-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
The Congressional Spectator
Red Ink Rumble
The budget talks don’t look promising, but who is really to blame for being unrealistic about federal spending?
A government shutdown looming, the budget talks between congressional Republicans and Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue appear to have stalled. Reports are circulating that Republican leaders are poised to reject the White House’s latest budget offer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is already pointing the finger of blame.
“The infighting between the Tea Party and the rest of the Republican party, including the Republican leadership in Congress, is keeping our negotiating partner [from] the negotiating table,” Reid told reporters Monday. “It’s pretty hard to negotiate without someone on the other side of the table to talk to.” A deal must be reached by April 8 to keep some parts of the government from temporarily shutting down.
Reid later issued a statement recounting “weeks of productive negotiations with Speaker Boehner” and demanding, “For the sake of our economy, it’s time for mainstream Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party and rejoin Democrats at the table to negotiate a responsible solution that cuts spending while protecting jobs.”
The political calculus behind all this is clear: Republicans won the midterm elections because enthusiastic conservatives, rallied by the Tea Party, joined with wary independents in rejecting Democratic candidates. Splitting this coalition by forcing Republicans to disappoint either Tea Party conservatives or moderate swing voters is a prerequisite for any Democratic recovery next year.
But there is another conflict at work here: the tension between the budgetary math and the political math. The former clearly suggests drastic action on federal spending is needed. The national debt has zoomed past $14 trillion and Washington borrows nearly 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The cost of servicing that debt is rising, and the picture looks bleaker when the total unfunded liabilities of the major entitlement programs are factored in.
Left unreformed, Social Security and Medicare will soak up the entire budget — crowding out such necessities as national defense — and ultimately subsume the country’s whole GDP. The tipping point for that crisis remains far off from the perspective of politicians’ and voters’ short time horizons, but reform sooner will avoid painful benefit cuts to retirees already dependent on those programs later.
Praising his party as “honest with ourselves and the country,” Reid declared, “We readily recognize that in the end, we won’t get everything that we want.” But we are in this fiscal mess precisely because the political class has been getting everything it wants. As the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl reported last year, discretionary spending has grown 79 percent faster than inflation since 2000. Over that period, anti-poverty programs increased 89 percent faster than inflation, education 219 percent, veterans spending 107 percent, and Medicare 81 percent.
Also over that time period, the federal government has created two new health care entitlements (both unfunded), launched three wars (all unfunded), bailed out multiple industries, passed a massive stimulus bill, enacted bloated farm, energy, and transportation bills, and approved over 9,000 earmarks just last year alone. “Simply put,” writes Reidl, “all parts of government are growing.”
The president likes to talk about “false choices,” but his colleagues on Capitol Hill have avoided making any hard choices. It took until 1987 to approve the first $1 trillion federal budget. It would now take substantial and almost unprecedented spending reductions to run just a $1 trillion annual deficit.
In that sense, it is the Tea Party that has been most honest with themselves and the country. Fresh from introducing a plan to cut $500 billion from the federal budget in a single year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has offered a five-year balanced budget proposal. It’s not certain all the specific numbers will add up once scored by entities like the Congressional Budget Office — though sometimes that’s the fault of the scorers, who assume that repealing Obamacare will cost more money than it saves, for example — but it is bolder than anything seen from the leadership of either party.
Here is where the political math intrudes: nothing can pass without significant Democratic buy-in, in addition to the votes of wobbly Republicans. Democrats appear to be balking at $61 billion in spending cuts over the next six months. How many of them would vote for stronger stuff?
Then there is the question of whether the next six months is really the most important timeframe. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is getting ready to release the fiscal 2012 budget, which will deal with entitlements as a part of a longer-term, 10-year spending plan. It remains to be seen whether even his budget will pass Tea Party muster. “Paul Ryan is the moderate on the House Budget Committee now,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) jokes. But Ryan has been thinking longer and harder about the debt crisis than just about anyone in the leadership.
Arguments can be made for both a more and less aggressive Republican approach to the current budget standoff. Some point out that the Republicans were ultimately, if unfairly, blamed for the Clinton-era government shutdown and lost their momentum on spending afterward. Others would counter that the Republicans recovered from the shutdown sufficiently to not just maintain control of Congress but actually negotiate a balanced budget. GOP fiscal discipline didn’t really collapse until 1998, which might tell in favor of striking while the iron is hot.
It is by no means clear that even this Congress is ready to grapple with a fiscal catastrophe precipitated by the failure to make hard choices and set meaningful budget priorities. The coming weeks will show how determined Washington remains to delay the inevitable.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From The Congressional Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/29/red-ink-rumble
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 6:45AM
I think the current situation inside the beltway shows you how hopelessness evolves from greed only to end up surrounded by hubris.
Outside the beltway the real battles are being fought, and that's only because the states can't mint their own money. They are forced to fight battles and even then, the greedy public sector doesn't want to give an inch. They simply want to give a fraction of an inch knowing that they can come back for more in the future if and when things settle down.
So where does that leave the rest of us who labor under the false myth that we will have something worth saving as Bernanke continues to print fiat currency like it's toilet paper?
To me, the best thing that could happen right now is a government shut down, the essential services will go on, and perhaps if we are lucky they will either reinvent government, or they will start to refund the necessities.
