Democrats Counter Proposal: Only Cut $6Bn

cpwill · Mar 7, 2011

.... they can't be serious ....

... but they are ....

Ah, Democrats: the gift that keeps on giving. To Republicans.

So the Democrats are drawing their line in the sand: at $6 billion in spending cuts.

A top Senate Democrat said Sunday that the $6 billion in additional spending cuts that his party offered is the limit Democrats can accept – drawing a line well short of Republicans’ goal with less than two weeks to go before a government shutdown if the two sides can’t agree.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said the $6 billion proposal, released Friday, has “pushed this to the limit” on domestic spending. That comment stands in sharp opposition to a House Republican bill containing an additional $57 billion in cuts below 2010 spending.

Republicans should take up cudgels over this. $6 billion is nothing: Congress spent $3.3 trillion in 2010. $6 billion is 0.001 of that, a number that rounds down to about zero. Nothing...

Democrats are saying in essence that every dollar of federal spending is sacred, that spending is never coming down, and that government has a prior claim on the wealth of generations of Americans unborn. I don’t usually give advice to politicians, but I’d make a marquee message out of that fact: Even after the shellacking, Democrats are willing to cut nothing of any significance. This isn’t shaping up to be a replay of 1995; it’s shaping up to be a replay of 2010.

Kandahar · Mar 7, 2011

If the Republicans were actually proposing serious cuts to entitlements, I might be a little more sympathetic to them. But they aren't. They're cutting discretionary spending, which is at historically normal levels and which has far less waste per dollar than the entitlements do. Although I'm sure there are some individual programs and projects that are wasteful, it is far from desirable to cut discretionary spending overall. Unless most of that $57 billion is in the Pentagon budget, I'm highly skeptical that they've found that much waste that they're willing to cut.

cpwill · Mar 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
If the Republicans were actually proposing serious cuts to entitlements, I might be a little more sympathetic to them. But they aren't.

"Our budget, under the leadership of our Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, will specifically deal with entitlement reform."

Boehner on Entitlement Reform: Yes, We’re Serious

Boehner Challenges Obama on Entitlements: ‘I Said It Right to His Face’

Boehner Dares to Touch the Third Rail: Social Security

and so on and so forth.

much of discretionary spending isn't just wasteful, it's actively harmful (agricultural subsides, for example); there is no good reason not to snatch off the low-hanging fruit as we approach the entitlements.

cpwill · Mar 7, 2011

but seriously; 6 Billion? that's like when Obama tried to make a name for himself as a cost-cutter after the 'Stimulus' bill by ordering the executive agencies to try to find (

uts pinkie to lips: ) 100 Million Dollars in savings.

This isn't a "cut", it's cotton candy la-la land savings; it's less than a rounding error in the fraudulent portion of Medicare.

Wiseone · Mar 7, 2011

Ya 6 Billion clearly isn't enough to be a real solution and its not part of any greater plan for the next few years/decades to reduce the debt, so every new Congress is going to revisit these cuts they dont have staying power. However... while I agree with the Republicans on this one their plan isn't a solution either, again because like the Dems it doesnt go far enough. Once they have a workable plan, heck even if its one I don't like but still gets us to a seriously lower debt, they can justify spending time and energy attacking Dems. But if the choice remains between the two separate plans, I really don't care because neither is enough and isn't a solution. So my only choice is between two wrong answers.

Kandahar · Mar 7, 2011

cpwill said:
"Our budget, under the leadership of our Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, will specifically deal with entitlement reform."

Boehner on Entitlement Reform: Yes, We’re Serious

Boehner Challenges Obama on Entitlements: ‘I Said It Right to His Face’

Boehner Dares to Touch the Third Rail: Social Security

and so on and so forth.

That's a hopeful sign, but what I meant is that they should be cutting spending there instead of screwing around with discretionary spending which really isn't that big of a problem. If anything we need MORE discretionary spending until the economy recovers.

cpwill said:
much of discretionary spending isn't just wasteful, it's actively harmful (agricultural subsides, for example); there is no good reason not to snatch off the low-hanging fruit as we approach the entitlements.

