RINOs and Elephants, oh my

[Beavah]

Sorry to disagree, Eagledad. A moratorium on earmarks is just a pyrrhic victory, a meaningless symbol. It's not changin' a philosophy/way of thinking, it's just changin' a method. All that will happen is that people will horse-trade support for a bill for "earmark-like" things in another bill.

 

That change-the-method or fight-the-symbol approach shows a profound lack of understandin' of social systems and governance. The Republicans set new heights to earmarking in the Bush years, eh? Yeh think that's suddenly goin' to stop because now Mitch McConnell is goin' along with it for the moment?

 

Wallpapering over what amounts to less than 1% of the budget doesn't achieve a thing.

 

The Tea Party folks are simultaneously asking for lower taxes, low immigration, protecting entitlement programs, and supportin' a robust national defense. That is just lunacy (or whatever more respectful, less "name calling" term yeh can come up with for inability to do arithmetic). And they'll talk about NPR or foreign aid or some such trivia and not mention entitlement programs or even farm subsidies. Dense. (or whatever more respectful, less name-calling term yeh can come up with for complainin' about da gas mileage lost powering your radio when you're driving a Humvee with da AC blasting at 95 mph uphill towing a houseboat).

 

Da only viable solution is the one that Gunny mentions, eh? Shared sacrifice. No wars that aren't fully funded out of everyone's own pocketbooks. The Tea Party-ers proposing a sweeping cut to Medicare, Social Security, retirement and safety net programs without any cut in taxes, and then agreeing to tithe some additional portion of their personal wealth and income to supportin' the folks such cuts will put on the streets. Agreement to bring as many young, healthy, hardworkin' immigrants into the system to help pay for things as is possible.

 

At best the Tea Party is just another special interest lobby wanting more from the government for their interests and expectin' someone else to pay for it. But since it's part of the modern Republican "borrow and spend" movement, they expect their grandchildren to pay rather than taxin' themselves. At worst, they're a bunch of folks who are being manipulated by others that are good at PR messaging and mobilization and aren't savvy enough to realize it.

 

As an old-school fiscal and moral conservative I sympathize with their sentiment, eh? But I just can't drink that kool-aid. So maybe that makes me a RINO? Or maybe it makes me an old fuddy-duddy from da responsible, conservative Republican Party who thinks da Tea Partyers are RINOs?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Woapalanne]

We don't need to cut what we have promised our people. What we need to do is get the economy going again, and that means MAJOR cuts in discretionary government spending (billions of waste come to mind). Especially government spending in areas in which the Federal government has no authority under the Constitution. (Think "education", and "HUD".)What we need is tax CUTS that increase Federal revenues (as in the Reagan era).

 

To say that tax cuts require decreases in spending reveals a lack of understanding of just what targeted tax cuts can do. We DO need large increases in Federal revenues. That does not necessarily mean increasing tax burdens on the middle class.

[ljnrsu]

Beavah your misunderstanding of Social Security and Medicare funding does not shock me as many do not understand how the funds are accounted for and the effect it has on the Federal budget.

Prior to 1976 Social Security funds and expenses were outside of the Federal budget. Since that time except for 1976-1982 Social Security funds have reduced the ACTUAL Federal deficit. Social Security and Medicare each have their own separate Trust funds. By Federal Law any excess funds must be reinvested using special issue bonds issued by the US Treasury. Interest is paid on the outstanding Trust fund balance at the current rate of 2.125%. When the Social Security Administration did have deficits from 1976 to1982 the only thing that happened was the non-public debt held by the SSA was reduced and the public debt was increased by the same amount by the US Treasury. Also you can see in the Social Security Trustees report that the income tax collected on Social Security benefits is being reinvested in the Trust funds to help keep them solvent.

FYI: the dissertation for my MBA in taxation was on Social Security.

 

 

Social Security Trust fund data 1940-1976:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/oldfyOps.html

 

Social Security Trust fund data 1976-2009:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html

 

Medicare Trust fund data 1966-2009:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/8a.html

 

US Budget data 1968-2007:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

 

Social Security Trustees Report issued Aug 5, 2010:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

[scoutingagain]

HUD's 2011 budget is aroung $48 billion or 1.2% of the Federal budget. Get rid of it. Get rid of earmarks, another 1%. Get rid of NPR another 0.0004%. Total so far ... 2.2004% of the budget.

 

 

 

The 2011 Federal budget is $3,800,000,000,000. The projected deficit is $1,200,000,000,000. Do the math. We need to cut spending by over 30% to balance the budget...or increase revenues(taxes).