Either way our only salvation lays in funding the necessities. The Democrats obviously don't care if we slide over a financial precipice.
If the stand off is used to continue the spending with meager cuts a new political class will arise and depose the leaders in both parties.
The public will rise up and take back their country at the same time so many in government appear determined to give it all away. The scoundrels!
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 11:11AM
or............... we'll become Greece.
Intelligent Design| 3.29.11 @ 7:38AM
Voters in November 2010 said they want the size of government to be reduced significantly. Now we listen as the politicians on both sides talk about cuts of maybe $50 billion to $100 billion (max), which is less than 1% of federal spending. In November 2012 voters will toss out more Democrats, including Obama, as well as a number of disappointing Republicans. At least half the public is angry and deeply concerned about federal spending and the $14.1 trillion debt, which is growing by about $150 billion per month.
A good way to cut hundreds of billions would be to get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, stay out of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc., eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, cut the budgets of Interior and State in half, cut UN funding to the bone, repeal Obamacare, sell or close down Amtrak and the USPS, et cetera ...... Don't our Congress Morons have any imagination at all?
WRTolkas| 3.29.11 @ 7:57AM
Dear Intelligent Design,
Amen Brother.
WRTolkas
Aquanomics| 3.29.11 @ 10:31AM
....instead, 95 GOP House members voted to amend Obamacare to throw money at veterinarians.
We are doomed.
Spoonman| 3.30.11 @ 5:46AM
Don't our Congress Morons have any imagination at all? Intelligent Design, do you need to ask this question? They are morons and the answer to your question is "NO": that is whay we are in this mess to begin with.
Pecos Pete| 3.29.11 @ 7:44AM
There ain't going to be any spending cuts of significance by this Congress. Let the govmint shut down.
richard ryan| 3.29.11 @ 8:02AM
Harry Reid is really a piece of work. He HAS to be smart enough to know that entitlements will eventually do us in if they are not addressed NOW, right??. So he is either incredibly stupid or he wants us to go down in flames. Both alternatives are very disturbing.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 9:55AM
Social Security and Medicare have a combined surplus of about $5 trillion and therefore are NOT responsible for our nation’s $14 trillion debt. As Harry Reid said” Social Security is not on the table,” cutting the retirement and medical benefits of the elderly who have paid into these programs during their working years to “balance” the budget would in effect be retroactively rising taxes on the lower income earners to pay for the irresponsible tax cuts on the wealthy.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 10:33AM
Yeah, God forbid those who actually pay taxes get a tax cut. This would be criminal.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 11:04AM
Steve A, Warren Buffet one of the wealthiest tax payers in America said that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million income. What is your tax rate?
Brian Mc| 3.29.11 @ 11:09AM
"Thou shalt not covet thy neigbor's goods"
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 11:12AM
"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven"
Brian Mc| 3.29.11 @ 10:50PM
So there it is; the government stepping in for God.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 11:34AM
If I really add it up (I own a business), Fed., State, County, Car Tax ( VA), fuel, sales, property, employer & on & on &on;, I look at it this way: When I wake up on January 1st of every year, I work every day until sometime in July to pay taxes so I can then turn around & be called a right wing, greedy, capitalist extremist by Progressives & those who my tax $$ puts on the dole.
As for Buffett, if he thinks he does not pay enough in taxes, he should fire his accountant & write a freakin check for what he "feels" is the right amount for "the rest of us to pay." I do not begrudge him 1 bit for his success, but until he shows me how to pay more, then he can shut the hell up for all I care.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 12:17PM
I feel your pain brother! I’ve self employed to because of outsourcing. And, because I’m self employed I now pay 15.3% (12.4% Social Security + 2.9% for Medicare) alone on approximately 90% of the first approximately $100,000 I earn. That’s before State and Federal income taxes… etc. And, what is the Republican solution for the nation debt? Use my 15.3% Social Security and Medicare tax to pay for the debt caused by their irresponsible income tax cuts on the Warren Buffets of this country.
Conservative View| 3.30.11 @ 3:18PM
Mr Gotrich made his money by starting a company. The raw materials comming into his factory are --- taxed. The factory building is -- taxed. The equiptment inside the factory building is -- taxed. The people who work for him are -- taxed. The finished product is -- taxed. Shipping the finished product to a retailer is -- taxed. When the product is sold it is -- taxed. Mr. Gotrich is responsible for generating all of these tax dollars because from his hard work and effort he built his company.
Then the Democrats, and the President say, "He isn't paying his fair share of taxes." Somehow in the math of progresives the fact that it was Mr. Gotrich who built the factory that generates all the taxes seems to get lost.
Now our belovid government isn't satisfied with all these taxes. Now what is being seriously discussed is taxing the milage put on the workers cars as they drive to and from work. WOW, taxing us now to get to work. Only our government could come up with that one.
The only way to shrink the monster that has become our government is to starve it to death, and that means cutting off the money. We must, we absolutely must, elect officals that will take an axe, a bomb, a weapon of mass destruction to the budget. Good bye NPR, good bye the arts, good bye OSHA and EPA. Do we really need all these damn federal poliece forces, the ATF, DEA, ICE, FBI, NCIS, Park Poliece, etc? Couldn't we put a few of them together?
I'm on the side of Mr. Gotrich. He worked for it, his company pays more than a fair share of taxes, and he needs to be left damn well alone to continue putting people to work.
Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:26PM
Last time I checked Mr. Buffet could have written a check to go directly to our deficit. Hell, they even take credit card payments.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....icdebt.htm
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 11:09AM
Steve A, let us know when your tired of kissing wealthy ass.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 11:37AM
Have you lost your mind, boy? I think kissing other dudes asses is more your game from what I understand.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 12:29PM
Steve A, slow down I said nothing about “dudes.” And besides I was using “kissing wealthy ass” as a figure of speech.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 12:51PM
Yeah, you are correct, for once:) My apologies.
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:41PM
yawn. but I love the class warfare rhetoric just the same. that sort of rhetoric is gonna come back to haunt the likes of you when things really do break down.
count on it.
David W| 3.29.11 @ 12:21PM
In a conversation I had with my 85 year-old mother she told me that she had received more in SS than she had put in. She and my deceased father scrimped and saved all their working lives yet still helped two sons through college. However, given what she is worth now I would bet you would support taking what little social security from her because by your measure she would be "rich" (course, she was a low-paid elementary school secretary and he a simple low-level engineer forced into early retirement).
Perhaps if people like vtwin were really paying attention they would know that there is NO SURPLUS!!!!! NO REAL TRUST FUND!!! It is nothing but a "promise" that you will get something when you retire. And what you get will not depend upon the rate of return that the trust fund "does not earn" but upon the whims and desires of government. If you receive a social security statement in the mail read the fine print - you'll realize what I say is true. This the world's biggest pyramid scandal that only our government could support. Madoff went to jail for doing the same thing.
It is no wonder that our federal government continues its death spiral with mental giants like vtwin voting for it.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 12:47PM
God, bless you mother.
The monies in both the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Funds were borrowed along with other monies by the Federal Government to finance the nation’s $14 trillion debt. And, just like the other monies it has to be paid back by the Federal Government.
Clint Lovell| 3.29.11 @ 12:37PM
According to the 2010 Annual Report of the Social Security &Medicare; Boards of Trustees you are wrong. Social Security has a surplus of approximately $100 billion but the HI Trust Fund is already running a deficit and the SMI Trust Funds have never run a surplus.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 12:50PM
Social Security assets as of December 2010 were $2.6 trillion.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html
Son of Liberty| 3.29.11 @ 3:23PM
The assets you speak about are government IOU's/internal bonds. They have less value than the "paper" they are printed on. The government has no money. Ask SocialSecurity to call the bonds and see what you get. If the Social Security balance sheet were compared to a regular business balance sheet, since the government has no money and could never borrow the amount necessary to cover the bonds, its Accounts Receivable would be made up of obligations they were trying to collect from companies that had long been out of business.
Tony in Central PA| 3.29.11 @ 9:00PM
Wasn't there a scene like this in " Dumb abd Dumber " ? The once cash - filled briefcase stuffed with IOU's ?
JayDick| 3.29.11 @ 2:59PM
You must be talking about all the IOUs that are in Al Gore's "lock box". If you look at cash disbursements for the current and next few fiscal years, I think you'll see a different story, especially for Medicare.
BD57| 3.29.11 @ 7:51PM
Oh, please. That "surplus" is made up of U.S. Government securities.
If you have $5 in your left pocket and $50 in unpaid bills in your right pocket, you're down $45 ... you don't get to say "I have a surplus in my left pocket."
hunter| 3.29.11 @ 10:10AM
Richard, Reid is both, stupid and destructive. He is not smart.
SUB_VET| 3.29.11 @ 11:56AM
He is another Soros puppit just like pozer barry. Maybe this will all end when Trump finally get's barry to fessup on his BC ......check out his video with Greta.
Peppermint Tea| 3.29.11 @ 2:48PM
I have ponder Reid's intelligence as well...three years ago I heard at speech at BYU where he said that Social Security was the best legislation ever and nobody should mess with it. Even the respectful students chuckled because they can do the math. I assume he is uncomfortable with numbers, therefore stupid, but he can quote a few and sound as if he is passingly intelligent. God help us; Reid won't.
Clint| 3.29.11 @ 8:08AM
Democrat Mouthy Mouse Reid wants War with We Tea Party Patriots, & We say Bring It Rodent !
We Tea Party Patriots are in Open Rebellion against this America Destroying Deficit Spending by these Big Government Parasite Leeches.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Conservative View| 3.30.11 @ 3:22PM
Amen, brother!
Michael Tomlinson| 3.29.11 @ 8:12AM
I'm curious who are the wobbly Republicans? I've not seen any Republicans calling for compromise with Reid (who is still in the Senate thanks to the Tea Party), but they seem to be standing fast on the $61 billion cuts.
The real problem is Democrats like so-called blue dogs Jim Webb and Ben Nelson who are hanging tough with Barack Obama and Harry Reid. The only way to reverse the Obama/Democrat agenda is for Republicans to win the Senate and Presidency next year. Anything less means defeat for the US.
Louis Jenkins| 3.29.11 @ 8:21AM
"...anti-poverty programs increased 89 percent faster than inflation, education 219 percent, veterans spending 107 percent, and Medicare 81 percent."
Lions, tigers, bears, oh my! Reid and his cronies, and the milk-toast Republicans, had better get at it instead of arguing. Keep it up boys, and soon enough there will not be anything to discuss except RED INK. Reid is pointing the finger at those who want a balanced budged. He knows that is his only hope. "The King is naked. Long live the King."
