House GOP to release budget blueprint that slashes spending

[Blue_State]

This is exactly why we are having a slow recovery. Both parties are pitching plans that the other will not support. Completely partisan. Everything is to get re-elected, and nothing is done to help out the citizens.

Great plan, to bad it will never see the light of day.

The resulting political battle is sure to spill beyond the Capital Beltway into the presidential campaign and contests for control of the House and Senate this fall. As if to underscore that reality, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released a campaign-style video Monday evening telling viewers that "Americans have a choice to make" in a none-too-subtle appeal to voters.

All politics, no solutions.

House GOP to release budget blueprint that slashes spending

 

[jamesrage]

Their plan is still like saying I cut 50 cents off my spending even though I still own 20 dollars and pretend that 50 cents is still a big deal. They need to make major cuts.

 

[Chiefgator]

I read a story on this earlier. The proposal is much better than the bird-cage liner that the President proposed a bit ago.
This one at least addresses some issues. It has some issues that I am against, but of course that is to be expected.

 

[Blue_State]

I agree 100%. I would love it if they worked together and made real cuts, but everything they are doing is posturing for re-election.

 

[Kreton]

The problem with these plans to reduce spending is all backward. Some programs need to be cut. Lots of frivilous spending has to go. There is more than one way to reduce the deficit. One way is to cut spending. Another way is to increase revenue. We should be focused on creating jobs, making more tax payers, limiting imports, increasing exports. I am not saying that we should ignore spending cuts, but they should not be the primary focus.

 

[Blue_State]

The problem with these plans to reduce spending is all backward. Some programs need to be cut. Lots of frivilous spending has to go. There is more than one way to reduce the deficit. One way is to cut spending. Another way is to increase revenue. We should be focused on creating jobs, making more tax payers, limiting imports, increasing exports. I am not saying that we should ignore spending cuts, but they should not be the primary focus.

That sounds like a bipartisan solution. I am all for that.

 

[Tigger]

I am not saying that we should ignore spending cuts, but they should not be the primary focus.

Why not? Especially when probably at least half of the spending by the Federal Government on a yearly basis has absolutely NO Constitutional Mandate or Legitimacy?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

This is exactly why we are having a slow recovery. Both parties are pitching plans that the other will not support. Completely partisan. Everything is to get re-elected, and nothing is done to help out the citizens.

All politics, no solutions.

Pretty much, imho.

Politicians are all about getting elected/staying in office. They are not about governing.
They are that way, because that is the behavior that our system rewards.
The system is borked.

 

[Born Free]

Here is the process, Ryan's plan will pass in the House, and Harry will not take it up in the Senate, so it dies there. Now the Republican candidate will use this to go after Obama and the Dem's so to get the Senate back in the hands of Republicans to begin passing spending cuts.

 

[Kreton]

Why not? Especially when probably at least half of the spending by the Federal Government on a yearly basis has absolutely NO Constitutional Mandate or Legitimacy?

Oh joy. Lets hear some examples.

 

[Tigger]

Oh joy. Lets hear some examples.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Social Security
Welfare
Medicare
All Foreign Aid
All Domestic Farm & Business Aid
Disaster Relief Aid

I could go on, but that should give you an idea...

 

[Kreton]

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Social Security
Welfare
Medicare
All Foreign Aid
All Domestic Farm & Business Aid
Disaster Relief Aid

I could go on, but that should give you an idea...

And what is your problem with those?

 

[iguanaman]

Here is the process, Ryan's plan will pass in the House, and Harry will not take it up in the Senate, so it dies there. Now the Republican candidate will use this to go after Obama and the Dem's so to get the Senate back in the hands of Republicans to begin passing spending cuts.

Or on the other hand the Dems might use it to get the House back when the voters realize that the plan kills Medicare and raises taxes on the middle class to finance more tax cuts for the wealthy. And it will do nothing to reduce the deficit.

 

[Tigger]

And what is your problem with those?

Very simply the fact that there is no Constitutional Mandate in Article I, Section 8 for any of them. Just as there is no mandate for US Military Bases anywhere outside US Territory.

 

[Kreton]

Very simply the fact that there is no Constitutional Mandate in Article I, Section 8 for any of them. Just as there is no mandate for US Military Bases anywhere outside US Territory.

Where does the constitution specifically ban them?

 

[Rosie1]

My Plan (not quite the mirror opposite of Tigg's, but close.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (probably could be some cuts, but this doesn't just aid the poor, it also aids towns & cities).
Department of Education (I don't like cuts in this area). Public education is a cornerstone for America's future. We want to stay competive with the world. Cutting ed does not accomplish that. I would like to see low interest college loans available also).
Social Security (We know Tigger hates this. Imagine a retirement fund for everyone. And it has no impact on the budget. The program has funds for like the next 25+ years, at this point. Besides any messing with SS pisses off the elderly voters and every politician knows that).
Welfare (I'd rather it be work-fair. If that is socialist, so be it! You can't turn women and children out in the cold. Well, Tigger could, but I wouldn't.).
Medicare (Sure. I'd mess with it. Put everyone on a one payor, Affordable Health Care Plan! Chuck those darned for profit, privite health insurance companies. Employers wouldn't have to worry about the cost of buying health insurance for their workers, either).
All Foreign Aid (Yes, there can be cuts here, but not completely.).
All Domestic Farm & Business Aid (Oh, probably some cuts, but more tax break for companies that hire workers. And you don't really want to piss off the farmers. They feed us, folks!).
Disaster Relief Aid (Ridiculous! Just for that, may you experience floods and pestiluence!). Just No.