Sure, eliminate any wasteful programs in the discretionary budget. But there just aren't very many of them, outside of the DoD. One of two things will happen: Either they'll end up making some token cuts to truly wasteful projects so that they can pretend like they're solving the problem, or they'll start cutting truly important discretionary programs that aren't mere waste.

cpwill · Mar 7, 2011

Wiseone said:
Ya 6 Billion clearly isn't enough to be a real solution and its not part of any greater plan for the next few years/decades to reduce the debt, so every new Congress is going to revisit these cuts they dont have staying power. However... while I agree with the Republicans on this one their plan isn't a solution either, again because like the Dems it doesnt go far enough. Once they have a workable plan, heck even if its one I don't like but still gets us to a seriously lower debt, they can justify spending time and energy attacking Dems. But if the choice remains between the two separate plans, I really don't care because neither is enough and isn't a solution. So my only choice is between two wrong answers.

Republicans plan for this fiscal year cuts more than the Democrats does, and they are planning on starting the work of reforming entitlements (the gorilla in the room) next fiscal year with the upcoming budget. If they can do that, then we're getting there.

Kandahar said:
That's a hopeful sign, but what I meant is that they should be cutting spending there instead of screwing around with discretionary spending which really isn't that big of a problem.

discretionary spending is still wasteful (and as mentioned, some of it is quite harmful). when you decide to tighten your own budget, you sell the expensive car and buy a decent used one along with cutting down on the number of times you eat out.

If anything we need MORE discretionary spending until the economy recovers.

actually the more discretionary spending we have the slower the recovery will be.

hop in here if you'd like to take part in that tangle.

Sure, eliminate any wasteful programs in the discretionary budget. But there just aren't very many of them, outside of the DoD.

:lol: i imagine they could probably start here. there is quite alot of useless stuff outside the DOD. Agricultural and "renewable energy" subsidies just happen to be my favorite whipping boys.

Badmutha · Mar 7, 2011

6 Billion?.....

I wasnt exactly thrilled at the Republican's effort to cut a 100 Billion mouse fart from a 4 trillion dollar hurricane.......but at least it was something. 6 Billion on the other hand......laughable at best.

.....if anyone ever had any doubt that all Democrat roads lead to Bankruptcy and only Bankruptcy......let those doubts end.
.
.
.
.

Badmutha · Mar 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
If the Republicans were actually proposing serious cuts to entitlements, I might be a little more sympathetic to them. But they aren't. They're cutting discretionary spending, which is at historically normal levels and which has far less waste per dollar than the entitlements do. Although I'm sure there are some individual programs and projects that are wasteful, it is far from desirable to cut discretionary spending overall. Unless most of that $57 billion is in the Pentagon budget, I'm highly skeptical that they've found that much waste that they're willing to cut.

Oh please.......the liberal whining that will ensue if Republicans cut any of the almighty entitlements will be deafening.......
..
.
.

Kandahar · Mar 7, 2011

Badmutha said:
Oh please.......the liberal whining that will ensue if Republicans cut any of the almighty entitlements will be deafening.......

Solving the entitlement problem is the only way to long-term fiscal responsibility. The side-shows with discretionary spending that are being proposed are more of a way for congresspersons to show the voters how much they care, than a serious attempt to solve the problem. As I said, I'm all in favor of cutting out harmful discretionary spending (especially agricultural subsidies and the DoD) but there just isn't that much of it.

As for the entitlements, social security can be made solvent with a few minor adjustments. By continuing to raise the retirement age by two months per year, and by indexing SS payments to a more accurate measure of inflation, we can keep it solvent. The Republicans have said that they're going to take it up, and Obama has displayed willingness to work with them on the issue.

