E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom msnbc.com's Tom Curry:
As the Congressional Budget Office made clear in comparing the deficit reduction proposals offered by House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, their plans differ in one important way: Reid’s plan would impose a fixed ceiling on funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for what CBO calls “similar activities (sometimes referred to as overseas contingency operations or OCO)”, including U.S. military operations in Yemen and Somalia.
Reid’s proposed overseas contingency cap is $127 billion for the fiscal year that starts on Oct. 1 and $450 billion over the 2013-2021.
Boehner’s plan exempts overseas contingency operations from a cap, even though it caps other discretionary spending.
The Reid proposal could reduce Afghanistan/Iraq/OCO outlays by $1 trillion, when measured against the most recent Congressional Budget Office baseline estimate.
(The CBO baseline assumes that discretionary spending grows each year in step with inflation from the amounts provided for the most recent year.)
So what would that $1 trillion amount to? About a 13 percent reduction in the 10-year total of defense spending.
Bigger money and far faster spending growth lies outside Defense Department – in spending on Medicare, Medicare and Social Security – but neither the Reid nor the Boehner plan supplies specifics on how or where that entitlement spending might be curbed or cut.
CBO has forecast that over the next ten years the defense spending – other than military retirement benefits– will grow at an average rate of 2.3 percent a year, while Medicare will grow by nearly 7 percent a year, Medicaid by 9 percent a year and Social Security by nearly 6 percent a year. These growth rates would far outpace what CBO sees as the likely annual growth rate of the economy.
Both Boehner and Reid plans would establish a new congressional committee on deficit reduction.
Reid’s task for that committee: find a way to reduce the budget deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product (instead of the 9 percent of GDP it was last year.) Boehner’s task for the committee: come up with another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction by end of November.
That almost certainly some curbs on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growth.
But CBO did not attempt to estimate the size of cuts in entitlement spending that the new committee would be able to come up with. No one can predict at this point what proposals that committee might develop, or what Congress might pass.
Hence the bond ratings agencies would have a difficult time assessing how credible any entitlement spending curbs would be.
Leave a Comment:
Both sides playing their personal versions of "3 card monte" with the #'s for the CBO..
Another committee? What's wrong with the reports issued by Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Six Plan? Both bi-partisan and the plans are both balanced. Seems like a giant waste of time.
Did I miss something or did discretionary spending cuts include U.S. military operations in Yemen and Somalia?
We have military operations in Yemen and Somalia?
You are right Danger - $4 billion a day and increasing, yet no attempt to address the debt drivers.
Not like it's a secret. Out in the open but very unpopular.
Going to take real leadership to fix this, and sadly there are none to be found.
It's cool cause by 2020 debt service will consume almost the whole thing anyway.
I LOVE this one.
Time to make up your minds, Republicans.
Are you hawks, or are you doves?
Anna Molly..
Hawks, doves? I thought this was a game of chicken?
Chickenhawks, for sure. ;-)
Both sides are holding on to "a wing and a prayer" and the whole business is totally for the birds...
For anyone possibly interested, Sen. Mark Warner, VA is delivering a very poignant and powerful message on the Senate floor. Live on C-SPAN2 now.
C'mon, Majority Leader Reid...
No one's buying the savings from the winding down of military action in Afghanistan...way too many uncertainties and variables.
Still...run it up the flagpole, and see who salutes, right Harry?
Unfortunately...the CBO isn't saluting.
Try again.
Speaker Boehner has, and you'll be hearing from him shortly.
MB-
I believe that the speaker has had his own problems with the CBO, hasn't he?
Seems to me like they all can get away saying;
"I was told math would not be a part of this exam"...:)
Savvy Senior, MD-2017663
For anyone possibly interested, Sen. Mark Warner, VA is delivering a very poignant and powerful message on the Senate floor. Live on C-SPAN2 now.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
If you missed it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyEc7FAMTg
dangerfield and Mixed Bag..
Nor public speaking based on his speech the other night.
Seriously. without the specific amounts that entitlements will be cut, how can the OMB assess the plan?
It's half a loaf just using defense spending. Entitlements need to be included and it seems we're back to more committees when we already have 2 excellent reports on how to accomplish debt reduction that has bi-partisan support...at least in the Senate.
If only there was someone out there, a leader, who could come in and demand entitlement reform. To demand that the cuts be real and amount to more than than a month's worth of new debt accumulation. [$120 billion]
If only. Anyone know of any leaders out there? Someone who could convene a top notch debt commission to make the hard calls, then actually use the commission's report?
Anyone at all?
Spank..
Wait a minute...
I know this one.
Uhhh...
How much time do I have..?
Doggone it...
It's on the tip of my tongue...
Isn't it odd that Reid's so called debt/budget plan has a line item in it titled "Winning the Lottery"?
Considering the cost in Iraq alone topped $1trillion, I think it's a good start. Reid's plan makes more sense where waste is concerned.
