Budget cuts - It's all politics right now

[MaggieMae]

Discuss?

Explaining What's Missing From the Obama Budget: Big Entitlement Cuts - WSJ.com

Some excerpts:

The country is deeply unhappy with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and in theory voters demand that spending be ratcheted back. But that's not the same as wanting spending cut back in the areas where it's really big and really sensitive.

And for now, the simple fact is that politicians aren't convinced that they see in public opinion real signs that voters are ready to applaud a cut in the Medicare benefits Granny receives, or the Social Security benefits they can expect themselves, which happen to be the nub of the long-term spending problem. Given that Washington isn't a land of great courage on these matters to begin with, this view of public opinion is likely to continue to produce what we're all seeing: inaction.

In many ways, the new Obama budget encapsulates this picture perfectly. The budget envisions that spending on all the programs Congress argues about and votes to fund every year—including defense programs—actually will decline slightly over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile, the budget estimates that spending will rise 71% for Social Security, 72% for Medicare and 115% for Medicaid over the same period, with the increases getting bigger after that. These programs are on autopilot, and will keep eating up tax dollars unless changed.

Yet the Obama budget itself proposes little of significance to change the trend lines on these so-called entitlement programs. The budget summary from the president talks more about what shouldn't be reduced in Social Security than what might be, and it repeats ideas already set in train in last year's health bill to slow down Medicare.

Meanwhile, these underlying realities are almost entirely missing in the cacophonous debate between the two parties about "spending cuts." Contrary to popular belief, people in Washington aren't stupid, and many actually can do math, so what explains the disconnect?

Here it is: When the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans this month about government spending, they found that just 12% wanted to cut spending on Medicare or on Social Security, and only 6% wanted to reduce spending on veterans benefits. Those are the kinds of numbers that don't merely suggest to politicians that there are no rewards for cutting entitlements; they scream that there may well be political punishment for doing so.

Polling in recent months by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News suggests a similar bottom line: Voters want spending cuts in theory but offer limited support for them.

Bold emphasis mine. Which elected officials have the most to lose if and when they start slashing the three big entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be nice if for once they did what was best for the country rather than what's best for them politically?

 

[william the wie]

what cuts? There are no overall budget cuts in this budget.

 

[MaggieMae]

what cuts? There are no overall budget cuts in this budget.

Yes there are, but I think you missed the point.

 

[Sallow]

Here it is..

Department; Total 2011; Total 2012; % Change From 2011.

Agriculture 147.8 145.6 -1.5

Commerce 9.2 10.4 13.9

Defense 772.1 727.4 -5.8

Education 49.1 68 38.5

Energy 31.2 27.2 -12.7

EPA 9.9 8.8 -11.2

Health and Human Services 895.6 886.8 -1.0

Homeland Security 43.5 44.3 1.8

Housing and Urban Development 55.9 47.2 -15.5

Interior 12.4 11.8 -4.4

Justice 32.6 31 -5.1

Labor 149.5 108.8 -27.2

State 74.2 73.6 -0.7

Transportation 76.5 128.6 68.1

Treasury 467.3 520.3 11.4

Veterans 123.4 129 4.5

Social Security 803.1 818.3 1.9

NASA 18.9 18.7 -0.9

Legislative Branch 4.8 5.2 6.9

Judiciary 7.3 7.6 4.3

Army Corps of Engineers 4.9 4.6 -6.1

Other Agencies 120.7 131.5 8.9

TOTAL 3,651 3,685 0.9
Agency Spending Proposed by Obama for 2012 - Yahoo! News

 

[Wry Catcher]

what cuts? There are no overall budget cuts in this budget.

Yes there are, but I think you missed the point.

politely stated.

 

[MaggieMae]

what cuts? There are no overall budget cuts in this budget.

Yes there are, but I think you missed the point.

politely stated.

I do always start out that way, anyway.

Nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that the average American, according to several polls, including one Gallup poll about a month ago, want deficit reduction measures taken, but don't want their own government grabs affected. Let somebody else pay the bill, in other words. I guess the absence of any responses to this thread verifies the poll numbers.

Until that attitude changes, the politicians doing the budgets won't change either.