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 10:50AM
When poverty increases as it did under Bush anti-poverty spending increases.
When the number of soldiers becoming disable veterans increase as it did under Bush veteran spending increases.
When we create new education programs like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education spending increases.
When medical costs increase in the United States as they did under Bush Medicare spending increases.
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 11:14AM
yeah... we know you intellectually dishonest twit... it's all Dubbya's fault.
megapotamus| 3.30.11 @ 3:40PM
There is a good bit of blame accruing to Bush especially in his final hours. This is the guy who surrendered his free market principles to "save" the free market system. Yes, NCLB and the Medicare expansion are likewise on the ledger. Of course to the extent these were opposed by Democrats it was because they were not large enough. Whatever, it hardly matters. No, there are NO assets backing the SS trust other than Full Faith and Credit which is no more than a presumptive ability to tax the contents of YOUR wallet. And when there are no more contents? Default is inevitable. Will they default on bonds before defaulting on SS? If so, then no more bond sales. Collapse is written in stone. Nothing can save entitlements that does not destroy the currency. The greenback is a dead letter. Now, we got along without it until the civil war so what that will mean for us at ground level is not that clear. But the "safety net" programs are going to be seriously curtailed one way or the other. If it is going to be collapse, the sooner the better.
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:48PM
when Democratic policies create poverty....anti-poverty expenses increase
when Democratic policies deliberately build barriers among intelligence agencies....9/11s happen that lead to wars
when Democratic policies promote a dumbing down of curricula.....the traditional solution is to throw money at the problem
whatever will we do then about the catastrophic Obamacare legislation?
9.6% for 2010! gotta love those Dems!!!
Clint| 3.29.11 @ 8:26AM
Yeah, tell us about The Serial Traitor to Conservatism John McCain and McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain- Kennedy, Gang of 14, Opposing The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003, Tarp ..... Then tell us about RINO-CINO GOP Fops Arlen Specter & Mike Castle.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 10:25AM
You’re blaming John McCain for the nation’s debt because he opposed Bush’s budget busting tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? Bush inherited from Clinton an annual surplus of $250 and bequeathed Obama an annual $1.5 trillion deficit.
What is escalating is the stupidly of the Tea Party!
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 10:41AM
Hey vtwin, Newsflash for you. Congress makes the budget, not the President. Clinton was dragged to a surplus by the Repub. revolution in 94'. Do you really think he was all about "welfare reform"? Do you really think he was all about "the era of big Government is over?" too funny.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 10:57AM
Clinton raised taxes, produced economic growth and surpluses.
Bush cut taxes, produced economic stagnation and deficits.
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 11:15AM
uh......... the deficit has increased by 3 trillion $ since Das Messiah took office.. but thanks for playing.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 11:18AM
Redstateboy, Obama has obviously not read any of vtwins wisdom & raised taxes enough to generate the economic dynamo yet.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 11:16AM
Wow. So the magic formula to economic success is to raise taxes? What the hell are we waiting for? Why did Obama & the Dems not let the cuts expire? Is he self destructive??
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 11:46AM
Exactly, Obama and the Democrats after their historic victory at the polls in 2010 failed to repeal the economical destructive Bush era tax rates and the result a continued increase in the nation debt and a continued increase in the nation income disparity which if both are left unchecked will eventually lead to the third worldization of the United States.
JP| 3.29.11 @ 11:58AM
Errr, when Clinton left office the federal budget was $1.8 billion. Today it is almost $4 trillion, and we're borrowing $4 billion a day. No, this isn't a tax problem. It is a spending problem.
Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 12:00PM
Wow man, you are worse off than I thought. You are to the left of Obama. Hard to do.
Let me ask you a hypothetical: If you were behind me in line at the checkout at 7/11 & my wallet was open on the counter & full of C-Notes, as it is, because I am a "wealthy business owner," which I am, would you feel entitled to grab a stack because I make more $$ than you?? I would agree not to accuse you of theft.
JP| 3.29.11 @ 12:01PM
Clinton raised taxes (1993), but there was little or no growth until 1996-1997 (Clinton slashed capital gains taxes in 1997 and reformed Welfare during the same year).
You cannot equate raising taxes in 1993 with the Dot Com Bubble circa 1996-2000. Raising taxes do not produce wealth (outside of the Beltway, that is).
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 12:24PM
26 million jobs were created during Clinton’s 8 years in office. And you’re claiming all of these jobs were created during the last year?
JP| 3.29.11 @ 1:05PM
Over 75% were created during the last 4 years, of which half of those were lost permenently beginning in late 2000 through 2001. The Bubble was a 4 year event. GDP growth in 1993 was less than 1%; ditto for 1994; 2% in 1995; 4% in 1996 and 1997; 4.5% for 1998-1999. The last quarter of 2000 was negative.
Chalkdust| 3.29.11 @ 3:22PM
less we fotget the 100,000 cop jobs ect. that were funded with tax dollars for 1-3 years by billy-bub. Make work jobs that disappeared in 2000.