My gosh, here's another one! "Return deposits on old Coke bottles".
Has the CBO got done scoring all this yet?
I'll give you a hint Mixed - probably not the guy hanging out in the rear, ignoring the Simpson Bowles report.
At this point seems we are looking at a short term fix. So do they punt off a one month $120, or a two month $240 billion increase?
Is there anyone out there [again rhetorical for my friend AM] that looks at the size of those numbers and the durations involved and is not flabbergasted?
Yeah, that's the road to prosperity alright. Blowing through $4 billion per day? No problem, nothing to see here, all is under control.
Now just think if Pelosi were still in charge. I hate Obamacare, but in the grand scheme I'll take it as the necessary evil to get us here, cause if she were still Speaker the Ceiling would be at what, $20 trillion already?
No Jimmy Stewart fans here I guess...I thought it was a pretty good joke too, not to mention apropos...
The deficit was created first and foremost by the wars, the Bush tax cuts (especially the 2003 breaks for the rich), and the prescription drug plan. So it stands to reason that these areas, such as capping the cost of the wars, are the first place to start in balancing the budget.
Aside from Social Security not being related to the deficit, it's bad enough the budget has been unnecessarily tied to the debt ceiling by the GOP/TP--which is money owed for PAST spending (mostly debt incurred during Bush/Cheney) and not FUTURE spending, but entitlements definitely should not be tied to the debt ceiling, certainly not with short, false deadlines to hold the nation hostage.
The far-right ideologues that are now the Republican Party operate from irrational emotion. No doubt Rove tears his hair out everyday at the lack of "strategery." It's not even commonsense to drag out the debt ceiling fight at the expense of our credit rating and economic recovery.
Spanky..
You keep saying..."Yeah, that's the road to prosperity alright. Blowing through $4 billion per day"
The debt ceiling is raised to cover payment of existing debts....debts that were incurred by legislation of Congress...that have come due. It is not for NEW spending.
You know that the US is on a cash basis not accrual method of accounting. The obligations that are coming due each day were incurred in the past and are being paid now. If they were accrued for at the time they were incurred, our debt would be substantially higher.
Once again, every single penny being paid was approved by legislation and passed by both Houses of Congress. Old debt coming due.
Have a great night.
Spanky..
...and Congress...especially the TP..wants to renege on debts they passed into legislation.
That's beyond stupid and hypocritical but it is our dysfunctional Congress.
What, you don't know, Spankster? You don't know who he or she is or where he is?
So, you'd rather sit back and thumb your nose at the current President who is trying to get a deal done when Congress on their own seems unwilling to compromise?
I guess you're not the adult in the room either.
...and do you know why actually acting on Simpson-Bowles would have been impossible? Because it called for tax increases.
Oh, that pesky Norquist pledge that the Republicans signed!
Certainly provisions can be written into any legislation that allows for the short term float that pays for existing debt, like the paying off of and purchasing of replacement debt.
But the government has grown, both within discretionaryspending and mandatory spending, and borrowed dollars have been used to fund those areas of government. Those borrowed dollars were immense when Bush was President, running $650 billion a year. Obama super-sized it, it's nor over $1.5 Trillion a year. The result is that the debt of the country is out of control.
The government needs to be held accountable, to show the country how and what they are spending the Peoples money on. It is Congresses and the President job to have open discussions on why they need more money to operate our government. Not doing so just encourages and continues the $4 billion in deficit spending done every day.
Well, true or not Noid, Obama and I are currently similiarly situated, eh? Neither of us are in the room where the plans are being negotiated.
Viva Norquist. Too bad you dems, although holding the WH and the Senate can't seemed to do a damned thing about your latest evil boogey-man Norquist.
But Noid I thought the evil bogey-man were the Kochs?
Ira - they are all idiots. They obviously lack responsibility to be in charge of the money.
Heck just look at the genius we had in charge to the tax code.
It's like a chapter 11 - cutting back. Painful, yet necessary.
JoAnnaSmith1..
Not quarreling with debt control plans at all. Again...and this time in blood...I am for either the Smpson-Bowles Plan or the Gang of Six Plan. Both due exactly what you said.
My argument was the statement that Spanky keeps making about blowing through XXX dollars per day. It's not NEW debt its OLD debt that we incurred and are now refusing to pay.
It's about paying you bills,,,bills that came to pass by legislation approved by both Houses of Congress.
Spanky makes it sound like Obama is spending $400 billion a day. It's just not true.
When will the Metaphysically Evil, Party of No, take responsibility for not spending a cent (on the books), for an illegal war.
I didn't add a question mark because the "question" is rhetorical.
Several good comments imo, with TruePatriot hitting BINGO. Wonder if they'll consider raising the contribution limit on Social Security or instituting a means test when they tamper with it.
its amazeing Speaker Boehner and his party has said for the last 2 months they had a plan now it appears that there plan was just madeup overnight with lots of errors in it so they had to go back and fix the BIG PLAN .. where are the JOBS Boehner and the tp/gop
"I was told math would not be a part of this exam"...:)
I love that quote. But I don't think it was Jimmy Stewart who said it.