I found it ludicrous that the new members of the House, many of whom were either tea party members or supported the cause have decided that yet another proposed anti-abortion bill is a priority. With all the screeching about government spending, the new Republican House yesterday chooses to debate a WEDGE issue? Puleeze... Shall we get down to real business people?

 

[william the wie]

The budget increases in size that means that there are no budget cuts just a reshuffling of funds. Your rebuttal sounds like a couple's argument over the family budget: if total expenditure is not cut then there is no budget cut. That is not just an argument it is a tautology attempted rebuttal is wasted effort because it is an attempted rebuttal of reality.

 

[uscitizen]

It is always someone elses money that needs to be cut or your incumbent congress person that needs to be voted out not Mine.
And someone else needs to pay the taxes to pay for everything.
And the reason everything is screwed up is your fault.

We are a fat lazy society with no gumption.

 

[MaggieMae]

The budget increases in size that means that there are no budget cuts just a reshuffling of funds. Your rebuttal sounds like a couple's argument over the family budget: if total expenditure is not cut then there is no budget cut. That is not just an argument it is a tautology attempted rebuttal is wasted effort because it is an attempted rebuttal of reality.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you have something special you want saved or cut? If so, elaborate. Where should cost shifting occur? What agency is over-bloated and what agency is under-funded? These are all questions that will be debated over the next months, probably the next year. I'm not drawing any conclusions. Just opening it up for debate among the people who post on this board.

 

[uscitizen]

Both sides will make cuts in projected increases in spending and declare victory.

However if they cut off PBS funding I might have to shoot someone.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is always someone elses money that needs to be cut or your incumbent congress person that needs to be voted out not Mine.
And someone else needs to pay the taxes to pay for everything.
And the reason everything is screwed up is your fault.

We are a fat lazy society with no gumption.

I think eventually we'll see deep cuts in spending programs, as well as cost shifting in health care/Medicare. I also think taxes will go up. In the meantime, the average citizen is keeping eyes tightly shut and hoping for a miracle. But eventually we'll deal with what's necessary.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's all politics right now?

It's always all politics.

 

[uscitizen]

It is always someone elses money that needs to be cut or your incumbent congress person that needs to be voted out not Mine.
And someone else needs to pay the taxes to pay for everything.
And the reason everything is screwed up is your fault.

We are a fat lazy society with no gumption.

I think eventually we'll see deep cuts in spending programs, as well as cost shifting in health care/Medicare. I also think taxes will go up. In the meantime, the average citizen is keeping eyes tightly shut and hoping for a miracle. But eventually we'll deal with what's necessary.

I hope you are correct, I am of the opinion that will will be at least a generation before we get out act together, more likely 2 generations.

 

[Big Fitz]

Discuss?

Explaining What's Missing From the Obama Budget: Big Entitlement Cuts - WSJ.com

Some excerpts:

The country is deeply unhappy with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and in theory voters demand that spending be ratcheted back. But that's not the same as wanting spending cut back in the areas where it's really big and really sensitive.

And for now, the simple fact is that politicians aren't convinced that they see in public opinion real signs that voters are ready to applaud a cut in the Medicare benefits Granny receives, or the Social Security benefits they can expect themselves, which happen to be the nub of the long-term spending problem. Given that Washington isn't a land of great courage on these matters to begin with, this view of public opinion is likely to continue to produce what we're all seeing: inaction.

In many ways, the new Obama budget encapsulates this picture perfectly. The budget envisions that spending on all the programs Congress argues about and votes to fund every year—including defense programs—actually will decline slightly over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile, the budget estimates that spending will rise 71% for Social Security, 72% for Medicare and 115% for Medicaid over the same period, with the increases getting bigger after that. These programs are on autopilot, and will keep eating up tax dollars unless changed.

Yet the Obama budget itself proposes little of significance to change the trend lines on these so-called entitlement programs. The budget summary from the president talks more about what shouldn't be reduced in Social Security than what might be, and it repeats ideas already set in train in last year's health bill to slow down Medicare.

Meanwhile, these underlying realities are almost entirely missing in the cacophonous debate between the two parties about "spending cuts." Contrary to popular belief, people in Washington aren't stupid, and many actually can do math, so what explains the disconnect?

