|
 |
1/17/2011
No cuts, no glory
Does the GOP have it in ‘em to cut the size of government? George Mason University Economist Veronique de Rugy doubles down on the side of those that answer NO to that little query.
Historically, Republicans have often been worse spenders than Democrats. Since 1962, they controlled the White House during six of the 10 largest annual percentage increases in real discretionary outlays…. For three of the 10 years with the biggest increases in discretionary spending, Republicans controlled Congress as well as the White House.
De Rugy breaks that down with lots of foreboding detail. It’s an excellent piece – read the whole thing. Then call your congressmen.
John Stossel says the same thing.
Republicans will have to learn that there is no budget line labeled "waste, fraud, abuse." If they are serious about cutting government, they will ax entire programs, departments and missions.
I'm not confident they have it in them. I hope I'm wrong, but they're politicians, after all. I'm reminded of Spencer Abraham. When he was a senator, he sponsored a bill to abolish the Department of Energy. But then George W. Bush appointed him to head the department.
So far, I’m not holding out much hope. Neither is the Wisconsin State Journal.
Business as usual? Better not be.
Some members of the GOP conference noticed a loophole [in proposed House rules]. The "spending reduction accounts" were to be placed under the control of the House Appropriations Committee. The proposal required the committee members to inform the full House of what they did with the money, but there was no ban on using it to increase spending in another piece of legislation.
To close the loophole, members proposed an amendment to seal the accounts until the end of the budget year and then allow the money to be spent only by a vote of the full House.
…. What happened next ought to be maddening to every taxpayer. As described by the Wall Street Journal, Ryan was about to speak on behalf of the amendment when Boehner cut him off and called for a vote. The amendment lost.
Here’s more on that little maneuver from Bankrupting America, quoting the Wall Street Journal.
Here’s big talking from GOP subcommittee chairs, starting on the huge task of cutting government. This is either completely infeasible or playing around the edges. It’s going to be a very tough slog.
Ramesh Ponnuru has the answer – several answers – in a piece printed in the New York Times last Friday - How the GOP Can Cut and Survive.
If Mr. Obama delivers a good-faith proposal for Social Security, for example in this month’s State of the Union address, then by all means Republicans should offer a serious counterproposal and, depending on their differences, negotiate. If he doesn’t, then Republicans should wait on a new president in 2013.
But they should do more than wait: in the event of presidential inaction, reformers should blame Mr. Obama for the lack of progress and work to make entitlements a litmus-test issue in the Republican presidential primaries. The goal should be to nominate someone willing to make a strong case for reducing entitlement growth as part of a larger strategy to restore American prosperity.
There is no point to Republicans’ endangering their seats for legislation, however worthy, unless they have a good shot at getting a presidential signature on it. They will get their answer in the next State of the Union address.
And finally, there’s this piece by Hugh Hewitt, from Sunday’s Washington Examiner. It’s all about “Selective Shutdown.” Good stuff.
Boehner needs to start talking now about the “selective shutdown” of the federal government that is ahead if the president refuses to listen to the verdict of the voters rendered decisively in November.
At the same time, Boehner and his allies have to reassure Americans and especially senior citizens that they have provided the Senate with the bills necessary to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense, but that the president is holding these appropriations hostage in order to defend Obamacare, the bureaucrats at EPA and the leftwing broadcasters at NPR.
Again and again and again, Boehner and his team must make this reality clear: The looming shutdown of the government need only be selective and that it, too, could be avoided if the president would only do what the voters demanded he do.
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
What people want is jobs.
Cutting government or goverment financed business will only reduce jobs.
Conservatives have swallowed the idea of supply side economics and refuse to recognise that conditions change. We are in a slump because of reduced demand. Cutting now is the opposite tack of what is needed. By all means cut waste. Look at the military to become more efficient, stop sending troops to be killed in pointless wars. Spend on usefull programs such as infrastructure at home.
Put people to work so that our children have a better world.
Dean Weichmann (Mon Jan 17 05:42:49 2011)
The bi-partisan Obama commission proposed significant savings balanced across many areas. I don't agree with all the proposals but it is a start. Remember the BRACC (Base Realignment and Closing Commission). BRACC was and is highly successful because both sides of the aisle agreed to up or down votes on the commission recommendations at each turn. Politics were largely kept out and the Defense budget is much the better for it. I can see from the quotes in this blog how the positioning is starting for budget cuts. Cut those nasty entitlements (Social Security for example) because we can't afford it but more money is needed for corporations so they will create jobs. Dean is right about the failure of supply side economics. So round and round we go and nothing will get done. Adopt the Obama commission proposals in their entirety, one vote up or down. Do it Now , then go after the things the commission missed like additional reforms to health care.
dave allen (Mon Jan 17 07:19:56 2011)
It is time for the Tea Partiers, Republicans and Newly Elected Republican Senator Ron Johnson,Congressman Reed Ribble to step up to the plate.