And why didn't the author of this article even mention the (approx) $ 1,000,000,000,000 spent on Mr. Obama's War #3, or is that Humanitarian Assistance, in Libya ?
Just a minor detail.
independentjim......The jobs are what Mr. Obama has a laser beam on since early 2009, it is jobs Mr. Obama thinks about when he goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning since early 2010, the unemployment rate will remain at or below 8% if the Stimulus package is passed (failure), the Omnibus should take care of the unemployment problem (failure), or Mr. Bernankes first ever done QE $ 600,000,000,000 will boost the economy, reduce unemployment, and stabilize prices (failure).
Yeah, you mean those job initiatives !!!!
Maybe you should call Mr. Reid's office and ask why he has been sitting on legislation without presenting to the floor for vote(s).
Wow! Reid's target of reducing deficit spending to 3 per cent of GDP would guarantee entitlement reform. Along with a lot of other reforms. And it would increase focus on expanding the tax base (creating more jobs). Plus war spending would be cut which guarantees that the US would withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately Reid's plan would also bring the sitcom governing style to an end. Even though it sets tougher goals and obviously would reduce long term government spending - there is absolutely, positively no way this will make it through the House. The TEA Party would lose their Nielsen ratings.
Reid is actually more of a leader than I thought. Good job, Harry!
Really? And destroying our struggling economy will teach the Government a lesson? ...Really? Do you honestly believe that? Isn't that a little like "I'm pissed at the bank for my mortgage interest rate...so I'll burn my home to the ground to spite them"? Failure to raise the debt ceiling will not hurt politicians. They might not get reelected (depending on how much money they can receive from special interests), but it's the American people that will be harmed. But I guess if you intend to play terrorist and blow us all up (including your own family) for "principles", it is what it is!
When they show you who they are...believe them!
Nerm,
If Reid's budget did those things and had controls in place to make sure they actually happened in the next 10 years, I could probably support it. But, I'll wait until I see details before I make a decision.
Ol_Doc,
I agree that failure to raise the debt ceiling would be very, very bad for everyone. However, continuing to borrow and spend like we are could be worse in 5 or 10 years when the world finally decides to stop funding our excesses.
Personally, I hate the idea of future generations paying my bills and I'd rather take a hit now than push my bills of on our children and grand children. I do think the debt ceiling should be raised, but only after we have a real plan with real enforcement mechanisms to eliminate the deficit in the next 10 to 15 years. I'd be ok with a 3 or 4 month temporary funding of the deficit to get this bill written, but I'm not ok with pushing this discussion to after the 2012 elections...that's just continuing to push the can down the road.
How can the Public support or reject any of these plans without knowing what is on the line and how much? They are playing with a blank check.....That we, unfortunately, gave them. Who would have believed that there was a time that we thought that our politicians were working for us and cared about their country more than what is in their pants...and pockets?
The republicans need to end their irresponsible, big-spending ways and agree to cut the deficit by cutting defense spending.
Too bad neither the Boehner or Reid plans can pass.
So what's next Obama? Surely you have so plan in mind.
The buck stops here and all.
Gee, maybe the House and Senate have to...*GASP*...compromise after all.
Spanky..
I think you're right, neither Boehner or Reid plans can pass...
Whats left...McConnell-Reid vs. default
Take the Parliamentary procedure and be done with this.
Spanky....... Really! Spanky and you want someone to listen to you I hear you complaining but I do not hear suggestions beyond slamming the president. That all you got
Uh, no. It really doesn't stop at him or any other President for that matter. You have 400+ votes in the House and 100 in the Senate. Nothing matters what any President likes or dislikes. If it passes neither Chamber individually or survives joint negotiations it's never going to get to the WH.
Your childish regurgitation of who has a plan, who has a plan is dumb. There are 58 thousand friggin plans everywhere, but nearly 550 people need to vote to a majority and that number includes the President.
Hell, you want Obama to have a plan...yet you don't want him in Office next year. Where are the plan(s) of the GOP candidates who you believe will replace him? Why do you keep asking for a decades long fiscal approach from the guy who you think will be gone in a year?
Tell your boys and girls to step up since you're fully convinced the President hasn't and by your expectation won't even be there to see the task be fully completed.
Allen, I agree. If this was an audition for letting the Republicans have more power, they flunked it. They can't even govern themselves, between the Tea Party and the "regular" Republicans, how would they govern the whole country without us falling into anarchy?
Allen- Omaha
Your asking to much now from Spanky,,,,,,,, he got no game except complain. Ideas or plans are for those that can think beyond navel fuss
Love your post, Allen. Never before in our history has there been serious question over raising the debt ceiling and never before has it been demanded that the President figure out ways to do what is Congress' job yet all they say is where is the plan.