Here it is: When the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans this month about government spending, they found that just 12% wanted to cut spending on Medicare or on Social Security, and only 6% wanted to reduce spending on veterans benefits. Those are the kinds of numbers that don't merely suggest to politicians that there are no rewards for cutting entitlements; they scream that there may well be political punishment for doing so.

Polling in recent months by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News suggests a similar bottom line: Voters want spending cuts in theory but offer limited support for them.

Bold emphasis mine. Which elected officials have the most to lose if and when they start slashing the three big entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be nice if for once they did what was best for the country rather than what's best for them politically?

The budget must be reduced to 2006 monetary levels (I'd prefer 2001 levels) then frozen for the next decade to get spending the national debt and the deficit under control. That means every new program created after 2006 (or better, 2001) would need to be ended.

Every department, every agency, every job.

Just think, the massively bloated budget of the DHS, gone, Obamacare, gone, medicare part D, gone, NCLB, gone. These things only bode well for the economic health of our nation.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's all politics right now?

It's always all politics.

Politics NOW meaning the opening shots. Obama puts out a budget outline; Congress begins picking it over based on jockeying for position, period. It's only when they get behind closed doors and come to compromise that anything actually reaches the floor for debate.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is always someone elses money that needs to be cut or your incumbent congress person that needs to be voted out not Mine.
And someone else needs to pay the taxes to pay for everything.
And the reason everything is screwed up is your fault.

We are a fat lazy society with no gumption.

I think eventually we'll see deep cuts in spending programs, as well as cost shifting in health care/Medicare. I also think taxes will go up. In the meantime, the average citizen is keeping eyes tightly shut and hoping for a miracle. But eventually we'll deal with what's necessary.

I hope you are correct, I am of the opinion that will will be at least a generation before we get out act together, more likely 2 generations.

Hopefully not generations. I think we'll be looking pretty good within another ten years.

 

[MaggieMae]

Discuss?

Explaining What's Missing From the Obama Budget: Big Entitlement Cuts - WSJ.com

Some excerpts:

The country is deeply unhappy with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and in theory voters demand that spending be ratcheted back. But that's not the same as wanting spending cut back in the areas where it's really big and really sensitive.

And for now, the simple fact is that politicians aren't convinced that they see in public opinion real signs that voters are ready to applaud a cut in the Medicare benefits Granny receives, or the Social Security benefits they can expect themselves, which happen to be the nub of the long-term spending problem. Given that Washington isn't a land of great courage on these matters to begin with, this view of public opinion is likely to continue to produce what we're all seeing: inaction.

In many ways, the new Obama budget encapsulates this picture perfectly. The budget envisions that spending on all the programs Congress argues about and votes to fund every year—including defense programs—actually will decline slightly over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile, the budget estimates that spending will rise 71% for Social Security, 72% for Medicare and 115% for Medicaid over the same period, with the increases getting bigger after that. These programs are on autopilot, and will keep eating up tax dollars unless changed.

Yet the Obama budget itself proposes little of significance to change the trend lines on these so-called entitlement programs. The budget summary from the president talks more about what shouldn't be reduced in Social Security than what might be, and it repeats ideas already set in train in last year's health bill to slow down Medicare.

Meanwhile, these underlying realities are almost entirely missing in the cacophonous debate between the two parties about "spending cuts." Contrary to popular belief, people in Washington aren't stupid, and many actually can do math, so what explains the disconnect?

Here it is: When the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans this month about government spending, they found that just 12% wanted to cut spending on Medicare or on Social Security, and only 6% wanted to reduce spending on veterans benefits. Those are the kinds of numbers that don't merely suggest to politicians that there are no rewards for cutting entitlements; they scream that there may well be political punishment for doing so.

Polling in recent months by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News suggests a similar bottom line: Voters want spending cuts in theory but offer limited support for them.

Bold emphasis mine. Which elected officials have the most to lose if and when they start slashing the three big entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be nice if for once they did what was best for the country rather than what's best for them politically?

The budget must be reduced to 2006 monetary levels (I'd prefer 2001 levels) then frozen for the next decade to get spending the national debt and the deficit under control. That means every new program created after 2006 (or better, 2001) would need to be ended.

Every department, every agency, every job.

Just think, the massively bloated budget of the DHS, gone, Obamacare, gone, medicare part D, gone, NCLB, gone. These things only bode well for the economic health of our nation.

