New York Times: Dems Should Shut Down The Government If Necessary To Protect Spending

cpwill · Mar 8, 2011

HAH. they said it.

and of course, should it happen, they will be wailing and gnashing their teeth at the evil, evil Republicans.... :roll:

seriously though. discretionary spending has shot up by 84% over the past three years and these people are flipping out about a cut of 61 Bn? that's less than a THIRD of the DEFICIT for the month of February Alone.

but this is bare bones and draconian? ruthlessness? really?

oye vey :sigh:

anywho, the article:

Holding Firm on the Budget

After letting a highly destructive budget fight fester far too long, the White House finally stepped in late last week to negotiate with the House, which wants to eviscerate nondefense spending. Senate leaders still seem shell-shocked by that breathtaking ruthlessness, and have pleaded with the administration for help in pushing back. The White House needs to do so, and firmly...

this is not a moment for another difference-splitting deal. The House wants to carve $61 billion out of the government for just the next seven months, which would throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work and kill off scores of vital functions. Many of them, like funding for health care reform, environmental regulation and Planned Parenthood, are on the Republicans’ ideological hit list. The latest deadline for an agreement is March 18; without one, the government would close.

Republicans claim they will not agree on a penny less than $61 billion, which is too little for some more aggressive freshmen. If the Democrats try to compromise on even half that amount, they will be still be doing enormous damage to many programs and threatening a recovery that is starting to show signs of real life.

Formal talks began on Thursday, led by Vice President Joseph Biden.

cpwill notes: Biden has decided instead to fly to Europe. The White House says his absence will "not be an impediment".

very diplomatically put.

ctd...

The White House and the Senate have countered with a more sensible proposal to cut about $6.5 billion from current spending levels...

Though Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, called that “outrageous,” Democrats are under no obligation to cut more. As bad as a shutdown would be, heading much further toward the Republicans’ number would do far more lasting damage to the economy...

cpwill · Mar 8, 2011

Re: New York Times: Dems Should Shut Down The Government If Necessary To Protect Spen

NOW

INTERESTINGLY

Larry Kudlow at the Conservative NRO is also saying that a government shutdown would be a superior alternative to losing the upcoming budget battle... for Republicans.

Shutdown? So What?

The message from the states is clear: Lower spending is necessary a) to stop the bankruptcy and b) to return taxpayer money to citizens, small businesses, and families. Each spending-cut dollar in effect translates to an equivalent tax-cut dollar. That’s pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-lower-unemployment, and pro-financial-prudence.

But Washington Republicans must join the state-by-state battle by waging their own war against bankruptcy, high taxes, and overwhelming debt.

Frankly, a government shutdown in Washington is a minuscule price to be paid for the greater good of financial solvency and economic growth. If the Republicans can’t get the right deal for full-fledged spending cuts and a clear budget-limitation rule with severe budget-cutting penalties, they should go ahead and shut down the federal government....

and former chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, is saying pretty much the same thing.

are we seeing a new bipartisan consensus on shutting down the government?

[later edit] OH, and those $6.5 Bn in cuts the Democrats are proposing? CBO says their proposed cuts actually amount to 4.7.