The National Debt Limit is about to be reached in February- March of 2011. There is no need to raise the Debt limit which now stands at
$14.5.TRILLION,VOTE NO ON RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT. It took this country over 200 years to equal $1 trillion in debt, now we are adding over that each year. WHAT AN OUTRAGE TO OUR CHILDREN AND THE PEOPLE THAT GAVE THEIR LIVES TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY.
There is more than enough revenue stream coming in every month from Individual and Corporate income taxes to cover the INTEREST payments on the national debt.
The courage of our representatives is to direct the revenue payments to cover the debt and START CUTTING THE BUDGET. LINE BY LINE.
Our way of life is at stake as we know it. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTE NO ON THE NATIONAL DEBT INCREASE!!!
Jay Schroeder (Mon Jan 17 10:03:11 2011)
No, because it requires a reduction in spending and the Fat Cats that fund the elections won't like that. They want just the opposite. Only public funding of campaigns will fix it, but this is not the blog to suggest that. And yea, I'm not happy that my politician works for them and not me
Jack Lohman (Mon Jan 17 10:05:28 2011)
And get ready for this guys: A balanced Budget Amendment.
But ask:
* If your politician’s choice is to “balance the budget” by either (a) cutting entitlement or social spending, or (b) cutting spending on pork barrel projects or no-bid contracts for the corporate interests that fund his elections, which way do you think the vote will go?
* If your politician’s choice is to raise taxes on the top 3% of wage earners, or not, would you expect him to do that if those top 3% are the funders of his campaign? Even if raising those taxes are necessary to the vital interests of the state or nation? Or would he instead cut entitlements to protect his funders?
The truth is that a balanced budget amendment WILL NOT WORK until we have public funding of campaigns.
Where will Johnson's and Ribble's head be on this issue?
Jack Lohman (Mon Jan 17 11:40:07 2011)
Ok, it is time for some honesty from the loudmouth politicians who say they are going to vote against increasing the debt limit and those who advocate for that without having a comprehensive plan for reducing the deficit (see Obama commission references above). Go ahead, don't increase the debt limit. You know what the result will be the very next day:
-the Federal government can't borrow which means they cant pay
-you (collectively) won't get paid or won't be able to borrow to get a car etc because the credit markets will freeze up.
-the whole place melts down.
I suggest that the "don't increase the debt anymore" people are terribly ignorant about the interrelationships in our economy. Or maybe they are terribly cynical, repeating that simple minded mantra because they know their opinion or vote wont count and they can wait for people with real courage to vote for increasing the debt then blame them in 30 second sound bites at election time.
Get on with real spending reform. Adopt the Obama commission report (Rep Ryan was on the commission)in it's entirety and legislate the changes.
dave allen (Mon Jan 17 12:01:59 2011)
Dave, you are correct. We must increase the debt limit temporarily, then remove the financial incentive for politicians to spend, then watch spending and taxes decrease. But what I said earlier applies here: the Fat Cats want spending to continue because they benefit from it.
Jack Lohman (Mon Jan 17 12:17:05 2011)
Some characterize those of us who believe the cuts should start NOW and the Debt Limit should not be raised as 'simple minded'.
I say those who believe we should give congress a little wiggle room and raise the limit so they can make the cuts tomorrow are simply ignorant of history. Universally, tomorrow never comes.
Show me when it has. Fact: you can't.
Congress has time and again raised the limit and each time the rhetoric gets more intense about how we really need to get serious this time and start cutting, but have they? Nope. And based on what I'm hearing these days from the whimps on the hill, our newly elected congress will do more of the same.
We're two years in to his Presidency and I still haven't heard a peep from the White House about the results of "going through the budget line by line and eliminating programs that don't work". Somehow, I don't think we're even up to line #2 yet.
This voter was hoping for change and at this early stage it does NOT look to me like I'll be seeing much more than 'Chump Change'.
Jeff Riedl (Mon Jan 17 13:31:43 2011)
Jeff, I disagree only from the standpoint that I don't want to see the U.S. crash, and I fear that refusal to lift the debt ceiling would do that. But remember what I said... "then remove the financial incentive for politicians to spend." What that means is to pass public funding of campaigns. In my view removing the corruption incentive is our only hope.
Jack Lohman (Mon Jan 17 14:20:25 2011)
I see very simplistic ideas presented by people like Jack Lohmnan (public funding of campaigns), Dave Allen (increase the public debt) and Dean Weichmann, (cutting gov't will reduce jobs)
Lets take 'public funding of campaigns'. If you can't see what politicians would do with that money by seeing what they did with ALL our social security monies paid in then you are blind. NEXT, 'increase the public debt'. DEBT is what has gotten us into the mess we are in and Dave says we must increase the public debt! Dean says 'cutting gov't will reduce jobs'. Well we have been increasing gov't spending for about 50 years and Obama has contributed more to this than any other president and WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Gov't has almost zero ability to create jobs that LAST and that PRODUCE something of real value. Jack, Dave and Dean are all drinking the same koolade and it will kill them and all of us if we continue doing the same old thing!