Steeler fan,
Do not forget the Repubicans plan is to force the President into making a plan so they can blame him for the problem of not fixing it with his plan and make him a one term pres. Why do the job when you can get someone else to do it for you and then they can take the fall if it does not work which you ensure will happen by never supporting the plan. Simple and petty.
Steeler - and never before in history has the debt been in excess of $14 Trillion. And never before in history has the credit rating of the US been at risk.
So what's your point - status quo? Just raise the ceiling, as if that and not the debt is the problem.
Allen "my boys" have a couple of plans. The Tea Party plan, which I like, is no raise in the ceiling. Take the pain now, and stop passing the buck. The republican plan is Cut cap and balance - got some dems in the House and missed passage in the Senate by merely 5 votes.
Either way I want cuts now. Period, real cuts to entitlements, defense and every thing else. Heck I want cuts back to $2.5 trillion. I want solvency.
But tell us Allen how do you, in negotiating a multi-party deal do that when one or more of the other parties has no plan? See I never, ever negotiate with myself. It never works and only sets a floor.
Tis - you nailed it, but since the republicans have now two plans and Obama has now, you got it exactly backwards.
Spank-
If President Obama has a plan, even our own Chuck Todd couldn't pry it out of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
Might as well be pulling teeth.
I gotta give Chuckie T points for trying, though.
You mean like when President Bush had the foresight to realize that Social Security was failing and needed to be reformed? At last look, Congressional Democrats demagogued the Bush plan for weeks until Bush finally withdrew the proposal. Now, with Obama admitting that "Those SS checks just might not go out" we see the vision of Bush and how he was correct in his attempt to reform that program.
Obama has always talked about controlling the deficit. He just never bothered to actually do anything about it. With the GOP winning the House, they as earlier as January of this year said the debt ceiling will be used as leverage to reform the federal governments spending. Obama laughed at them, and submitted a budget with $1.65 trillion in deficit spending in it. Paul Ryan developed a FY2012 budget with long term reforms to entitlements in it. The GOP House passed it. The Senate said no to it. Obama's Debt Commission recommended $3 in cuts to every $1 in new taxes. Obama ignored that too. The House passed bill after bill for the budget and the debt ceiling, only to have Obama threaten vetos, and the Senate not even to take up the bills.
Obama's plan? The Democrats plan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They have wasted every ones time knowing this day would come, and they have done nothing. And Obama still says no to every GOP plan. The man just does not have a clue.
@JoAnnaSmith1
There is a lot of the cluelessness going around. The Progressive Democratic Caucus published a plan back in April. You don't have to agree with it, but at least acknowledge that Democrats have put forward a plan.
Obama's "secret plan".
Obama need that money desperately for his next "stimulus".
If that doesn't get the unemployment numbers down, then he will have wasted another Trillion to try to get re-elected.
After this debt debate is finished, Obama and Moochelle will really need a mega-vacation to ease all the stress.
Spanky and JoAnna, it is amazing how you can twist the facts and the narrative to be something they are not.
The Democrats HAVE submitted plans. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist. The Senate has voted on various plans. Just because the outcome wasn't the one you wanted doesn't mean it didn't happen. Most times, the lines were drawn before votes could even be taken. Both Ryan's and Boehner's plans have too much agenda in them.
You want to talk about entitlement reform? The Health Care bill IS entitlement reform. Or at least it was before the congress mangled and crippled it. It's still better in the long run than what went before it.
Dave, I do apologize, you are correct. The Progressives to their credit did put a detailed plan together. It gained no traction of course in the GOP House. Either way, the Democratic lead Senate should have acknowledged its existence with an up/down vote.
The Democrats have floated ideas here and there, but nothing that could be considered an overall plan. What is disturbing is that the Demcorats, the Senate Democrats, cannot for the life of them put together a plan that will pass in the Senate chamber. My take is that the Senate doesn't want to go on the record for what the Democrats believe in, that is, more taxes with more spending.
spanky has no clue even his name SPANKY is a give away ..a kid with no idea of how grown ups act...maybe he is a junior teabagger ..lets hope that someday he grows up and becomes a real person
Sean,
Yes, but the values would have come roaring back, too. Had Bush's plan been implemented, many of the young people would have their social security dollars safe, warm and cozy in their own personal accounts and away from the grimy extended fingers of the negotiating table. They wouldn't be worrying about Congress reallocating their future security to deficit spending projects.
Ryan's plan, by the way had a guarantee on those private accounts - so market calamity wouldn't matter. Wouldn't it be nice not be worrying about that right now?
Candice - Hahahaha <snort> haha! I was reading through the usual drivel from other right-wingers, but you post takes the cake.
Allen "my boys" have a couple of plans. The Tea Party plan, which I like, is no raise in the ceiling
You have to raise the ceiling. The money has already been mandated and spent via the budget. It's like buying a car on credit and deciding not to pay for it.
