SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 11:59:50 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578925
 
To 'pay for' it would require 15 trillion, today. There is no 'paying for' it. So, why did Democrats not eliminate it with Obamacare instead of expanding the benefit?



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 12:03:42 PM
From: tejek1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578925
 
WSJ is not happy with the Rs train wreck behavior at all. They have been posting article after article critical of the Rs. Let's not forget that up until the past two weeks, the WSJ was the paper that hadn't met an R it didn't love to pieces.

The Debt-Limit Hobbits

The GOP fantasy caucus is empowering Nancy Pelosi.

Political logic and perhaps even common sense seem to be prevailing within the House GOP after Thursday's debt-ceiling vote was postponed—at least among most of the caucus. The shame is that the debt-limit absolutists have weakened Speaker John Boehner's hand in negotiating a final bill with Senate Democrats.

At the most practical level, Mr. Boehner's plan is better than the one Harry Reid supports in the Senate. This remains true of the revisions Mr. Boehner released yesterday, though the irony is that it is less credible and weaker politically than the previous version. The concession the holdouts demanded, and got—a balanced budget amendment—ensures that it cannot pass the Senate. The best but unlikely scenario is that the bill otherwise remains intact.

In the years for which claims of spending restraint are most credible—fiscal 2012 and 2013—the Boehner bill would cut $25 billion and $47 billion from the outlays that the Congressional Budget Office projected in March. Off the same baseline, the plan would cut $756 billion through 2021 in return for an initial $900 billion in new borrowing. The topline figure of $1.2 trillion in cuts that everyone cites comes by comparing the Boehner plan to CBO's "budgetary authority" estimate from January, which is far less realistic but is also the platform used in the negotiations led by Joe Biden.

Some will deride $72 billion in cuts over the next two years as nickels and dimes, and it's true it is nowhere near commensurate to the scale of the spending problem. But it's also incremental progress, which is how the American political system usually changes, and a larger real reduction in government than any time since 1995.

For comparison's sake, Paul Ryan's budget blueprint that the House passed in April would cut $74 billion in outlays over 2012-2013 and $746 billion in total over the next 10 years. Accomplishing roughly the same thing via the Boehner plan, with no new tax increases, while controlling only one-half of one branch of government, would be a major GOP achievement.

The plan also includes domestic spending caps, enforced with an automatic sequester for 10 years. Such caps could be overridden by a future Congress, but they make it harder and help to create a culture of fiscal discipline.

Another benefit is that the Boehner bill would require a second debt-limit increase of $1.6 trillion next year, with conditions. Curbing the size and growth of government is a constant struggle, and the Boehner plan creates another opening for further progress.

By contrast, the Reid plan raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion now, which effectively closes off debate until after the 2012 election. All told, it cuts spending by $2.2 trillion compared to the March CBO budgetary authority baseline—though with multiple gimmicks that include $1.044 trillion in "savings" from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will happen anyway.

Amid this "baseline" confusion, we wish House Republicans had used this debate to reform Washington's fiscal hall of mirrors. Baseline budgeting is a rigged game, with spending increasing automatically each year above the rate of inflation. Anything below that inflated baseline is then called a "cut." Even Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo took on these automatic spending formulas when he set out to tame the New York budget.

Instead of such a useful reform, a GOP faction is fixated on a balanced budget amendment. After Thursday's stall, the new Boehner plan will only authorize the second tranche of debt if two-thirds of both chambers pass such an amendment and send it to the states for ratification. This will not happen.

These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our July 27 "tea party hobbits" line on the Senate floor. Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that "it is the hobbits who are the heroes and save the land." Well, okay, but our point was that there's no such thing as a hobbit. Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile Fiscal Gestures.

The main result of this pointless crusade has been to damage Mr. Boehner's leverage and push the final debt-limit increase in Mr. Reid's direction. The Speaker may now have to seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill through the House, and who knows what her price will be.

The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn't helping their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.


Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 1:12:40 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578925
 
Video of Pelosi on the House floor.......worth the watch:


washingtonmonthly.com



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 4:30:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu4 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1578925
 
Al, > you guys want to cap spending at 20% of GDP? Revenue is at 14.8%...what's going to make up the difference?

Fine, let's cap spending at 15% of GDP.

See what I did there?

Tenchusatsu



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 4:48:04 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1578925
 
>> Yes....or pay for it...you guys want to cap spending at 20% of GDP? Revenue is at 14.8%...what's going to make up the difference?

The important point to understand is that SS and Medicare must, over time, be eliminated, or you cannot solve this problem. Even partial privatization of SS (a very small part, even) as Bush tried to do couldn't be done. And few people in this country, including you, understand the problem with these programs today.

It would be great to eliminate, e.g., the Dept of Education --- which is almost a trillion dollars over 10 years. But liberals aren't going to allow that to happen. If we get a Republican president and Republican Senate, maybe, but even then I doubt it.

Cato has proposed cuts I could definitely live with. But you try getting these through Congress and see what happens.

downsizinggovernment.org

The federal budget is a terrible disaster and if we don't stop digging we're not getting out of the hole. Yet, the Dems -- including you -- want to keep on digging.



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)7/31/2011 11:35:03 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578925
 
From the White House:

Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

  • Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
  • Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
  • Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
  • Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;
  • Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal
  • Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
  • President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
  • Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
  • Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
  • Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.
  • Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING
  • More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.
  • Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.
  • Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.
  • Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011
  • The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.
  • This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.
  • To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER
  • The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
  • Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
  • Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE
  • The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.
  • The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
  • In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

whitehouse.gov[/url]



To: Alighieri who wrote (622263)8/1/2011 7:02:43 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578925
 
you guys want to cap spending at 20% of GDP? Revenue is at 14.8%...what's going to make up the difference?

No....the original republican offer is to cap Fed Govt spending at 18% of GDP. The Dem (Udall) proposal was for 20% of GDP. The 14.8% of current GDP revenue is based on Obama self inflicted policies. The long term revenue average looks to be around 17.5% of GDP. I would be willing to negotiate (compromise) a cap up to 19.5% spending if we for starters do the following: a complete new EXTREMELY simplified tax code which gets rid of all loop holes and broadens the base while maintaining neutral $ taxation.........a complete overhaul of EPA ....balancing the needs of the environment with the needs of business (I believe the current EPA is totally out of control and I consider myself an environmentalist).......a complete overhaul of the federal bureaucratic regulatory system which is stifling economic growth. At 19.5% of GDP...the ave. short fall would be about 2% of GDP. I believe just by doing the above will put us back into at least a moderate growth 3% regime. I think additional revenues will result.....perhaps another 1% to 18.5% of GDP. The rest (1%) or $150B can be made up by a tax increase to the rich (those earning over $1 million a year (a large compromise for me). Of course, we also need a long term fix for the entitlement programs.
So now......what is your limit as to how much the Fed govt should spend as a % of GDP? Or do you have no limit?......just an open ended demand for higher and higher %s. Currently we are on a path to spend (this year) about 3.8/14.9 or 25.5% of GDP (increasing to over 30% in 5 years) .....FAR above the long term ave of about 18%. So what is your limit? What is the liberal's own self imposed limit on Federal govt. spending? Give us a number. Then tell us all how you will reach balance. My numbers drop spending to about $2.9T....a drop of $.9T....This decrease will be what the politicians will negotiate on......how to cut current programs to accomplish the decrease. I will look over the current spending distribution and give you my approach to this when I get a chance.