Conservative View| 3.30.11 @ 3:27PM
I have a thought. Let's make California a seperate country. It is widly Democratic. They have one of the highest tax rates in the country now, and they are just about bankrupt. Let California continue as it has with high taxes and industry leaving as fast as they can build new factories elsewhere. Then, let us cut the tax rates in America. Nancy P can be queen of California, and we can elect a president from the tea party. Want to see which country prospers, and which defaults?
Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:30PM
And Clinton had a little thing called the Dot-com explosion to raise all the money. Of course, it crashed during "W" term and it all went away again. But I guess that doesn't matter at all, does it?
Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:32PM
Whoops. JP beat me to it. Nice Job.
Son of Liberty| 3.29.11 @ 3:40PM
Clinton also had the benefit from Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul destroying the Soviet Union. So Clinton could massacre the defense budget to get even more money. He was the consumate spin doctor. The Republicans forced him to balance the budget and he, with the help of the lamestream media, took the credit. Also, the 25 million jobs created from 1983 - 2001 can be greatly attributed to what came out of the Reagan legacy with tax reform, regulation reform and the Soviet collapse. Three succeeding presidents benefitted from what transpired between 1983 and 1988.
DRed| 3.29.11 @ 6:43PM
Taxes are lower now that they were under St. Ronnie, so it follows that we have even more job growth, no?
JP| 3.29.11 @ 12:02PM
Vtwin, the surplus was gone by the time Bush was sworn in, A recession began in late 2000 and continued through 2001.
Clint Lovell| 3.29.11 @ 12:39PM
The deficit in 2008 was less than $300 billion. Nice try.
vtwin| 3.29.11 @ 1:10PM
“The projected 2009 deficit[, issued before Obama took office,] was $1.2 trillion.” -- Congressional Budget Office
Republicans like to blame Obama's because he took office that year. But the budget was set in October 2008, months before Obama took office.
JP| 3.29.11 @ 3:20PM
vtwin,
Obama added over $1 trillion ($817 billion + interest), via his Stimulus, add in some $250 billion for the bailouts of GM, Chrysler, and AIG, and finally he requested another $100 billion for additional uemployment. In all he drove the 2009 budget defecit to 1.5 trillion above what Bush requested.
beebop| 3.29.11 @ 6:28PM
Why couldn't the Dims get a budget passed last year when they had all of the chairs at the table? Maybe because they knew they would not be able to hold their own caucus? Maybe because those who will face election in the next term have heard the voices of the voters and have changed their tune?
Gee. Guess.
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:52PM
by a Democratic Congress.
megapotamus| 3.30.11 @ 3:46PM
This is nothing other than gospel truth. This is TARP, $.9t of straight cash. What is also true though is that Obama was fully on board for TARP. Everyone was. Everyone in politics whose name you know who was in office then, excepting only Ron Paul, was for TARP. THEN Stim 1 which was another $.9t. Then the auto bailouts. Same/same. It's absurd. We have introduced infinity mathematics into public finance. It will produce zero-based results.
Son of Liberty| 3.29.11 @ 3:42PM
The deficit in 2007 was $161 billion and the Democrats were calling it criminal. They must have meant it was way too small.
JP| 3.29.11 @ 1:08PM
vtwin,
Obama has borrowed over $4 trillion in just 26 months. Again, this is a spending problem. Obama has borrowed more in 24 months than Bush did in 8 years (Bush borrowed $3 trillion, of which $1 trillion financed the 2 wars).
Clint| 3.29.11 @ 6:20PM
You don't know the difference between a Budget Surplus & The National Debt, Knucklehead ObamaBoyAsshat.
According to the debt statistics at the Office of Management and Budget, the national debt was $4.351 trillion prior to the first fiscal budget authorized by President Clinton in 1994. When he left office in 2001, the debt was $5.770 trillion at the end of that fiscal year.
Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 8:56AM
NOTE TO HARRY :
So you want to get RID of the Tea Party..
Because they tell you...STOP SPENDING"
Do you know just who the Tea Party Is ???
IT IS WE.. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!
You want to get rid of ...US ???
News,...WE can get rid of you, sir, in 2
ways...The DEMS CAN VOTE YOU OUT
If they are SMART....TOMORROW !....OR
In Jan. 2013 ....Your GONE!!!!!
Ken in Tyler| 3.29.11 @ 9:39AM
What is missing from the budget discussion is the topic of Constitutional authority for federal spending. Tea Party, Patriot, conservative of any stripe, all of us: WE WILL LOSE this fight for our country if we don't reeducate the sheeple to be willing to stand on their own two feet. And not even the most "conservative" in office is even mentioning that bit of truth.
Cutting this or that program, eliminating earmarks, even abolishing entire Departments will not work because those things can grow back unless checked by principled statesmen who will govern with their oath to "support and defend" always in mind. Return the feds to the constraints of Article I, Section 8 or it's game over for Liberty.
Just to be clear, I am a Social Security recipient. That, along with Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment "benefits", etc, etc,etc ALL must go. Tomorrow is too late if the Republic is to be restored.
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 11:18AM
and what?? upset the dolts like Vtwin there??? they neeeeed dependent and stupid people to keep the Slave Party in power..