So end the Veterans benefits added? What about funding for all our broken troops once they're not over there getting messed up in order to "spread democracy"?? Who do you think will take care of their medical needs? Private facilities. Sure.

I have a better idea. How about we go back to the 2000-2001 budget when we had a surplus to play with, before Booooooooooosh gave tax perks to the rich and started two very expensive wars? What if we had all that money to spend elsewhere (or not at all, just a surplus that kept on growing in a rainy day (hurricane?) fund? But since we don't, what essential programs should be cut because of those billions in outlay?

 

[MaggieMae]

The budget must be reduced to 2006 monetary levels (I'd prefer 2001 levels) then frozen for the next decade to get spending the national debt and the deficit under control. That means every new program created after 2006 (or better, 2001) would need to be ended.

Every department, every agency, every job.

Just think, the massively bloated budget of the DHS, gone, Obamacare, gone, medicare part D, gone, NCLB, gone. These things only bode well for the economic health of our nation.

And who should we turn all those functions over to? You're completely nuts. For one thing, medical CARE would continue its march upward by about 7-10% per year, putting the "health" of our nation at risk for even upper middle-class people. Who do you think would care for the elderly? Will private investors open up free nursing homes? Oh sure they will. Eliminate DHS? Yeah, right. Scale it down, or take some sub-agencies out of it so they can actually become functional again, like FEMA, makes sense, but DHS is now an essential part of our national security and can hardly be eliminated. Again, are you crazy?

 

[Big Fitz]

The budget must be reduced to 2006 monetary levels (I'd prefer 2001 levels) then frozen for the next decade to get spending the national debt and the deficit under control. That means every new program created after 2006 (or better, 2001) would need to be ended.

Every department, every agency, every job.

Just think, the massively bloated budget of the DHS, gone, Obamacare, gone, medicare part D, gone, NCLB, gone. These things only bode well for the economic health of our nation.

And who should we turn all those functions over to? You're completely nuts. For one thing, medical CARE would continue its march upward by about 7-10% per year, putting the "health" of our nation at risk for even upper middle-class people. Who do you think would care for the elderly? Will private investors open up free nursing homes? Oh sure they will. Eliminate DHS? Yeah, right. Scale it down, or take some sub-agencies out of it so they can actually become functional again, like FEMA, makes sense, but DHS is now an essential part of our national security and can hardly be eliminated. Again, are you crazy?

So end the Veterans benefits added? What about funding for all our broken troops once they're not over there getting messed up in order to "spread democracy"?? Who do you think will take care of their medical needs? Private facilities. Sure.

I have a better idea. How about we go back to the 2000-2001 budget when we had a surplus to play with, before Booooooooooosh gave tax perks to the rich and started two very expensive wars? What if we had all that money to spend elsewhere (or not at all, just a surplus that kept on growing in a rainy day (hurricane?) fund? But since we don't, what essential programs should be cut because of those billions in outlay?

Listen, yes. Many of those programs are going to have to die an unseemly death or be reduced dramatically. Every sacred cow from veteran's benefits to social security MUST be slashed and slashed severely. This is what we get for going on a spending bender for the last 40 or so years on social programs, forgetting the purpose of government is to not wipe every nose from sea to dribbling sea from now in perpetuity

Departments like the DHS are best broken up and returned to their appropriate former agencies in Defense, Justice and so forth. What is causing the rise in the cost of medical expenses? Government in most cases, lack of tort reform in many others. There are far better and cost effective ways to reduce costs than having government pay for it and preserve the status quo, with just them recieving the bill that we then pay anyway at even HIGHER prices in our taxes.

I am not crazy. Out of control spending got us here, and now severe and very painful cuts MUST be done to stop this nation from falling apart and becoming the Weimar republic.

Or did you think a dollar printed is a dollar earned?

 

[Big Fitz]

What if we had all that money to spend elsewhere (or not at all, just a surplus that kept on growing in a rainy day (hurricane?) fund?

BTW, if we DID have all that money and did not fight in those wars started by islamofascists, we would have wasted it all the same but in even LESS useful social programs that cost even more money now, putting us even farther into debt.

The hand writing on the wall has proclaimed our doom if we do not stop spending on worthless causes (from war to social entitlements), you will have no money for truly needed tasks.