Medicare/Medicaid are much more difficult to solve. These are much bigger problems looming on the fiscal horizon. Hopefully the new health care reform law will help rein in the costs, but it doesn't go nearly far enough in terms of cost controls. Ultimately I think we're going to have to do things that make consumers feel some of the cost of their medical expenses. The "Cadillac Tax" on expensive health care plans is a start; we should start taxing ALL health benefits as regular income to break the link between health insurance and employment. We're also going to need some laws that create a favorable environment for high-deductible plans, so that consumers will be able to protect themselves against the risk of a serious medical bill wiping them out, but still having to pay out of pocket for routine expenses.

Badmutha · Mar 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
Solving the entitlement problem is the only way to long-term fiscal responsibility. The side-shows with discretionary spending that are being proposed are more of a way for congresspersons to show the voters how much they care, than a serious attempt to solve the problem. As I said, I'm all in favor of cutting out harmful discretionary spending (especially agricultural subsidies and the DoD) but there just isn't that much of it.

Let us give thanks to the Democrat Party for the Wellstones of Social Security and its 14 Trillion dollar hole, and Medicare and its 74 Trillion dollar hole.

The two hallmarks of the Democrat Party.......sucking this country dry.

How the Democrats and the media howl everytime a Republican mentions cutting entitlements.....

As for the entitlements, social security can be made solvent with a few minor adjustments.

No its bankruptcy can be postponed with a few minor adjustments. Ponzi schemes always end the same way.......

By continuing to raise the retirement age by two months per year, and by indexing SS payments to a more accurate measure of inflation, we can keep it solvent. The Republicans have said that they're going to take it up, and Obama has displayed willingness to work with them on the issue.

.....well eventually that eliminates everyone from the benefit....but not the bill.

Medicare/Medicaid are much more difficult to solve. These are much bigger problems looming on the fiscal horizon. Hopefully the new health care reform law will help rein in the costs, but it doesn't go nearly far enough in terms of cost controls. Ultimately I think we're going to have to do things that make consumers feel some of the cost of their medical expenses. The "Cadillac Tax" on expensive health care plans is a start; we should start taxing ALL health benefits as regular income to break the link between health insurance and employment. We're also going to need some laws that create a favorable environment for high-deductible plans, so that consumers will be able to protect themselves against the risk of a serious medical bill wiping them out, but still having to pay out of pocket for routine expenses.

The notion that government taking over (insert anything) will yield a lower cost to the consumer.........

.........is to ignore every government in world history.
.
.
.
.

Morality Games · Mar 7, 2011

Let us give thanks to the Democrat Party for the Wellstones of Social Security and its 14 Trillion dollar hole, and Medicare and its 74 Trillion dollar hole.

The two hallmarks of the Democrat Party.......sucking this country dry.

How the Democrats and the media howl everytime a Republican mentions cutting entitlements.....

Thank the Republicans too, while you're at it. They could have dismantled or revised those programs at multiple junctures over the past 70/40 years. They didn't do it because they didn't want to.

Kandahar · Mar 7, 2011

Badmutha said:
Let us give thanks to the Democrat Party for the Wellstones of Social Security and its 14 Trillion dollar hole, and Medicare and its 74 Trillion dollar hole.

The two hallmarks of the Democrat Party.......sucking this country dry.

How the Democrats and the media howl everytime a Republican mentions cutting entitlements.

I'm not going to get into your partisan pissing contest. But the fact is that entitlements WILL need to be reformed in order to sustain our long-term fiscal solvency.

Badmutha said:
No its bankruptcy can be postponed with a few minor adjustments. Ponzi schemes always end the same way.

You are simply wrong. Social security can be made solvent into the foreseeable future with a few minor changes, like continuing to increase the retirement age by two months per year, and by changing the inflation indexing system.

Badmutha said:
The notion that government taking over (insert anything) will yield a lower cost to the consumer.........

.........is to ignore every government in world history.

According to the annual report of Medicare's trustees, Medicare's unfunded liability declined from $90 trillion to $30 trillion between 2009 and 2010, following the passage of the health care reform law. Take from that what you will. It's substantial progress, but it still leaves us with a $30 trillion unfunded liability. We can get the rest of the way there with a few more reforms to our tax code. The government should stop subsidizing employer-provided health insurance, and start subsidizing high-deductible plans to nudge consumers toward them. These steps will do a great deal to reduce costs in the long run.

upsideguy · Mar 7, 2011

cpwill said:
but seriously; 6 Billion? that's like when Obama tried to make a name for himself as a cost-cutter after the 'Stimulus' bill by ordering the executive agencies to try to find ( uts pinkie to lips: ) 100 Million Dollars in savings.