Edward Perkins (Mon Jan 17 14:51:22 2011)
Jeff, I can understand your frustration. But look what Obama did. Created a commission that recommended solid ideas and line by line cuts. And what support did the commission get? None, just the same old "don't increase the debt" yelled from the ramparts and in a lame duck session a bi-partisan Congress increased spending and (essentially ) decreased taxes all in one swoop. The monied interests don't want real budget cuts because it affects them. Imagine reducing Social Securuty benefits, the military industrial complex, farm subsidies, the medical industrial complex and the like? Impossible unless everyone gets behind one single bi-partisan proposal that has line by line changes as the Obama commission report actually does. Have your read it? Remember an economic fact borne out by countless crashes in the past. If you crash the economy there is less income to be taxed and more demands on the budget and a downward spiral begins. Just stopping the debt ceiling is not going to happen and if it did you and hundreds of millions of Americans would realize the massive damage was much worse than the current problem. But by then the damage would be done. We have history and sound economic theory that tells us you just cant stop increasing the debt overnight.
That's an economic and historical fact.
dave allen (Mon Jan 17 14:58:59 2011)
Goverment spending as percent of GDP dropped during the Clinton years, then went up with bush and now has increased again with Obama. Of course, GDP has dropped now with the reccession.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Dean Weichmann (Mon Jan 17 15:20:59 2011)
Edward, I'm one of those wackos that voted for George Bush twice, but I'm also a very pragmatic former business owner. I understand *corruption*. But I suggest that you simply don't understand public funding, and that politicians may ONLY spend those dollars on campaign needs. It is NOT a slush fund.
Jack Lohman (Mon Jan 17 16:47:58 2011)
>>>Gov't has almost zero ability to create jobs that LAST and that PRODUCE something of real value.<<<
Gee Ed, Just cuz you say that don't make it so.
Here are a few points;
Seems to me that there are a lot of people working for the "governnment"
that make a career out of it. Think about teachers, police, inspectors....
Even temporary jobs are still jobs. If you happen to be unemployed a job that might not last forever still helps.
There is still evidence of the work of the CCC back in the depression. Real value that has lasted.
Dean Weichmann (Mon Jan 17 18:53:59 2011)
LOOKING FOR AN EYE OPENER! Google "US National Debt real time" and see our future being borrowed away! BTW the US hit the milestone today by surpassing 14 trillion in Debt!!!!
Jay Schroeder (Mon Jan 17 18:59:30 2011)
Every damned department in the government should be cut, across the board. This wishy-washy stance has got to stop. The fear of putting their seats in jeopardy will stop or they'll be looking for new jobs - Reps in 2 years and Sens. in 6 (if they're not recalled). I too see simplistic ideas on what needs to be done and it actually is simple to do what I suggested. The problem? I think our legislators are afraid to do it. I want to see the first vote that comes up short by 1 vote in the state legislature and I'll know it's the same ol' same ol' going on!
You can say that a job is still a job, but if the government can't afford it where does the money for wages come from? Do you all believe in money trees? Checks falling out of the sky? The tooth fairy? Do you run your own lives like this? If you do, I'll stop by and visit you in jail!
***There is still evidence of the work of the CCC back in the depression. Real value that has lasted.***
For which they were paid pennies. (My father earned $45 per month for his family of 4. It doesn't compare to what government workers are getting in wages today. (check out what wages were before the crash!) Increasing government workers does not add to the economy. The amount they pay into the government in taxes can in no way come anywhere near close to equalling what is paid out in their salaries.
Oh darn, for awhile I forgot, most of you believe in letting the rich pay for everything.
Right.
C. R. Stevenson (Mon Jan 17 19:38:59 2011)
>>>Oh darn, for awhile I forgot, most of you believe in letting the rich pay for everything.<<<<
Well gee CR, who do you think has the money?
>>>You can say that a job is still a job, but if the government can't afford it where does the money for wages come from?<<<<
Maybe from the rich....or maybe goverment can borrow it, money (interest) is cheap now. The Fed has been pumping money out there like crazy but so far it ain't been used much. It is mostly just sitting there. What does a long term bond cost? Interest rates won't go up till employment does and the economy ramps up.
The dollar needs to be devalued. Otherwise wages will drop until employment rises and debt defaults will continue until values adjust.
Dean Weichmann (Mon Jan 17 21:54:48 2011)
Looks like CR should study this chart carefully. The poor people are not going to get us out of this mess.
Jack Lohman (Tue Jan 18 01:15:44 2011)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