Chalkdust| 3.29.11 @ 9:39AM
The demonrats gamble is they can split the herd (Tea Party vs RINOs) and pick off the weakest links of the Republican Party or maybe more to the point have them kill each other off. My dog says that until and unless the John McCain/John Boener gang can be neutralized, the in-fighting inside the Republican (stupid) Party will continue to give Obama if not the upper hand at least a hand that APPEARS to win.
logmank| 3.29.11 @ 10:14AM
Signs of the coming demise of the republic: those who are willing to do what is necessary are branded as "fringe". And, trolls like vtwin above state (I assume with a straight face) that Social Security and Medicare have a combined surplus of $5 trillion.
Yes We Can| 3.29.11 @ 12:49PM
He probably is correct, except for the fact that that surplus is in the form of IOU's.....
Anthony| 3.29.11 @ 10:58AM
Boehner has allowed that dirtball, Harry Reid to set the narrative. The milksop GOP, which Reid conveniently praises now, as he has Boehner by his little.... blames the Tea Party for failure of Reid to crush the GOP, err, save the economy.
How sickening is it that Boehner can't even keep up with the disgraced Reid? Is Boehner that pathetic that Reid has to falsely praise him and his fellow GOP weaklings in order to preserve the leftist spending agenda?
Hey Boehner, when you get praised by Harry Reid, your've screwed up big time, but you're too pathetic an insider to man up and take Reid on. Truly pathetic are you beltway Rs!!!!
Al Adab| 3.29.11 @ 11:31AM
Underlying the budget impass is the philosophical difference between Left and Right. The Left takes on Faith that government exists to reward favored groups with other people's money. They call it redistribution. We had a City Councilwoman here who stated that the job of the City was to collect the taxes and decide who gets it. That is their belief. Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) realize that people's money is in fact their property and as such is protected by government. There are few functions which the Federal government is empowered to do and redistribution is not one of them. This is where the battle line is drawn and this is the hill to die for.
Storage Steve| 3.29.11 @ 1:11PM
Well stated!
NeilBJ| 3.29.11 @ 1:02PM
It's time to quit playing musical chairs with the deck chairs on the Titanic. It will make no difference when the music stops who finds a seat and who remains standing.
Don't these guys have any sense of moral responsibility? Why do they seem to be so oblivious to the problems we face? Surely they don't want us to hit the ice berg and go down, or do they?
Anthony| 3.29.11 @ 2:32PM
Neil, To answer your questions; no they don't, and yes they do. That is the sad fact of life that is very difficult and distasteful for decent Americans to accept about the Ds and their leaders.
Reid has morphed into a complete leftist ideological hack, he has no moral responsibility at all to traditional America. He is solely dedicated to Obozo's transformational America. Reid's morality is an ever changing, ever evolving concept, dedicated to that one thing.
The destruction of our culture and society is in keeping with the desires and hopes of American progressives, who for decades, have sought to destroy/transform America as founded and remake it in the image of the socialist utopia.
I'm afraid we're way beyond musical chairs, we are at war with the left.
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:54PM
the real irony? it will be budgetary collapse that brings social ruin of the harshest kind long before global warming!
jgo| 3.29.11 @ 1:14PM
A "moderate" should be willing to cut CPB's budget by half rather than totally eliminating it.
A "moderate" should be willing to give back half of what's been taken from people via the Socialist Insecurity/FICA scam rather than giving it all back and eliminating the whole thing.
A "moderate" would be willing to cut NEAH's funding in half, cut DoEducation's funding in half, cut HHS's funding in half, cut HUD's funding in half, cut Medicare and Medicaid in half, cut Fannie, Freddie and Sallie in half, fence half of the over 8K miles of border, deploy half of the fully-armed US military along the borders, they would be willing to conscientiously attempt to locate, arrest, detain and promptly deport half of the 11M-20M illegal aliens in the USA, and strive to encourage half of US citizens to carry arms at least half of the time (especially when travelling).
Harry Reid and cousin Barack are no moderates. They're just more flaming radical leftists, who refuse to keep their oaths/affirmations of office and refuse to negotiate in good faith.
Oldefarte| 3.29.11 @ 2:52PM
The only questionable possibly unknown is how the voters/tea partiers feel about this issue. November 2010's election was their statement, but were they really serious about budget/debt cutting? Democrats are dangling the forbidden fruit of governmental spending increases in front of Republicans saying don't listen to that voice of the almighty [saying not to eat same]. Voters/TP'ers had better be serious [and i believe that they are] on a long term basis [for Rome wasn't built in a day]. If these Republicans start to crawfish/backslide, their political fate will be fatefully sealed to their detriment. The Democrats that are not from safe/liberal areas will be toast in November of 2012, and so will also weak Republicans. The message to all of them [Republicans and Democrats] is that WE ARE WATCHING YOU, AND YOUR JOBS DEPEND UPON IF/HOW MUCH YOU REDUCE GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:55PM
look...the Tea Party has got to understand: the process has just started. Senate and WH are next. Now is not the time to pack one's toys and go home. Whether the desired end state happens or not doesn't matter......the Tea Party better be in this for the long haul or eff em.
Peppermint Tea| 3.29.11 @ 2:54PM
The question is...will there be any value to the dollar by the time the Tea Party can crash the Washington Orgy and start acting like adults. Not if Reid, Boner, and Barry still have power.
Oldefarte| 3.29.11 @ 3:04PM
Great question, but IF these R's get serious with their reductions of governmental spending, this will eventually free up financial capital that can be loaned out to PRIVATE entities to increase jobs, provide salaries/income, and grow our GDP. Again, if the R's do their job [and get reinforcements in November of 2012], it is not only possible to save the economy but to eventually increase it as well!!!!!!!!!
