Mish you are so far off the mark with your economic thoughts they are useless!!
Read this an learn!!!!
BTW this is not new,Raygun did this to insure democratic programs to help the middle class and lower class would not ever have money to fund these programs.
Incoming Democrats face fiscal minefield
Funding gaps left in programs
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The outgoing Republican Congress has placed a political time bomb for incoming Democrats: Nearly all domestic programs paid for by the federal government are level funded through mid-February with no adjustments for inflation, a situation that probably will trigger cuts or reductions in such popular areas as veterans' affairs, children's healthcare, housing vouchers, and low-income fuel assistance.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Democrats, who take control of Congress in January, will therefore have to immediately choose between restoring any lost services and their campaign pledge to control government spending. The clash could expose tensions within the party in the crucial first weeks of Democrats' leadership -- and the party's agenda could get sidetracked in a pitched battle over spending priorities.
"As the Republicans leave their control of Congress, they've decided to blow up the room," said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader. "They're leaving behind a disaster for us to deal with."
Republicans will adjourn the 2006 congressional term today without passing nine of the 11 annual appropriations bills, which cover thousands of government programs and nearly half a trillion dollars in domestic spending. Instead, Congress passed a stopgap measure that will keep government operating at a bare-bones level through mid-February -- more than a quarter of the way into fiscal 2007.
The minimum level is determined by picking the lowest of three budget figures for each agency: the amount the Senate or the House appropriated in separate votes or the amount the agency received last year. In most cases, that will be last year's budget for the program or agency.
The typical effects of level funding include delays in an agency's hiring or expansion plans, or inflation-related cuts in services. Democrats and social service groups predict a range of dire consequences: shuttered Social Security offices, a hiring freeze for FBI agents, thousands of children losing access to federally sponsored healthcare.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs budget will be particularly hard hit. The House and Senate budgeted $36.5 billion for the department in fiscal 2007, but Congress' failure to act on the spending bills will leave it funded at last year's level of $34.26 billion -- even as costs and the number of people it treats continues to rise.
That means thousands of battle-wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may have to wait longer for VA medical treatment.
Advocates for social service programs are already sounding alarms and promise to lobby Democrats to fix what the Republicans left behind.
"This is just intolerable, where things are right now," said Charles Loveless, legislative director for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Republicans initially said they would complete work on the appropriations bills during the post election congressional session. But fiscal conservatives, opposed to the thousands of earmarked pet projects stuffed into the measures, stalled the bills, and efforts to dislodge the projects failed amid squabbling between GOP House and Senate leaders.
Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate cheered that result. On its way out the door, the GOP finally succeeded in restraining federal spending -- and did so in a way that will force Democrats to make politically tough budget choices or break their campaign promises, said Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican.
"We will know very quickly next year whether they were serious about their promises," Flake said. "This is hardly a starvation diet. Most agencies will be fine."
Yet some Democrats say they would not be shy about pushing for more funding. Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat, said the public expects his party to recognize their constituents need such federal programs as Head Start and healthcare for veterans.
"We're going to try to fix the damage they're doing," McGovern said. "People expect government to provide for certain needs. . . . I'm not worried about being labeled as a big spender."
But other Democrats are. On the campaign trail before last month's elections, Democrats promised to reduce the budget deficit and institute "pay-as-you-go" budget rules -- that is, increase spending for a program only if lawmakers can find a way to pay for it. Those goals would have to be sidelined if Democrats seek to boost spending early next year.
Representative Mike Ross, an Arkansas Democrat, said voters placed Democrats in control of Congress in large part because of runaway spending and the proliferation of pet projects under Republican rule. Democrats must try to balance the budget, Ross said.
"We have to put the country on a path toward fiscal responsibility," said Ross, co chairman of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. "It's about priorities. These are decisions we have to be prepared to make."
Republicans' failure to finish their work has Democrats seething as they anticipate difficult budget votes in January and February. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the incoming majority leader, called it a "tremendous mess" that leaves his party with few palatable options.
"We have alternatives -- none of which are very good," said Reid. "One could get mad, but I'm going to try not to."
Representative David R. Obey, who is set to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, declined to say how Democrats would handle the situation.
But he said that Republicans' foot dragging would hurt President Bush since Congress will have to spend time solving the problem, leaving legislators less time to review the president's upcoming budget proposal.
In the meantime, he said, Republicans cannot blame Democrats for anything they do with the fiscal 2007 budget, since the GOP failed to act.
"If the Republicans are not willing to exercise their responsibility while they are in control, they lose all right to criticize in any way, shape, or form the matter in which we go about trying to clean up their mess," said Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat.
But some Republicans said they have granted Democrats a golden opportunity to show voters their fiscal discipline and bipartisanship. If Democrats are serious about curbing earmarks and balancing the budget, they will find plenty of Republicans who want to help, said Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican.
"I have a bunch of senators who would like to work with them on that," DeMint said. "I don't care if they get the credit for doing it or not, it just needs to get done."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
1 2
=================================
Floors, Ceilings, Camels, Straw
globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Mish |
