I posted a brief collection of reports and proposals on the last Open Thread that address the Federal Budget deficits and long-term fiscal outlook.
That listing wasn’t intended to be a comprehensive collection, but rather one that focused primarily on spending reductions. Sammy and Amateur Socialist pointed out that the listing didn’t include the Ryan Roadmap, Simpson Bowles plan, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus FY2012 budget. True enough. All three of those plans are worthy reads. What I didn’t want to do was overshadow the CBO and GAO spending reduction analyses as well as Senator Coburn’s proposal which targets $9 trillion in deficit reductions, $8 trillion of which is focused on spending cuts.
The Ryan Roadmap, Simpson Bowles plan, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) FY2012 budget should be addressed. All three of the plans are worthy of main posts. Absent that effort, I encourage everyone to read those plans and share their opinions about these three plans in the Open Thread comments. I drafted a post regarding the CPC budget plan two months ago which I intended to share in an Open Thread, but it needs more work. The CPC budget is heavy on revenue increases, defense/security cuts, and additional spending.
I believe it is important also to track Congressional actions on budget authorizations and appropriations. CoRev has taken the lead on that effort; he is doing a great job of identifying the latest status in the House and Senate. I encourage others to undertake similar efforts on key legislation in the House and Senate. Every effort helps keep AB readers informed.
The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.
We needed the extortionists in 2004 when the deficit was just blowing up. We should have had a Volcker in thefed at that time, as well.
Aside from extortion to kill the New Deal there are 16 million unemployed reasons not to try to do what should have been done in 2004 when the economy was good.
Employment has become redefined as a one-way process. Once an employer rejects you you’re out for good. Or once he closes your plant/office/store for that matter. The layoffs at Cisco, Borders etc. have only magnified this problem. Can anybody imagine a regulatory or political response to this? Or for that matter an entreprenurial or market based solution?
By my understanding this is exactly the kind of discretion and prejudice implicitly protected by free enterprise/markets. If I put on my manager/owner hat I can easily justify this winnowing as a time saver if nothing else. Why bother considering people who aren’t already accustomed to the existing regime of unpaid overtime and declining wages and benefits?
I posted this at the end of the last open thread right before Rdan started this one. I still think it’s important and quite relevant to the deficit crisis – How are revenues supposed to recover if we keep throwing perfectly good workers/taxpayers over the side of the economy permanently?
Now here’s an interesting side light to the debt ceiling controversy. The original source, a brief notation in the WSJ, is already one year old. It would be interesting to know what the current profit picture on the investment described has been. Eric Cantor short on T-Bills to the tune of $15,000. http://renaissancepost.com/politics/more-proof-gop-wants-us-to-fail-eric-cantor-shorts-t-bills/
The link to the Journal article iworks, but the full article is behind a subscriber only wall. Does anyone know more about Mr. Cantor’s investment strategy? Very interesting given his position in the Congress and his professed political ideology, or lack thereof.
Where is the Democratic Plan? Where is the Presidents plan? Why has the H of R been the only ones who have passed a peiece of legilsation on the subject?
If Demorcats are that concerned abot the credit of the United States, then they should agree to cut spending, and quit holding the country and the markets hostage. Some call that Extortion!
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Yep, they voted against passage because they knew it would pass anyhow. Kinda different from saying you won’t vote to pass an increase no matter what when you know that the clock is running out. Ya know, you can bring down the government that way. Extortion? You decide. NancyO
Darren As I might have expected, that is one truly stupid reply. Mr. Cantor swore an oath of office. In his position he could likely influence the market by influencing his party’s strategy. You are either goofing on the entire dismal episode or you are one dumb ass hole.
The House of Representatives is where the plundering appropriations bill for the war machine starts, by the US constitution, which few care for any more it seems.
When the rethugs demand cuts to social programs and support spending more money in real terms next year on war profiteering than during Vietnam, that is extortion.
How can one throw Grandma under the bus?
The fleecee standing up to the extorter is no more an extorter than the man shot by the robber for resisting makes the dead guy the murderer.
Don’t you read Lincoln?
Lincoln was given the same illogic from the south as they threatened to secede about being a newly “elected republican president”, if he did not step down he was the extorter who dissolved the union.
Don’t work that way, but I appreciate you giving me a chance to explain the lack of sense of your statement by citing the Great Emancipator.
When the economy is good you reduce debt, Eisenhower did it, Nixon started, but went Watergate, Bush I reduced debt, Clinton, Kennedy, Truman all reduced the debt when times were good.
Maybe Obama and them should have called in Paul Volcker to make an economic case.
With 16 M under or unemployed the US really does not need to cut the flow!!!
Great depression Hooverism at large in the world again.
Let’s do the 1937 and Lucky Lindy thought the US should befriend Adolph……..
Disclaimer I was born shortly after WW II raised by veterans some of whom were scarred more by the depression than by killing nazis.