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 7:56PM
there ya go!
Oldefarte| 3.29.11 @ 2:59PM
PS: If you Democrats want to play the ignore the voters game that you typically do [and continue to increase governmental welfare expendatures], you are going to pay dearly for same with your political careers. The game is over, and the cat's out of the bag. We know what you've done and why, and we're sick and tired of working our fingers to the bone 24-7 and having to pay ever-increasing taxes to fund these welfare governmental programs for your lazy, stupid and worthless constituents. Wise up Harry, Charles, Nancy, Dick,Barack, etc, there's a new dawn arising. The politics of usual is no longer possible. The governmental welfare credit card has been recalled, cut up and flushed down the toilet. Start making substantial budget/debt reduction payments or go to the political jail of electorial defeat!!!!!!!
carnot| 3.29.11 @ 8:00PM
and why? because their divisive rhetoric/strategy is counter-productive in the long run. the folks and businesses doing the heavy lifting are going to abandon ship....as they have been for quite some time. the solution has to have most pulling the oars in a synchronized way....at some point the class warfare fantasy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Son of Liberty| 3.29.11 @ 3:34PM
What the Conservative/Tea Party Reps need to do is "shut down" the government and not approve a debt ceiling increase. That would leave the government with about 2.5 billion dollars to run the itself on. Carve out Social Security (which is supposed to be self sustaining anyway) and let it keep the tax revenues assigned to it and make the hard choices to live on what you take in. Then we will see if we have anyone in this government who knows how to make the hard decisions it takes to run a going concern. Its time to stop letting the inmates run the asylum. They've run it into the ground. Let some sane people run it for a while. And when the leeches start screaming, get a can of Raid.
Joe D.| 3.29.11 @ 4:04PM
No matter what is ask for the evil socialist in the Senate and the white house will bock. So we should go for is all like Rand is saying. We should pick a fight like Pense and Michelle are saying. The people are with us if explain to them correctly.
martin j smith| 3.29.11 @ 4:07PM
Here is the deal: Botom line, do we save our country or not. ? GWB failed to present to the nation a need to be on war footing once we were attacked on 9/11 and very serious consequences for our economy and the need to sacrifice. He also contr4ibuted to our spending disease. But BHO has done GWB several times better in that department and Harry Reid your typical Socialist Marxist blames Republicans. That is beyond stupidity. The end game is coming because it is necessary to make a decision--not put it off. If the Socialists want to blame Republicans let them. But more voters know the truth. Republicans should not emulate GWB ( who kept his moth shut when criticized ) in fact that should give BHO even more than he and his fellow travelers give them. Gloves off. Let them have it. Its the Socialists that made a bad situation much worse and on top of that look at your food and fuel and other prices ? Look at the BHO administration printing money devaluation your Dollar . No drilling here but pay Brazil to drill ? Now how ridiculous is that ?
Andrew_M_Garland | 3.29.11 @ 4:08PM
The unfunded liability of Social Security is the smallest of the major, unfunded promises of the US Government. Here is a summary of US finances. These are the amounts which would pay those promises over the next 75 years if held today and invested at 3% interest.
(billions)
7,900 Social Security
22,800 Medicare
35,300 Medicaid
9,100 Federal Debt
-------
75,100 Total Unfunded Promises
(above curent tax collections)
2,100 Federal Pensions
3,700 Veteran Benefits
1,600 All Other
-----
7,400 In current budgets
$82,500 Total Promises (billions)
$14,500 US 2010 Yearly Total Production (GDP)
$ 2,200 US 2010 Total Tax Revenue
The unfunded promises of $75,100 billion are 34 times the $2,200 billion in taxes estimated to be collected in FY 2010 (the year ending Nov 30, 2011). There is nothing saved or set aside to satisfy those promises, and there is no tax revenue now collected or saved to pay those amounts over the next 75 years; that is the meaning of "unfunded".
What if (say) Bob's family budget operated like the government, in proportion? That gives a feeling for our situation:
$50,000 Bob's Disposable Income (after tax)
$29,900 Borrowing Yearly
---------
$79,900 Bob's Yearly Spending
60% more than Bob's income
The proposed GOP cut in spending of $61 billion is just 1.8%. For Bob in proportion, it would be $1,400.
Bob's unfunded promises (in proportion) would be $1,736,00 increasing at 3% yearly, to be paid off in 75 years, over and above Bob's current, spendable income (current tax collections) of $50,000.
easyopinions.blogspot.com/2011/02/family-budget.html
Family Budget
Conserdude| 3.29.11 @ 4:28PM
The Democrats are in the driver seat, still, when it comes to the federal budget. Republicans, with only one house, can certainly slow down spending, but major reductions must await until after the 2012 election to allow the GOP to capture the Senate and the White House. Until then, they should not let the Democrats set them up, but instead bash the Democrats as irresponsible on the deficit, while refusing to do anything major about it, and campaign on it to win a mandate for 2013. Are you listening Tea Party?
Thom| 3.29.11 @ 7:05PM
What most one arm, two arm and head up their arse “economists” like Larry Summers and Paul Krugman generally don’t or can grasp is the intangibles at work (or not) in a dynamic economy. What is not seen are often times as important as or more so than what is typically measured by some statistical abstract like floods out government bureaucracy 24/7.
