am I? Are you? Is this supposed...what? Really? Huh?
And hither comes the New York Times with this wonderful news of impending social apocalypse with coach finds so abhorrent that he's going to perpetuate it by not paying taxes.
In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed. ... Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is threatening to eliminate the Healthy Family Program, the state’s health insurance program that covers over 900,000 children and is financed with state and federal money, as well as the state’s main welfare program, known as Cal-Works, which provides temporary financial assistance to poor families and a caregiver for the severely disabled. The $1 billion in cuts to programs for the poor would be met with $680 million in new cuts to education and a 5 percent salary reduction for state employees, many of whom are already enduring furloughs. ... With the cuts to Medicaid, the state would probably increase its number of uninsured people by nearly 2 million, the California Budget Project says.
California, America... welcome to consequences.
And who gets hurt? Not the greedy bastards who did this. No, they'll be fine.
As Bob Cesca puts it: "When will the Right to Life people descend on California to make sure all of those 4th-through-48th trimester children survive?"
"I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
Rick Santelli, new president of Spazzy White Guys, Inc., on September 2, just days before the initial financial collapse, Rick Santelli said, "I think the economy is healthy."
He fits right in with John McCain, who, if you'll remember, was the GOP hero 3 and a half months ago.
How about this: if the GOP wants to suddenly declare themselves the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, then how about admitting that all of the Bush programs they supported were fiscally irresponsible. You know, those programs they supported such as Homeland Security, invading and endlessly occupying Iraq (at $8 bil/m). They supported Bush's $1.2 trillion tax cut for, much of it targeted to the wealthiest one percent.
Because without that admission, they're just playing political football.
One of the new talking points for the GOP is to demonize the $8 billion in the Recovery Act to build high-speed rail lines. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal trots out the line on the Sunday talkers, criticizing the "Disneyland to Las Vegas" line.
Chris Matthews rightly dismisses it as "cartoon talk", "stupid talk". MSNBC's David Schuster confronts Republican Congressman Darrell Issa when Issa tries to slip the lie in. Forward to 4:20 for the clip. Ironically.
...as negotiations on the package wrapped up, Rahm Emanuel secured an extra $8 billion for high-speed rail. The Maine and Pennsylvania Republican "centrists" approved, and the bill progressed. The $8 billion is not directed at any specific state or project.
Meanwhile, Newt Ginrich sees this bill as his party's ticket back to power in 2010. He's been leading the cry against pork-barrel spending such as a project for marsh-mouse preservation.
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" has been repeating the marsh-mouse claim quite a bit lately, and to its credit, the show invited PolitiFact.com's Bill Adair on to the show this morning to scrutinize the story. Asked if MSNBC was "unfair" to go after this story, Adair said, "You were.... This one gets a 'false' on the Truth-o-Meter.... The reality is, the money is just not in the bill to do this the way that they said."
Joe Scarborough said he'd talked to a Republican House member about this, who defended the claim. Adair said the GOP lawmaker "lied to you."
Go to the :45 mark and watch how simply flabbergasted the crew is that they miht have *gasp* reported a lie as true.
On CBS' The Early Show S.C. Gov Mark Sanford said Thursday the sheer size of the stimulus package will end up hindering any economic recovery. "I think the problem that was created with too much debt will never be solved by adding yet more debt," he said. "I think there are a number of wrinkles that have caused a number of us to say 'Wait a minute, let's take a long look at whether or not this really makes sense for our state.'"
Still, Sanford said he would accept the funds.
"Being against it doesn't preclude taking the money."
Sanford ignores several things. Number one, he doesn't state who it was that actually created this problem "with too much debt" (Bush). Two, he never offers a solution. It's easy to be against something. My question to the governor is 'what are you for'?
Additionally, Republican Governors such as Sanford, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Sarah Palin of Alaska and Rick Perry of Texas - all of whom are lining up to run against Obama in '12 - are contemplating refusing the money.
Nice job. Put your political interests ahead of your constituents. Isn't that impeachable?
However it's all a sham. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the No. 3 House Democrat, put language in the bill that allows state legislatures to overrule their governors and take the bailout money. It was designed to prevent one shortsighted governor from tanking their entire state to maintain a dogma.
Clyburn's language allows these governors to have their cake and eat it too. Refuse the money, and when your legislature overrules you and takes it, you can accept the benefits of it.
This is all political hackery.
Howard Dean, former DNC chair, has dared these governors to decline the money and then explain to voters why their taxes went up because of a political stunt.
Then there's just plain ol' crazy. "The sky is falling" crazy. Batshit crazy. Michelle Bachmann crazy.
Michelle Bachmann, she of the Hardball comments insisting the government should investigate the political leanings of it's own members, is back.
Now, she's issuing the crazy. Obama is stealing money from Republican districts and passing it out to Democratic ones. He's giving ACORN, an organization working against inner-city poverty $5 billion (untrue).
Unfortunately, she runs into Keithiness.
However, there is uber-blogger Bob Cesca. I referenced his HuffPost column in here yesterday. A rightwingnut named Denise decided to start an e-mail conversation with Mr. Cesca. She was, unfortunately, fighting unarmed.
In a conversation early Friday evening with a small group of columnists, Obama was flexible about tactics and unwavering in his goals. He signaled that he's open to consultation, compromise and readjusting his course to build inclusive coalitions, but fixed on the results he intends to produce.
...
(Regarding the stuimulus:) "The end product is not 100 percent of what we would want," Obama said. "But I think it is a very good start on moving things forward."
...
"I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don't believe in [economist John Maynard] Keynes and they are still fighting FDR." Some was tactical: "I also think that there was a decision made... where [Republican leaders] said... 'If we can enforce conformity among our ranks, then it will invigorate our base and will potentially give us some political advantage either short-term or long-term." He paused. "Whether that's a smart strategy, I think you should ask them."
...
Yet while promising to continue to seek peace with congressional Republicans, Obama also made clear he's prepared for the alternative. "I am an eternal optimist [but] that doesn't mean I'm a sap," he said pointedly. "So my goal is to assume the best but prepare for a whole range of different possibilities in terms of how Congress reacts."
Posts
