No..The federal government could easily make the necessary cuts.
All that needs to be done is take the baseline budget increases for all depts which receive discretionary spending and cut the increases for each dept by 50%...
Each dept would get an increase. Not just as large. Problem solved.
But of course with a free spending socialist in the WH and democrats in the Senate concerned only with their freeloading constituencies would never consider such "Draconian" ( democrats word) cuts. Event though it's not a cut. It's a reduction of a scheduled increase.
Only[B] on planet liberal can an increase be deemed a cut.[/B]
Scary? You're God damned right it's scary. It's scary when almost half the population's hair starts to fall out because they believe government will suddenly not be there to care for them.
Do you make up all of you own bullshit? Or do you have help? Better yet, do you believe all your own bullshit? I hope not.
BTW, you need to make up your mind. Is an increase a decrease if the increase is not as much as planned? You know, like your idea above.
But I will tell you what is scary. The stupidity of people like you who want to use the governments ability to function and pay our bills as a negotiating chip to change or remove existing law.
How you gonna like it when the Dems shut the government down and refuse to pay our bills if the ultra wealthy don't get a 5% tax increase. Or how about shut er down if assault weapons are not banned. There are a LOT of things the Dems might want to use the shut down for. Won't it be great when the Dems do it?
One day the Dems will be in the majority in the House. You sure you want this idea of default and shutting down the government to be used against Repugs in the future?
First. There is no need to make this personal. So cut the insults. I will not tolerate it.
Now, you have deftly sidestepped the point.
Baseline budgeting is the method by which our federal departments are funded. That includes discretionary spending.
All budgets are increased on a yearly basis by a certain percentage based on the fiscal requirements of each department.
The idea is to reduce the amount of increase each fiscal year until the federal government can cease running deficits to operate at full capacity.
Each time this idea is introduced, howls of protest come from the political left. The message given to the people is "they are cutting your( name the entitlement)....When in fact there is no cut at all. It is simple a reduction in the budget increase.
This tactic to not fund Obamacare is nothing new. These types of deals have been part of how our government works from the beginning.
For example, do you really think the Electric Boat Company where all of our nuclear submarines are built has been in Groton, CT because it is THE ideal place to do this work?
The subs are built there because powerful legislators have made deals to insure the work is kept in this otherwise small Connecticut South Shore town.
This deal with Obamacare is nothing new. It's just on a more grand scale.
Laws are changed all the time. For the most part new legislation is written to make the existing law no longer valid.
Where do you people get the idea that once a law is passed and signed it is sacrosanct?
The wealthy DID get a tax increase. So did everyone else.
BTW, there was no continuing resolution or any spending measure tied to the tax increase.
The gun thing is not going to happen. First, that is an issue for the states. Second, many states have passed laws restricting the use or ownership of certain weapons. They have done this without breaching the 2nd Amendment.
Your emotion filled post used two very poor examples of how you see this as a tit for tat issue.
That's scary.
Here we have a program, Obamacare, which offers nothing in resemblance to what we were told, will cost THREE times the original figure. That is based on the report from the CBO. Has caused premiums to skyrocket for those who choose to stay with their current carrier.
What else is there to say. ACA is a bad law and it needs to be changed dramatically or not funded in its current form.
This fight is not about health insurance or medical care. This impasse is the work of the President who is concerned more with his legacy and a democrat faction willing to carry the water for the President.
The words "I will not negotiate" are not those of an elected governing executive. Those are the words of
ruler.