This isn't a "cut", it's cotton candy la-la land savings; it's less than a rounding error in the fraudulent portion of Medicare.

The republicans aren't serious about drive toward a balanced budget either. This is all silly politics.

cpwill · Mar 8, 2011

upsideguy said:
The republicans aren't serious about drive toward a balanced budget either. This is all silly politics.

we shall see. thus far they are the ones proposing at least something that resembles actual cuts. If the Democrats want to start outcutting them, my support will switch to the Democrats.

But I'm thinking that the mood of the public has shifted. Democrats are not going to be rewarded should they continue to insist on being the party of bloated government.

Senator Jeff Sessions: making me proud to be from Alabama.

Badmutha · Mar 8, 2011

Morality Games said:
Thank the Republicans too, while you're at it. They could have dismantled or revised those programs at multiple junctures over the past 70/40 years. They didn't do it because they didn't want to.

....it wasnt Republicans that gave us the wellstones of Social Security and Medicare......nor have they had the votes and power required to reverse or change the Democrat wellstones.

20101228_CONGRESS_balance.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

.
.
.
.

Erod · Mar 8, 2011

In other words, they want to cutthe couch-cushion Raman noodle money.

Whovian · Mar 8, 2011

Kandahar said:
According to the annual report of Medicare's trustees, Medicare's unfunded liability declined from $90 trillion to $30 trillion between 2009 and 2010, following the passage of the health care reform law.

2011 February 16 « Enlightened Economics

And the Medicare trustees make the following remarks in that regard. They say that, “the Affordable Care Act [the recently passed healthcare legislation] improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially. However, the effects of some of the new law’s provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal, especially in the longer-range future… the actual future costs for Medicare are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections.” In other words, their low-ball estimates are based on such flimsy assumptions as to make them untenable.

American · Mar 8, 2011

Kandahar said:
Solving the entitlement problem is the only way to long-term fiscal responsibility. The side-shows with discretionary spending that are being proposed are more of a way for congresspersons to show the voters how much they care, than a serious attempt to solve the problem. As I said, I'm all in favor of cutting out harmful discretionary spending (especially agricultural subsidies and the DoD) but there just isn't that much of it.

As for the entitlements, social security can be made solvent with a few minor adjustments. By continuing to raise the retirement age by two months per year, and by indexing SS payments to a more accurate measure of inflation, we can keep it solvent. The Republicans have said that they're going to take it up, and Obama has displayed willingness to work with them on the issue.

Medicare/Medicaid are much more difficult to solve. These are much bigger problems looming on the fiscal horizon. Hopefully the new health care reform law will help rein in the costs, but it doesn't go nearly far enough in terms of cost controls. Ultimately I think we're going to have to do things that make consumers feel some of the cost of their medical expenses. The "Cadillac Tax" on expensive health care plans is a start; we should start taxing ALL health benefits as regular income to break the link between health insurance and employment. We're also going to need some laws that create a favorable environment for high-deductible plans, so that consumers will be able to protect themselves against the risk of a serious medical bill wiping them out, but still having to pay out of pocket for routine expenses.

I was actually with you till you had to start kissing Obamacare.

cpwill · Mar 8, 2011

Morality Games said:
Thank the Republicans too, while you're at it. They could have dismantled or revised those programs at multiple junctures over the past 70/40 years. They didn't do it because they didn't want to.

and in fact a majority of them voted for both of those programs.

Democrats Counter Proposal: Only Cut $6Bn

cpwill

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

cpwill

cpwill

Wiseone

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

cpwill

Badmutha

Badmutha

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Badmutha

Morality Games

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

cpwill

Badmutha

Erod

Whovian

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

cpwill