Understanding that “government” can often times cause the economic problems or enable them is one thing; Understanding that the solution is often times outside the power of “government” to solve and in fact often stands in the way is another one that those who make a career out of living off taxpayers are often simply not willing to accept….. to our collective detriment.
A simple illustration of why the likes of Harry Reid and the leadership of the Democrat Party can’t fix the problem with their Marxist economic efforts…..
No one but those that believe an IOU is money in an account (which is not earning a penny in interest over decades) disagrees with the statement that we are running an annual deficient of between 1.4 and 1.6 trillion or about 60% over revenue rounded up to the nearest 100 or so billion dollars. Most intellectually honest people, a scarce person among Democrats, will admit that our revenue source is overwhelmingly skewed onto top income earners. By any IRS chart you use, the top 3% of income tax payers pays about 40% of the total income tax revenue. I paid 14.7% last year and 99% of my income is a salary. People like Warren Buffet will pay say the reported 17.7% of his 46 million dollar income partly because of where they receive that income (tax free or deferred government securities) minus all the business deductions his endeavors can qualify for. Like all businesses, they don’t pay income tax, they collect it and that is no less true for someone like Warren as any other business person. For every wealthy person that pays income tax like Warren does there are several that pay enormous percentage amounts more else we wouldn’t have the upper 3% paying 40% of the income tax burden. Warrens 17.7% of 46 million in income is $8,142,000.00 or about what 1,628 people making the average income in this country would pay. Warren pays the income tax of a small town and the billions his net worth says he is worth is all paper money just like the current value of my 401K over and above what I’ve paid into it and adjusted for inflation. During the Dot.com bubble I turned over my money better than 5 times without adding a cent to the account, lost 40% of its value post the bubble and have gained it back to the tune of almost 8 times what I invested (not adjusted for inflation). Anyone who invest over the long term and has paid attention to such matters for some portion of their lives will understand the salient point of all this next.
If you take the 1.5 trillion deficient figure (or lost revenue) and divide it by the nominal number of unemployed over and above the nominal constant unemployment rate of 5% you might get a figure of say 10,000,000 workers unemployed. A few million here or there won’t make any difference to the outcome of what follows. What you get by doing this is each worker’s portion of the deficient figure they would represent if the output of their employment were the cause of the deficient. By this math each unemployed person above would represent $150,000 in taxes not paid annually or about 30 times what the average worker pays in this country. Even adjusted for the net income tax on business profits each of these people represent won’t change the thrust of this. Simply put, the revenue short fall is not a function of the loss taxes these people no longer pay…. That begs a question, where did the revenue go? Or come from in the first place?
The answer to that can be as simple or complicated as one wants to make it. It has several parts but all parts are connected to that which the Summers, Krugman and many that have advanced degrees in Barbara Streisand from places like Harvard can’t grasp or accept because it would diminish their hold and power over the masses. Adam Smith would understand and I’ve never read his Wealth of Nations.
Simply put, our current deficient situation will continue as long as the current regime is in charge of the Federal government because those with discretionary funds will not risk it, invest it or spend it all of which drives this economy to produce more wealth and thus higher revenues. Anyone who has studied economics outside to those that go to places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc understand the dynamics of our economy and the “invisible hand” that the free enterprise system depends on for robust economic growth. No robust economic growth, no revenue increase. The millions that are unemployed will stay mostly unemployed or under employed for the same reason. Psychological forces can both hinder or help our current situation. The current regime is a net negative loss in this regard. Human nature is what it is and those that think they can control it are delusional and often dangerous to the health of this Republic.
The world is not going to turn around between now and the end of 2012. Those with the funds to help revive this economy have voted a very large vote of no confidence for over two years now and the message isn’t getting through to the likes of Harry the Reiddumbass. The Marxist regime we have in Washington DC sees a crisis they don’t want to let go to waste.
I see bodies hanging from trees and their entrails feeding the wild dog population if someone does not get the message here pretty soon. No wealth generation means this nation collapses not very long down the road in time….. Every economist knows that including the ones with the head up their arse……
Alky| 3.29.11 @ 10:03PM
Why is it that Democrats are always looking for Republicans to talk to them, and be non-partisan? I've never yet in all the years I've been watching Politics, seen the Dems cross the isle and compromise with Republicans!!
Dee See| 3.29.11 @ 11:08PM
---Small time sideshows.
BTW ---where's American Spectator on the
VAST unfolding RED China-Globalist TREASON
issue?
WHERE????
WHERE???????
megapotamus| 3.30.11 @ 3:55PM
The hard numbers are certainly daunting but I'm wondering how accurate they are. When making the comparison to baseline inflation, is population growth considered? Doesn't sound like it. Certainly there would not be much improvement if such is introduced but let's keep the ledger tidy.
Bottom line though, even the $61b in cuts is far too little and way too late. The triggering event will be a failed bond issuance. QE and other balance-sheet frauds are holding this at bay for the moment. QE2 ends about July. QE3 is in the design phase. Inflation is spiking, it will only go up faster and faster, revenues have already collapsed even without the cessation of the Bush tax rates. It's all over for the greenback. I don't equate that with an end to the nation however.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:14PM
is good