How many dress rehearsals are we going to have to go through before the play actually starts?
If given a choice, I'll opt for Reid's plan with a cap on war funding rather than cuts to spending in the USA. Isn't it time we Nation build at home, invest in this country?
Looks like a "no-brainer" for Congress to approve Reid's. They wanted a fight over military involvement so they could have their input before hostilities... Reid's proposal all but insures that with its cap on OCO. Come on! Are you going to flip-flop on that too, Congress?
Do you think they should give the debt ceiling a clean up and down vote and then adopt the framework of the Gang of Six? Seems a whole lot simpler than running around the halls of the Capital like a bunch of freshly slaughtered chickens.
Agreed! Let's hear it for the idea of getting out of the "war business" and Reid's plan called for a reduction of spending as a % of the GDP, a much more workable & flexible solution than Boehner's slash & burn!
Lets just have more committee's, that always solves the problems.
I think we should form a committee to investigate whether we need so many committees...
Not as stupid,
But then you need a committee on creating the new committee to over see the first committee
The committee will appoint a study commission -- a blue ribbon panel composed of some of the best bureaucratic minds in the country.
Congress will immediately ignore the commission's recommendations and take up rival positions on a trivial point having to do with whether carry-out lunch in the Congressional dining room should be served in plastic or paper containers. Some junior staffer will become frustrated, and the ritual sacrifice will occur.
The goat will be got.
Nothing new here. Nothing is EVER new.
Anna Molly,
PERFECT!!! I bow to your superior mind.
LoL Not at all, Tis. Not at all.
We really need a committee to set up a study commission to study the brain functions of those who want to set up committees.
Better throw in a "committee Czar" while were at it. Maybe a committee creation agency would be a great way to spend more dollars.
When you are doing your taxes, ever notice how conscientious you are?? Let's see.....should I round off that dollar?? Or give them the change too??
Then, when Washington gets your hard earned dollars, notice how flippantly they just throw it all away.
Reids plan is ok less the committee stupidity. Since it only goes through 2012 I'm sure it is counting the new revenue after 2012 when all tax rates go back up to normal. I think that is a must. All tax deductions from the Bush era to end. That will help us recover and thrive.
AnaBanana,
Nope, that is boehner's plan. Boehner's plan installs a committee, and has two stages. Reid's plan goes beyond 2013, so this won't interfere with Obama's campaign.
Reid's plan is full of gimmicks....not to be taken seriously. Dead on Arrival.
As for Obama's plan........Well,..........Yeah...........I'm quite sure he has one...............maybe it's a secret. You know....really hush hush.
Well Edward... ummm, yeah, it's congress's JOB to come up with the plans that are presented to the President! Beohner's, Reid's, The Gang of Six, whomever. And Beohner's plan didn't even cut a T from the deficit after it was analyzed!! That's why they're going back to revise it again!!!
Actually Nora,
Reid's "plan" cut about $500 Billion less than Boehner's plan.
Harry Reid's plan is designed to give a blank check to his messiah, and delay repercussions till after the 2012 elections.
I find it funny that BOTH plans call for a deficit commision to come back with recommendations for additional cuts.
Isn't that what SIMPSON-BOLES was? Wouldn't another deficit commision pretty much come to the same conclusions? Are Reid and Boehner thinking that this time around, they will be more serious about deficit reduction or something?
Seeing that we are looking at a muligan on the Simpson-Boles recommendations, can we ( the american people ) get either our money back for the time and effort on Simpson-Boles -OR -get a clear , detailed accounting on how much that commision cost us so that we can take a good look at Washington waste, abuse and spending?
If we cut all of the domestic programs and still spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined and then remove the progressivity of the tax code, then maybe we will veer full steam into fascism. We are certainly flirting with the concept. The tea party mantra is no money for anything but bombs. And, of course, make the dwindling middle class pay for the bombs. Why cap war when it is the only thing that gets Bachmann and Pawlenty up in the morning? Prisons and Wars!! REPEAT! Prisons and Wars!! I'm sure Governor Perry subscribes to that as well. Except he would like to spend alot more on the death penalty. Mass executions might be his first recommendation for cost control. Why everything else is just balderdash - social engineering.
Beyond Democrat,
I'm a Tea Party member, and I don't like war.
I think you are Beyond sane. See a shrink soon.
How about this for a thought. We take care of our people and country FIRST, then help the world with what is left. This is not to say we separate from the world but just take care of our own as first priority for a change, then help others as we can. If we do not take care of us first we will not remain to help the others.
My Bad!
Dear Government,
As we use to say in the 1970s, "Get you S-#-!-T together!!!"
a country for 235 years and at war for 209 years. 1 or the other has to end this madness
lb68
The question is how to end the madness
War is good business for some. Paycheck here and blood and guts and splattered brains on the wall over there.