 

Discretionary spending? That's everything execept interest on the debt.

 

SA

[Gunny2862]

Beavah, I think that my understanding - and those of the people I talk to, show fundamentally different understandings from what you mentioned in your most recent post of what the Tea Partiers want.

 

But that's to be expected - they are a disparate group who haven't really organized anything yet - and each person may have different views of "the Plan", but the idea that government is too intrusive, too large, and costs too much for the actual wanted value received should be a common theme throughout the spectrum of Tea Party idealists.

 

But here's what's interesting to me - we are actually dabbling in the ideas of what could be cut, how could we do it, and do we need all of the government we have. But saying it ALL comes down to entitlement programs is disingenuous don't you think? Yes, they will necessarily be a part of the solution but why not go ahead and cut the easy parts first - no time lost - no major arguments/fights over them and the savings help the overall picture.

 

[scoutingagain]

"but why not go ahead and cut the easy parts first - no time lost - no major arguments/fights over them "

 

Gunny I now your heart's in the right place but every nickel and dime is someone's sacred cow.

 

I don't think Beav's saying we have to focus on entitlements, but if any rational person looks at the numbers, there's no way to get there without dealing with them. Anyone that says we can balance the budget without effecting entitlements or raising taxes is disengenuous to say the least.

 

Personnaly I also would like to see a straight up or down vote on the deficit commission's recommedations. Heck I'd like to see a Federal ballot initiative like we have at the state level. Take the decision out of the hands of the political class clowns in DC.

 

I'll give the Tea Party it's due though. If it wasn't for them Mitch McConnel & Co. would be fighting tooth and nail to keep earmarks. The only reason they're being seriously discussed is the Tea Party. McCain and others tried for years to do something about them and got nowhere.

 

SA

 

 

[GernBlansten]

"but why not go ahead and cut the easy parts first - no time lost - no major arguments/fights over them "

 

The problem with that is you are just going after the low hanging fruit and not really solving the problem. But you know after they take that fruit away, they will claim victory and never really make the hard choices. We will continue happily overspending into oblivion. The result will be we didn't improve the situation and only made miserable the lives for those few who were depending on that low hanging fruit to survive.

[scoutingagain]

For yucks I looked up the interest on National Debt. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

 

For FY2010 it was $413 Billion or nearly %11 of the budget. So we really need to cut closer to %35 of discretionary spending, "everything except interest on the debt" to balance the budget.

 

Unless we choose to default on the national debt or a portion of there of. Let's just tell China, sorry we can't pay you back. See if they come over to break any legs.

 

SA

 

 

[packsaddle]

I think there's another risk of putting so much emphasis on earmarks. The risk is that once success is achieved, they'll raise a banner that says "Mission Accomplished" and declare victory. And that will be that.

I agree with up or down vote on the commission recommendations. Sure kill the earmarks. But just make sure we kill the stuff that really counts as well.

[Beavah]

Yah, ljnrsu, I get where you're comin' from. To my mind, though, the trust funds are just an amusing fiction. Leastways they have been since LBJ raided them to pay for Vietnam. So net, what yeh have is taxes of various sorts in and expenses of various sorts out. Our biggest expenses are the entitlements and defense. So to balance the annual budget yeh have to address those. And those expenses are also the ones growing disproportionately each year. In fact this year the SS expenses exceeded revenues, so those obligations had to be paid out of other tax revenues or by issuing public debt.

 

Yep, from a fund accounting perspective the trust funds are theoretically solvent for the time being. But non-negotiable low interest government IOUs that have to be funded by future tax revenues do not a balance sheet make. Its just an accounting mechanism, not something real. Da fact that the AIG auto insurance reserve fund was solvent at the time the company went into federal receivership didn't change the fact that the company was bankrupt. The auto insurance reserve fund was just an accounting mechanism.

 

-------

 

Gunny, I'd love to hear it if yeh can pass along any Tea Party proposal that is "real". Mostly, from what I can tell, they are predominantly older, more rural special interest lobby. They want their social security, Medicare, defense, farm subsidies, and federal support for rural electrification and communications infrastructure and roads. Anything that helps them. They want "smaller, less intrusive" government when it comes to responding to urban problems or da issues affecting younger folks, eh? Yeh can cut education, housing, urban renewal, public health,art, the Smithsonian. Those, unlike farm subsidies and welfare for the old folks are "wasteful.". Yah, the rhetoric is different. Isn't it always? But that's the substance of it.