Additions: Reinstate tariffs. Less purchasing from countries that tariff us & or don't purchase our products. Big taxes for companies that outsource American jobs. Re-write tax tables, and reduce cooperate loopholes.

We're leaving Afghanistan. So, hopefully military spending will go down automically. I'd like to see spending on military weapons and supplies be more efficient. No more "no bid" contracts on anything. And why can't the military do it's own mess detail again, instead of private contractors feeding and running kitchens?

 

[Paschendale]

Very simply the fact that there is no Constitutional Mandate in Article I, Section 8 for any of them. Just as there is no mandate for US Military Bases anywhere outside US Territory.

Let's have some fun!

We'll start with the first two, the departments. They are, of course, parts of the executive branch, not the legislative, and are thus covered under Article II, Section 2, which fully authorizes the president to have whatever departments so desired, and does not list which topics can or cannot have departments dedicated to them.

The rest are easily covered under the very first clause of Article I, Section 8, the power of congress to tax and spend for the general welfare. That clause is actually one of substance, as opposed to the final one, the necessary and proper clause, which does not entail congress to any powers not otherwise covered in the section. Additionally, foreign aid is authorized in the commerce clause, allowing congress to regulate trade with foreign nations.

Buy a textbook about constitutional law. Read it. And then you won't make silly claims like this that have no actual bearing on the way American law has been conducted for the last two hundred years.

Where does the constitution specifically ban them?

It doesn't have to. Congress has enumerated powers. Any power not specifically granted to it is denied it. It's just that many powers involving the taxing and spending of money are specifically granted to it, much to the chagrin of some folks.

 

[Helix]

so the "solution", once again, is a ten percent tax cut for the top marginal rate while cutting safety net programs.

i am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

 

[Harshaw]

Where does the constitution specifically ban them?

That's not how it works.

The Constitution is a power grant. It enumerates specific powers; the government may only do what the Constitution authorizes. It doesn't have to "ban" anything; if it doesn't grant it, then the government can't do it.

But if you want to go down that rabbit hole, where does the Constitution "specifically ban" the government from shutting down the Internet whenever it chooses? Or individual websites? Or your own personal access to it?

Where does it "specifically ban" the government from deciding for you what color your car will be? Or what you'll name your children?

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Let's be clear: In Ryan's "draconian, politically impossible" budget the United States won't run a surplus until 2040. The budget that is too radical in it's "unworkable" spending cuts takes a mere 28 years for our budget to be back in the black. The CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario? Well, by that measure we'll be bankrupt long before we even get there. If we are at this point politically we might as well just give up now and get it over with.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/summary_tables.pdf

 

[Born Free]

Or on the other hand the Dems might use it to get the House back when the voters realize that the plan kills Medicare and raises taxes on the middle class to finance more tax cuts for the wealthy. And it will do nothing to reduce the deficit.

We'll see, but IMO cutting the debt trumps the rest. And to your comments it kills Medicare is a standard liberal taking point that has worn it's self out. I did not see any tax increases for the middle class to finance anything. And last it does reduce the deficit. Now your liberal plan is what?

 

[Tigger]

Where does the constitution specifically ban them?

A combination of Article I, Section 9 and the Tenth Amendment; both of which combine to create a system where any power not specifically given to the Federal Government or removed from the States belongs to the STATES, not the Feds.Unfortunately this is the biggest portion of the Constitution that Abraham Lincoln used as toilet paper between 1861 and 1865; thus setting the stage for every President since to do exactly the same.

 

[AdamT]

Let's be clear: In Ryan's "draconian, politically impossible" budget the United States won't run a surplus until 2040. The budget that is too radical in it's "unworkable" spending cuts takes a mere 28 years for our budget to be back in the black. The CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario? Well, by that measure we'll be bankrupt long before we even get there. If we are at this point politically we might as well just give up now and get it over with.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/summary_tables.pdf

We don't have to run a surplus; we just have to get the deficit down to a manageable level. And the idea of passing additional tax cuts with deficits where they are, and with taxes already at a 60-year low, is laughably insane.

 

[Chiefgator]

We don't have to run a surplus; we just have to get the deficit down to a manageable level. And the idea of passing additional tax cuts with deficits where they are, and with taxes already at a 60-year low, is laughably insane.

I normally side with the Repubs when it comes to fiscal matters... But you are spot on with this. Cutting taxes any more us not the answer. One of the most basic Economic concepts is the Point of Diminishing Returns. If you understand Anything about business, you know that Increasing the price (taxes in this case) does not always make you more money.... Decreasing the price (taxes in this case) does not always make you more money either. Finding the Point of Diminishing Returns is one of the most important items a manager (Congess in this case) needs to do.

I personally think Spending Cuts (reduction of Costs in the business world) and some tax increases are the way to go.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

We don't have to run a surplus; we just have to get the deficit down to a manageable level.

Unfortunately, what's considered a manageable deficit is not determined by policymakers in D.C. Annual increases in federal debt are only sustainable if they grow at a slower rate than real GDP. Considering this "politically unworkable" budget projects 30 years of annual increases in federal debt, that's a pretty big bet on our ability to produce real growth. The CBO alternative fiscal scenario projects a 15% annual deficit in 2040. Find me someone who would deem that "manageable".

And the idea of passing additional tax cuts with deficits where they are, and with taxes already at a 60-year low, is laughably insane.

What's laughably insane is the failure to address mandatory spending programs that are greater than 100% of tax revenue. What's laughably insane is leaving programs with projected growth rates larger than government revenue untouched. What's laughably insane is justifying any marginal increase in effective tax rates while these fiscally broken programs go on unabated. The fact these cuts are considered radical when they would take 30 years to return to a balanced budget is what's laughable.