By the way, when looking at this it occurred to me that we will need a 2012 budget by Oct. 1st. So, we are going to have a similar drama in just 2 short months, or perhaps they will be 2 long months.
I spent much of Wednesday in a car listening to the radio where several of these Tea Party Reps were interviewed. My take-away is that they were completely nuts. It reminded me when I was young and I would debate religious people about religion. I learned the hard way that you can't argue issues of faith because at issue is FAITH.
These guys seem to be adopting a faith-based approach to political ideology. You can use logic on them all day long, but if it's outside their orthodoxy, it's bad, the political equivalent of sin, or worse. I think leadership is doing what they can, but they are like the Pope and the Protestants at the time of Martin Luther.
A week ago I would have said that they would figure out some kind of compromise, but now I agree with Ray, I don't think they're going to get it done. Complete dumbsh*ts all of them, but especially these ignorant faith-based ideologues.
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.
Based on anything they've said. Some looks familiar to me..bbauska wrote:As the BBA has not been legislated yet, it is only conjecture as to what politicos put forth. Therefore the following is opinion only...
This means a zero deficit. So without caveats, it's contradicted by the later ideasThe BBA would require the Federal government to not spent more than it takes in.
Surely all bills need a Presidential signature? Supermajorities are a great idea - given the difficulty getting a majority to pass a cutting budget already, it's a recipe for inaction. I know tax increases are unpopular, but this could hogtie the government (and mean that a small minority of members representing a smaller proportion of the population could override the will of the vast majority. 34 Senators representing 17 small states could lock the whole thing up.Taxes could not be increased w/o 2/3 approval from both houses and a Presidential signature.
8% of what? Deficits are currently about 12% of GDP, 40% of spending, 65% of income...Deficits must be decreased by 8% every year.
Did it really take Congress to have two full votes to allow a response to Pearl Harbor? Jeez, your enemies would love that kind of block on reactions! And see the above.Deficits spending is allowable if 2/3 majority of both houses approve it. (i.e. Pearl Harbor / WW2)
Well, if it's indicative of the likely BBA, I can see some problems with it.The preceding represent the views of bbauska only. We now return you to your normally scheduled programming.
Ray Jay wrote:I don't know if anyone else has clued into this. When they score the savings on these bills, it is compared to a projection of future expenses over the next 10 years. These future projections assumed inflation, including medical inflation, and population growth based on US demographics (which means more medical inflation). So the savings are relative to a rapidly increasing government spending, and not to some sort of flat line.
Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
bbauska wrote:Geo,
Are you saying that the BBA is a bad idea and idealogical?
But surely that is also applied to income projections at the same time?Ray Jay wrote:I don't know if anyone else has clued into this. When they score the savings on these bills, it is compared to a projection of future expenses over the next 10 years. These future projections assumed inflation, including medical inflation, and population growth based on US demographics (which means more medical inflation). So the savings are relative to a rapidly increasing government spending, and not to some sort of flat line.
What are the projected increases in tax income with GDP growth over the same period? Do any of the plans have a knock-on effect on GDP?Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
bbauska wrote:Do you think the Federal Government needs be have a balanced budget mandated by amendment to the Constitution?
But surely that is also applied to income projections at the same time?
What are the projected increases in tax income with GDP growth over the same period? Do any of the plans have a knock-on effect on GDP?
“We’re going to debate it. We’re going to debate it straight up. We’re not going to debate it in terms of just being a — political 30-second ads. Paul Ryan laid out their budget. Their budget eviscerates — it eliminates Medicare. They say it doesn’t. It makes it a voucher program. I call that eliminating Medicare in the next 10 years.”
— Vice President Biden, Aug. 30, 2011