Alsophita Theophilos:
Ahhh... The Ferengi's 34th Rule of Aquisition. It makes sense now. But we canot forget the 35th Rule also: Peace is good for business.
Try not to mix those up.
LOL
Actually we've used wars to kick start the economy in many cases down through the years.
Only problem is Nora...It was a morons wars that did just the opposite
well i guess i was lookin at it in the wrong way, how bout 'a country for 235 yrs, at war for 209 yrs' we must be doing something right
This is what happens when you try and tackle a whole sequence of complex budgeting issues and tie it to a totally arbitrary deadline. You get bad results.
The debt-ceiling should be raised immediately by both houses so we quit disrupting the markets.
The Congress should set a schedule for agreeing to certain revenue and spending targets before the end of the year.
And then Congress should actually start doing some BIPARTISAN work for a change to start helping the American people.
.
That would never happen by choice. Congress only acts when there's a crisis or emergency. Give them enough time and they will be happy to avoid hard decisions and simply "kick the can." They need to take this opportunity to get something real done. Do you really want to be having this same debate again 6 months from now?
This is one time they shouldn't let a crisis go to waste.
I really appreciate that Reid has capped the military spending for current wars and hostile actions. One trillion saved there is a substantial amount.
I also like that the CBO 'grades' legislation objectively so that we know that Boehner couldn't even remember that he already succeeded getting $250 billion in cuts last spring but then forgets to subtract that amount from the cuts he's proposing this time around. He looks inept.
All of which keeps Reid in the driver's seat.
Following this process (or lack of) is making my head spin. Fascinating, but frustrating. Rejection of reason has left us to look forward to some hyper-partisan stop gap plans (like Reid's and Bohener's) that will benefit no one and create new problems.
Simpson-Bowles made sense. So did the Gang of Six (love that moniker..)
I will be out of computer, television, phone, and newspaper range tomorrow through Sunday. That'll make catching up on all the next few day's developments that much more exciting!
Defense spending is out of control and I doubt we're seeing actual numbers. I was reading it is like 700 billion per year and the intelligence spending is so huge they are unable to track it. I see it now costs $500,000 just to pack and ship a chinook copter on a C-5 transport. Unbelievable. Has to end.
United States military spending is more than the next seven nations combined. United States spending on social safety net programs LAGS other developed nations. Which one should we cut ... the one where we outspend the entire world ... or the one where we trail (almost) the entire world?
By the way, it was Bush's military adventurism combined with his ill-advised tax cuts that caused the Great Recession, led to the first trillion dollar deficit and turned the country from Clinton surpluses into looming default.
CUT THE MILITARY.
I saw John McCain Ask General Dempsey what a big cut in military spending over ten years (maybe $1 trillion) would do to US military readiness. Dempsey could not comprehend the harm it would do.
Obama and Panetta should fire Dempsey immediately. US spending for "national security" is a black hole of waste and futility. Republicans in the House passed a record military appropriation of $637 billion at a time when we are virtually unopposed and in a time of financial austerity. What are they thinking? Have they lost their minds? Are Republican politicians getting kickbacks and campaign contributions from "defense" contractors?
We are being asked to eat a huge turd sandwich by the Republican side.
We have easily identified long term issues - an aging population (which needs retirement funding and health care), and health care costs that out pace the cost of inflation. Nothing currently being discussed really addresses these two issues. Most approaches simply want to reduce the outlays and leave it as every man for himself. It is very easy to point to the fact that the FICA tax base is narrower than it was in 1983 when Reagan reformed social security funding. In other words, the total of all income earned has shifted to higher wage earners so that instead of FICA impacting 90 of all earned income, it impacts only 84 percent. Raising FICA to cover this difference puts social security on a firmer footing. OK, people should work longer. But work longer where? There aren't enough jobs now, and paying out less in SSB won't change that fact. Medicare costs are going through the roof. But is the answer that doctors, hospitals and drug companies earn too much? Can we as a country no longer support a class that commands earnings beyond the rate of the general growth in the economy? Maybe we should fund the education of more doctors to bring down the total wages.
Unnecessary or ineffective healthcare is estimated to be 1/3 of the total US healthcare burden. That is 900 billion a year compared to the Republican House appropriation of $637 billion. Military spending is much more that a drop in the bucket, but it isn't so much compared to the burden of wasteful, inneffective healthcare.
Yes, we need more doctors and PAs. Yes, they should earn less. Why do doctors make so much money? Who values procedures and treatments that utilize medical equipment that has been paid for many times over? Yes, when we insure against health problems in an overpriced, over-valued healthcare regime, we are bound to get monumental waste and insurance fraud. Why are we not more protected from unnecessary treatments, outrageous drug costs, over-compensated physicians and over-compensated hospitalization?
Listen to the well-funded uproar you hear the next somebody suggests it might be time for the government to regulate US healthcare more forcefully.
Wm.
