Which Spending Cuts?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Which Spending Cuts?

    The Big Budget Mumble

    In the ongoing battle of the budget, President Obama has done something very cruel. Declaring that this time he won’t negotiate with himself, he has refused to lay out a proposal reflecting what he thinks Republicans want. Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can’t or won’t do it.

    No, really. While there has been a lot of bluster from the G.O.P. about how we should reduce the deficit with spending cuts, not tax increases, no leading figures on the Republican side have been able or willing to specify what, exactly, they want to cut.

    And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.

    Here’s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion, through such measures as giving Medicare the ability to bargain for lower drug prices.

    Republicans have howled in outrage. Senator Orrin Hatch, delivering the G.O.P. reply to the president’s weekly address, denounced the offer as a case of “bait and switch,” bearing no relationship to what Mr. Obama ran on in the election. In fact, however, the offer is more or less the same as Mr. Obama’s original 2013 budget proposal and also closely tracks his campaign literature.

    So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that’s a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

    The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things — raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it’s not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position — and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn’t work.

    Start with raising the Medicare age. This is, as I’ve argued in the past, a terrible policy idea. But even aside from that, it’s just not a big money saver, largely because 65- and 66-year-olds have much lower health costs than the average Medicare recipient. When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the likely fiscal effects of a rise in the eligibility age, it found that it would save only $113 billion over the next decade and have little effect on the longer-run trajectory of Medicare costs.

    Increasing premiums for the affluent would yield even less; a 2010 study by the budget office put the 10-year savings at only about $20 billion.

    Changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security would save a bit more — by my estimate, about $185 billion over the next decade. But put it all together, and the things Mr. McConnell was talking about would amount to only a bit over $300 billion in budget savings — a fifth of what Mr. Obama proposes in revenue gains.

    The point is that when you put Republicans on the spot and demand specifics about how they’re going to make good on their posturing about spending and deficits, they come up empty. There’s no there there.

    And there never was. Republicans claim to be for much smaller government, but as a political matter they have always attacked government spending in the abstract, never coming clean with voters about the reality that big cuts in government spending can happen only if we sharply curtail very popular programs. In fact, less than a month ago the Romney/Ryan campaign was attacking Mr. Obama for, yes, cutting Medicare.

    Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can’t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.

    So while the fiscal cliff — still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we’re stuck with it — is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P.’s political strategy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/krugman-the-big-budget-mumble.html?hp

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    Which spending cuts?  All of them.  Isn't that obvious?

    You progressives have some sort of problem with logic?

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well they can't cut spending to any programs that 'take care' of their government dependent base.

    [/QUOTE]


    Heh heh.

     

    Someone didn't read the article.....   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, that article was so on the level.  crikey.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which spending cuts?  All of them.  Isn't that obvious?

    You progressives have some sort of problem with logic?

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps Boehner could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which spending cuts?  All of them.  Isn't that obvious?

    You progressives have some sort of problem with logic?

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps Boehner could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps Boehner Obama could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

     

    There.  Straightened out your logic.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Perhaps Obama could put something on the table



    He did.

    The Republicans claim his proposals do not include enough spending cuts. Because they are the ones demanding more spending cuts, it is on them to specifically identify the cuts.

    Simple. Don't you like simplicity?

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not just republicans balking at O's plan!!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    Do you really think the Dems will cut spending?


    We can excuse Republicans for simultaneously shouting that Obama spends to much and refusing to identify any specific meaningful cuts they would vote for...


    ....as long as we assume that "Dems" wouldn't agree to cuts anyway.

     [/QUOTE]


    Republicans have put forth 33 budget plans over the last 4 years that have included the cuts! The dems in the senate have refused to even debate any of them!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which spending cuts?  All of them.  Isn't that obvious?

    You progressives have some sort of problem with logic?

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps Boehner could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps Boehner Obama could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

     

    There.  Straightened out your logic.

    [/QUOTE]

    The president is putting a $4 trillion, 10 yr balanced budget on the table.

    $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue

    $1.6 trillion in domestic cuts over 10 yrs

    another $800 billion in defense cuts over 10 yrs. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    From the Republican party: Programs that we could cut!

    Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

    Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

    International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

    Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

    National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

    National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

    Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

    Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

    Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

    U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

    Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

    Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

    John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

    Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

    Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

    Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

    Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

    Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

    Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

    Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

    Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

    New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

    Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

    Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

    Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

    Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

    Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

    Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

    Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

    FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

    Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

    Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

    U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

    General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

    Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

    Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

    No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

    End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

    Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

    IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

    Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

    Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

    Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

    Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

    Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

    Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

    Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

    USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

    Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

    Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

    Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

    Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

    HUD Ph.D. Program.

    Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Even if all of those should be cut - and not all of them should - that only adds up to 32.3 billion annually off of a 1 trillion dollar deficit.


    Nevermind that they're trying to slip in stuff like undermining Obamacare by cutting out a budget for administrative costs.....  yeah that's a serious proposal.

     

     

    So again, where are the specific meaningful -


    - I italicized it this time so you don't miss it -


    - cuts.

     

    The budget isn't going to be balanced by taking tepid pot shots at financing the arts, public broadcasting, and Obamacare administrative costs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks.  I was just about to break out the calculator and do the same.  God knows where this list even came from?  Probably some echo chamber circle-jerk list.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which spending cuts?  All of them.  Isn't that obvious?

    You progressives have some sort of problem with logic?

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps Boehner could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps Boehner Obama could put something on the table, or is he just afraid to take ownership of an idea? 

     

    There.  Straightened out your logic.

    [/QUOTE]

    The president is putting a $4 trillion, 10 yr balanced budget on the table.

    $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue

    $1.6 trillion in domestic cuts over 10 yrs

    another $800 billion in defense cuts over 10 yrs. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The President's proposal is not balanced.  you can't plan to run a trillion dollar deficit each of the next four years adn call that balanced.

    ANYTHING over 10 years means those cuts will NEVER HAPPEN.

    So, in summary, Obama put nothing of real substance out there.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Even if all of those should be cut - and not all of them should - that only adds up to 32.3 billion annually off of a 1 trillion dollar deficit.


    Nevermind that they're trying to slip in stuff like undermining Obamacare by cutting out a budget for administrative costs.....  yeah that's a serious proposal.

     

     

    So again, where are the specific meaningful -


    - I italicized it this time so you don't miss it -


    - cuts.

     

    The budget isn't going to be balanced by taking tepid pot shots at financing the arts, public broadcasting, and Obamacare administrative costs.

    [/QUOTE]

    To your main point:  Well, CUT MORE.

    I don't care if it comes from any social programs, cutting all the BS regulation, and eliminate Obamacare and the 1.7 trillion dollar cost with it, OR defense.

    You prioritize, then you spend up to your income ( stipulating short term borrowing).  that's it.  That's all you can do.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    No mention of the 4 BILLION the US pays in oil subsidies to a very profitable oil industry? I'm shocked.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No mention of the 4 BILLION the US pays in oil subsidies to a very profitable oil industry? I'm shocked.

    [/QUOTE]

    that the U.S. pays? Show me the check the government writes.

    The stupidity of the left continuing to claim this special favor for "big oil" in light of a complete lack of evidence is astounding.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE] To your main point:  Well, CUT MORE.

    I don't care if it comes from any social programs, cutting all the BS regulation, and eliminate Obamacare and the 1.7 trillion dollar cost with it, OR defense.

    You prioritize, then you spend up to your income ( stipulating short term borrowing).  that's it.  That's all you can do.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok...and the entire point of the thread is that if Republicans are the ones saying CUT MORE, then Republicans should SAY WHAT THOSE MORE CUTS SHOULD BE.

    Instead of sitting on their hands and blaming Obama for failing to come up with the cuts that they, and not he, want.

    [/QUOTE]


    Who cares about the Republicans?  I'm not in favor of their approach.  I could care less. The republicans are no better than the Democrats on this.  To the extent that they are not laying out $1 trillion in cuts  THIS BUDGET, I am with you.  Same goes for Obama, however.  Where is his $1 trillion ini cuts for this budget?

    Look, the Democrats and Republicans in Washington are selling us down the river.  Don't get fooled.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No mention of the 4 BILLION the US pays in oil subsidies to a very profitable oil industry? I'm shocked.

    [/QUOTE]

    that the U.S. pays? Show me the check the government writes.

    The stupidity of the left continuing to claim this special favor for "big oil" in light of a complete lack of evidence is astounding.

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you deny the US hands out 4 billion in oil subsidies each year? To an industry which has seen record profits during the economic downfall. Get your head out of you @ss and pay attention.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Which Spending Cuts?

    $32.2 billion cut.  Just $967.8 billion more to go.

    Basically the list is a bunch of BS.  Once again righties are asked for specifics and they come up with nothing.

    The only things that can be cut that will have an impact on the long term budget is Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.

    Cutting funding to PBS and NPR do nothing to the deficit.  It's just BS that the republican leadership can feed to their simple-minded followers.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share