....check out these conservative amendments that failed–and by how much they failed:
- Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) – 1% across-the-board cut to discretionary spending. Defeated 160-251.
- Paul Broun (R-GA) – A 3% cut to all salaries and expenses—as well as administrative costs—in the bill, for a total savings of $847 million. Defeated 137-270.
- Paul Broun (R-GA) – 12.2% across-the-board cut, exempting US Marshals, FBI, and NASA. Defeated 105-307.
- Paul Broun (R-GA) – Cuts $15 million from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program. Defeated 168-239.
- Jeff Flake (R-AZ) – Cuts the National Science Foundation to fiscal year 2008 levels, for a total savings of $1.2 billion. Defeated 121-291.
And yes, Virginia, there IS an Establishment. It's called the Ruling Class.
10 comments:
including Paul Ryan? He voted for TARP ya know...
Yes Dad, Lets see if this applies to Paul Ryan too....
Paul Broun is my congressman. He's a pretty good guy, but you should hear him back away from any suggestion that we make the kinds of cuts that really are necessary -- namely, Medicare/Medicaid cuts, or cuts to Federal pension plans.
Or cut military spending back to,say, what we spent/GDP in 2000?
Since that's "really" necessary too.
Republicans don't care about deficits Dadster. They never have. How many times must you be reminded?
Cut military spending 100% if you want -- you're talking about a program that's about $680B, about the same size as Social Security by itself; or Medicare and Medicaid together. That's today, before the Boomer retirement boosts the payout rolls substantially, and Federal pensions likewise drain the coffers. Medicare alone is likely to nearly double in cost from 2010 to 2020, when it is estimated to hit nearly a trillion bucks a year -- and it won't be stopping there.
If we don't reform those programs -- and "reform" has to include some pretty substantial cuts -- even eliminating the entire military wouldn't save the budget.
The military, in the words, "Common Defense" is specifically authorized by the Constitution. The rest? Not so much.
Obama's Budget Rejected Unanimously By Senate, 99-0
—Ace
"A balanced approach."
President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.
Democrats don't want to be on record supporting $6.4 trillion in fresh debt -- and yet they also demonize the Republican budgets (paring debt down to $3.1 trillion or under $2 trillion, spending on the plan) as "extremist."
They hate the Republican budgets -- and yet they cannot, will not produce their own.
Social Security doesn't need reform. Medicare does. We shouldn't be combining the two.
According to the CBO, the Ryan "budget" won't balance the budget until sometime between 2060 and 2080. Look at Ryan's own roadmap, figures 5-2 and 5-3. His own plan says the budget won't be balanced until sometime in the 2060s. Look for yourself.
That's, um, 50, 60, or 70 years of DEFICITS adding to the national debt. That will be many trillions of "fresh debt".
Strupp is absolutely correct on Social Security. Bump up the cap and it's solvent for 75 years or more. Don't conflate SS with Medicare.
I'm not sure it constitutes "conflating" them to merely note their size and inflating budgetary status as the Boomers retire. No more, at least, than it is "conflating" to point to military spending as a budgetary issue large enough that useful cuts could be made.
Social Security could in theory plod on for a long time with minimal adjustments; but so could the military, if the total budget weren't an issue. On the other hand, if we switched Social Security to a genuine poverty relief program for the elderly (rather than the general program for everyone that it is today) we could do even more for the elderly who live in poverty, while also freeing up billions to help figure out what to do with regard to Medicare/Medicaid.
The point is that these four programs -- Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- are the only four programs that exist on the same scale currently. Unfunded Federal pension and other retirement benefits (e.g. VA medicine) will become similarly scaled by the time the Boomers are done retiring.
We can take from the military pot, but we're going to have to balance the load between all five of these areas -- even with severe defense cuts and new taxes, there's no alternative. If you want to put Social Security to the side, that just means more severe cuts to Medicare/Medicaid.
Post a Comment