I agree. OASDI taxes haven't been raised since 1983. I don't think too many would mind increasing that tax by a percent or two or three. I'd be okay with paying a little more over cutting benefits. It's unbelievable what Medicare won't pay for now.
With the threats of cutting reimbursements and increasing malpractice insurance, why would people want to put out all that money to go through all that school to become doctors? I think as part of doctor's education requirements, they should have to put in so many hours at free clinics. That would get some healthcare to the poor. And lower everyone else's costs.
Raising the eligibility age for both Medicare and Social Security is a bad idea. Are labor intensive workers like those in construction supposed to work until they're 67?
Agreed. Age discrimination happens a lot more in the workplace than what is reported. If you are 60 and you just have been let go, who is going to hire you? By that age, healthcare costs start to creep up for a lot of people. Businesses see them more as liability than an asset.
I just read in an article from the Commonwealth Fund, that per capita medical costs are now close to $8K per year--far outspending all other nations. And not only that, we get much worse health outcomes than other countries! We have a higher infant mortality rate than some of what we consider "Third World" or developing nations. Americans should be outraged! A huge driver of the costs in health care come from insurance companies for profit. Between them and big pharm--those are the worst of the worst. A one-payer system would reduce the costs for all. The administrative costs for Medicare are about 7-10% while those of private insurance companies range in the 30-35%. So really, what is more efficient? We can spend trillions of dollars on war and bombs and big "defensive" toys so that we can run around bullying the rest of the world? I would prefer that we kept our taxes at home and spent it on our own country and our citizens!
Can't start wars with a limited budget.
We can't afford assymetric warfare either. It costs us $1,000,000 a year to put a pair of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bad guys work for food. The Pentagon is happy about that, glad that we have superior firepower. It doesn't give a rat's hinney that we are going down the financial toilet.
Someone should fire Dempsey's ass and find a Chief who knows how to do more with a lot less.
I think most of you miss the point that Dems have offered up cuts that exceed what republicans are asking for, but they want no part of it unless they can start a financial assault on S.S.,medicare, and medicaid. The total cuts is secondary to the start of dismantling these three things that they hope will curb support for obama. There are cuts that can be made in medicaid/medicare without lower coverage like for one, negotiating realistic prices on prescriptions and not have us locked in to the highest prices when the fed is the biggest costumer. How about letting the tax BREAK for the top 2% expire as they should have already, being that the top 2% were the only one's to benefit from them and haven't invested in job creation as Bush and the GOP claimed. If they were going to create jobs, they would have 10 years ago. Heavily tax companies that have outsourced manufacturing jobs but want to bring those products back into the country to sell. Stop lending to the big banks, we get nothing from those investments, and lend directly to small businesses. Stop trying to police the world and make big cuts to defense. It's more economical and efficient to secure our borders properly. And get big corporate money out of the political arena. Corporate money in politics serve big corporations only.
the democrats aren't good at counting. just look at the long list of politicians and obama officials who conveniently forgot to pay their taxes until they were caught.
Look at the long long, really long history of republicans who have no care for fiscal responsibility until they're out of power. Can't really argue the point with people who think G.W.Bush was genius though. Could you imagine him on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader"? Time for a hysterical laughing break...literally Laughing Out Loud here!
BrainCandy, yes, granting Corporate personhood as the Supremes did in the Citizens United case (over the magnificent dissent written by Justice Stevens) was perhaps the final nail in the coffin of our democracy. The old Monarchs have risen as the new Plutocrats.
Ok show me the list. Then I will check your list to see if you are telling the truth or if you are lying.
Personally I don't think you know what you are talking about and have repeated something you heard from somebody else who heard it from somebody else etc.
Ummm Jay, Have you watched the news over the past 2 decades? Have you seen what republicans have said out of their own mouths and voted on? Have you seen the pork they've added to bills to get their vote? If you actually listen to the republican politicians themselves, there's no need to get the information second hand. And it's easy to convince people like yourselves of anything they want you to BELIEVE because you just hear the campaign rhetoric, without comparing it to what they say on the floor of congress. Or even Faux News for that matter.
Example.
Have you heard the recent talk by the GOP on how Obama's health care reform gave so much to the private insurance companies? Have you seen where they try to place the blame for those increased costs? Now rewind back to when the big debate over the legislation was raging...Do you remember republicans on Faux News everyday for months claiming how Obama was trying to put private insurers out of business with the Public Option portion of his health care bill, and that they wanted it removed and the private insurers given a bigger role in the legislation or they would oppose it?
The GOP thrives off of your SHORT & SELECTIVE memories. It's amazing how many things they tell you directly and how easy you still go along with them shifting the blame.
Brain candy I was talking to "use your brains" but thankyou for your input.
Give me oil, lots of oil, under sunny skies above . . .