 

Yeh can't even put a dent in the deficit without addressing defense, entitlements, and retirement guarantees. It's not "all", but it's almost all. Everything else is re-arranging deck chairs on the sinking ship.

 

---------

 

Woapalanne, I agree with yeh, eh? There are some taxes that are revenue negative. They put too big a drag on things. Luxury taxes of some sorts are like that, eh? Raise the taxes on yachts, and all yeh do is lose money by putting lots of hardworking yacht builders and maintainers out of work. Increasing other taxes, like gasoline or cigarette taxes, can have positive economic effects.

 

But in Reagan's era, while revenues went up, the debt went up faster, eh? Reagan failed in getting the government to pay its own way, social security nearly went bust. The notion that tax cuts could stimulate enough growth to overcome da deficit spending failed.

 

Lots of factors affect economic growth, and marginal tax rate is only a marginal factor. Productive population might be da biggest, deepest determiner of economic growth, and our young, productive population is stagnant. Changing that requires immigration and education. So if yeh cut education, yeh reduce long term economic growth. Cut the GI Bill and yeh get soldiers that have a harder time transitioning to the productive economy. Talk about wasteful! Our young people are our biggest asset. Thats why we invest our time in Scouting. Turning out guys who are good at welding when we need guys who are good at programming welding machines, that's wasteful.

 

This stuff is hard, eh? It's not amenable to simplistic "anti-Washington" solutions. There are some things that government should do, and some other things it shouldn't. We all need to debate that, thoughtfully. And probably without being too hard on each others elected representatives. Even though "so dense that they have their own event horizon" seems to apply more often than not (apologies to Eagledad)

 

B

 

[GernBlansten]

For those of you who might think extending the tax cuts to the millionaires will create jobs, well they have those cuts now. Where are the jobs?

[JoeBob]

Tax cuts for "millionaires" are killing us?

Perspective:

 

$41,911,000,000,000 = Fed Spending

$_4,527,000,000,000 = Interest on Debt

$_3,000,000,000,000 = Middle Class Cax Cut

$__,700,000,000,000 = Top Earner Tax Cut

 

http://american.com/archive/2010/october/taxes-and-presidential-math

 

Let's go ahead and kill the goose (small business job creation) for the sake of class warfare.

There, we punished those evil rich people!

Save me a place in the soup line.

[Eagledad]

>>For those of you who might think extending the tax cuts to the millionaires will create jobs, well they have those cuts now. Where are the jobs?

[scoutingagain]

JoeBob you are absolutely correct. Allowing the tax cuts to expire for only the rich doesn't come close to dealintg with the deficit. It's another myth and inside the beltway sham. The only way to make a real dent is to let the tax cuts expire for everyone. Time we all started paying up for the defecit spending we've authorized our government to do over the last 10 years.

 

SA

[Beavah]

Egad! Me, a big fan of Obamacare? Good heavens no! It's a mess of a bill.

 

Of course, da original Obama proposal was very close to the Mitt Romney plan, which had its origins in the Heritage Foundation, eh? Obama essentially proposed a moderate to conservative approach, eh? That's why he was assailed by the left.

 

Congress, quite naturally, turns everything to hash . I faulted da Republicans for not engaging, because I think we would have gotten a much better bipartisan bill if they had done their job instead of pouting on the sidelines and lettin' Pelosi run the show.

 

Health care is a hard problem, eh? Unlike regular business, there is a much stronger moral component to health care. I personally am not comfortable with a notion that one of our scouts injured at a camporee has to deplete his college fund and his family's life savings (and risk his family's home as well) to pay for his medical care, which was da one case that got brought up here. The scouter and Christian in me just can't go there. I don't remember if his dad had just lost a job (and with it health coverage) or what, but I'm not sure it matters.

 

Taking care of the suffering, caring for our young, those are Christian moral obligations.

 

I think there is a lot to object to in the health care legislation. I just haven't heard any of the detractors object to it, eh? They haven't read the thing any more than the congress critters. They just seem to object to it because President Obama proposed it. That makes no sense to me, since it originated in a conservative think tank and was adopted by a Republican fiscal conservative governor. Bush passed drug benefits for seniors which was a liberal program (and also a mess of a bill), and we didn't hear a similar hue and cry.

 

I just don't get it. Just like I don't get how so many folks who object to "socialized medicine" don't object to Medicare and da VA health system.

 

Maybe I'm just dense.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)