By all means cut the military as Reid has proposed, but throw the entitlements in as well. Average the cuts for all programs that do not "directly" produce jobs so everyone feels the pain. Do this this in such a manner as to show the world that we have a well thought out plan to reign in our spending to a percent of our GDP of around 17%. Once we have done this the economy will begin to rebound as businesses small and large see that we are serious about restoring American financial credibility in the world. We need to put teeth in the restriction of percentage of spending to annual GDP that any Congress can authorize. Once that is ensured the legislators can battle for what pieces of the pie are available for spending in any given year.
Do you find cutting military spending to be painful?
Revise this: Okay, so here is my take. I mean there is just so much “stuff” going on between parties that the simplicity has been lost. I say we, the people, send the house and senate a Bill – our bill. This is what we, the people (or how did President Abe Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg address: “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”) provide the road, not the map, to compromise (4 Democrats) / common ground (4 Republicans). 1. Americans, Democrats and Republicans get to = Cut spending – everything, I mean on everything (every swinging program and no more pet projects for congress!) 2. Americans, Democrats and Republicans get to = draw down and end all wars and occupations, period, by August 2013 3. Republicans = entitlement reform for efficiency and effectiveness, but not a gut of programs that are of, for and by the people and 4. Democrats = tax reform, for efficiency and effectiveness, to include ending the Bush Tax Cuts and producing revenue that invest in America’s future (jobs through education, technology, infrastructure) All numbers included within the 4 areas should be one for one because everybody gets something and nobody gets everything. There – simple.
READ THIS AMERICA YOU THINK WE HAVE A DEBT PROBLEM?? YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BIG!!
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is CREDIBLE and one of the few honest politicians left in government.
Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke (pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning. What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION) had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious —the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs. To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world. In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
“This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” – Bernie Sanders(I-VT)
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability. Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses can be stopped with five dollars worth of bullets. [Regardless of whether this money is fiat money (money printed with nothing of value to back it), if it is a currency forced on society and the world, with enforcement by the Fed, IRS, the U.S. military, et al, --which it is-- the acts of the Federal Reserve are, in essence, the transfer of greater wealth to the rich insider banks and corporations, while the rest of the world grows poorer, and as the value of this funny money grows less and less in purchasing power. These insider banks, etc., then, exchange this funny money for gold and silver, the real wealth of the world, which, then, reinflates the world with more and more devaluing federal reserve notes. This, then, creates hyper-inflation, increasing the cost of all resources and commodities, while gold and silver climb to never-seen-before levels of value. This is how the Federal Reserve insiders steal the wealth of the world and why the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's the world's largest Ponzi scheme! The Federal Reserve is nothing but a front for a small group of families who run a very large and successful white collar criminal Ponzi scheme. This criminal institution should be seized by the U.S. Treasury department and all assets frozen, and returned to the coffers of the U.S. Treasury in order to settle the U.S. debt and help begin to balance the U.S. deficit. All banks (listed below) should be forced to return the money received by the Federal Reserve. All families in ownership of the Fed and their agents should be located, caught, tried and jailed for grand larceny and treason against the people of the U.S.A. All government agents who protect and help facilitate this criminal organization should be fired from the positions and similarly tried and jailed for grand larceny and treason. Meanwhile, Congress should return our country to its original monetary system (Lincoln greenbacks backed by precious metals) and, again, do its duty to regulate the coining of the currency of America as per the U.S. Constitution.] The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
--
Capitalism inevitably leads to the creation of an aristocratic class. When money can be used for political power the wealthy will ALWAYS use that power to rig the system in their favor. We hear an awful lot about the evils of socialism and communism, but not the things that capitalism does to us. i.e. family's losing homes, kid going hungry, the lost potential of poor kids who don't get an education, people dying for lack of medical care, people losing everything that they worked for so some fatcat on wall street will make a bigger bonus. We didn't leave the middle ages behind politically we just changed the title of our feudal overlords from baron to ceo.
no truer words have ever been spoken, welcome to american serfdom
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama doesn't have the leadership skills, interest or stones to do anything about it. He just wants to keep spending the funny money they print and then some.
Liberalgunowner
Have you ever lived under a communist system? I have. Although capitalism is not perfect, no system is, I’ll trade places with you. I immigrated to the US and became a US citizen because I believe capitalism is way superior to communism. I don’t take freedom lightly. I challenge you to move to a communist nation and experience what you and John Lennon love so much. If you still feel the same after living there say ten years, stay and apply for citizenship. No one should live where he is not happy and curse its founding principles.
US could cut military spending by 75%. The greatest enemy of the American people is Supply Side Economics. The War For Profit Cartels. And the US Congress for absolutely refusing to Audit The War Funding from 2001 to present.
Absolutely correct! This is capitalism at it's worst. Profiting off of war is both sickening and immoral. Murder for the sake of money should be a crime in the World Court. Thanks to W we've spent trillions beyond our means without accounting for a dime of it. Worthless GOP accounting that cuts programs for those that support the wealthy leaches that are sucking the money off of the masses and claim they they're self made. Scum by any other name.