The personal finances of key members of the Executive Branch and all elected members of the House and Senate can be accessed here. Representative Eric Cantor’s personal financial holdings and transactions through 2009 are available here.
Jack, folks in Congress are smarter investors than most of us ( http://insidertrading.procon.org/sourcefiles/abnormal-returns-of-us-house-of-representatives-2011.pdf ). As MG notes, they make their financial holdings public, or at least they say that they publicly declare everything, just like Clarence Thomas did. I suspect some digging would turn up many “apparent” conflicts of interest on both sides of the aisle. But we all know in our hearts that they do extremely well with their investments only because we elect the best and brightest, and all are ethically above reproach. 🙂
Generally lousy NPR segment this morning on the debt limit deal did contain one useful observation: The announced GOP presidential candidates have been largely silent on the debt limit. Rommney was asked about it but basically demurred to the house bill already passed.
You think they might be imagining how much they will need to increase it during their terms? Hmm.
actually, I think Sammy has a point, though he’s got it backwards. Our Leaders are perfectly willing to play politics… not strange considering they are politicians. And we know for sure that O is willing to play politics.
What we don’t have is leaders who are willing or able to do what’s right for the country.. and that’s both sides of the aisle.
So just to be sure Sammy understands me… I tend to agree that that the Dems are just as bad… well, almost… as the R’s. That does not make the R’s good.
i posted a reply to your question on the last open thread if you are still interested in it.
you rephrase it here as a rhetorical, but i think the answer here may be that we are NOT supposed to recover from this recession. the workers are superfluous. as long as you can find cheap labor abroad you don’t need american workers, or work, or skills. until you run out of customers. my guess is that the plutocrats expect to do well selling to the “new rich” in china. not sure what will happen when chinese plutocrats decide they don’t need american plutocrats any more.
Lets go thru the 2010 Defense Budget! And you can point out exactly where the War Profiteering overwhlemes the 2010 Defense Budget.
Keep in mind that you and your ilk claimed that it was an absolute requirement that Barack Obama be elected President running on a platform of withdrawl from the Middle East. But what did he do? He ended spending more than Bush, and started another War. And your whinning us? It’s Pathetic!
Operations & Maintenance-$283 Billion-(+4.2%) Military Personell————$154 Billion-(+5.0%) Procurement—————–$140 Billion-(-1.8%) Research & Dvelopment—-$79 Billion–(+1.3%) Military Construction——–$24 Billion–(+19.0%) Family Housing————–$ 3.1 Billion-(-20.2%)
I have always been told that its much easier to find a job if you have one vs. being unemployed. Employers have been discriminatting all along, just now its become fairly blantant. I’m not sure its legal either (it may be though), but just lately its gotten very obvious. I have always had a job when looking for the next.
The market solution would be to understand that some people lost their job not due to anything they did and thus there is some valuable people out there that can be hired if you can find them. Right now though its hard to find them and there is a risk premium to hiring anyone. So you (theoretically) lower the risk of getting a dude by hiring people who have jobs.
Not sure how to regulate it since its not an easy thing to quantify (Do I have to hire the 18 month unemployed over a more skilled employed guy from the business donw the street?).
From policy you could have a government incentive that pays a proportion of the new hires salary for say 6 months. This would lower the risk even if you hired a dud. I believe Germany does something like this. There is still problems with this – I read of a place that had this type set-up and the new-hire would get fired once the government checks stopped and another gov supported guy hired to replce them.
A lot of people though have trouble taking jobs that either pay less or have less social standing than the job they had before. Just humans being human. (I would have a hard time working side by side with my 18 year old son at a Yogurt shop).
Eventually, assuming the economy comes back, the need for workers will overcome this problem and they will get employed.
Its Risk Assessment. There is not much to gain and all to lose about saying anything at this point. Better to sit it out and watch the fireworks. Obama is giving them plenty of material for campaign adds.
ilsm is a Buchanonite Isolationist. Not even close to either parties mainstream of thought. Not only not in the ballpark, but not withen shouting distance of the parking lot.
But he’s a harmless 1 note troll. Just ignore him.
i’d have no trouble working for my daughter at a donut shop. but she and i have a pretty good relationship and she knows more about managing a donut shop.
what i couldn’t face would be working for a bureaucracy again, public or private. didn’t like the sawmill much either.
but the state had a policy of hiring “temp” for six months. that way they could get rid of you without firing you. and … well there are lots of ways.
sometimes its hard to be nice to you when you are rude and stupid.
ilsm likes to remind us about military waste. we need the reminding. we would need it less if we actually did something about it. i have not heard him recommend isolationism… unless you feel that all wars are just and sensible and anyone who thinks otherwise is an isolationist.
not being close to either party’s mainstream of thought is a sign of sanity.
Darren’s comment offered the kind of non sequiters and unfounded assumptions that i would expect from a six year old, a mental patient, or a couple of our regular trolls. hadn’t quite realize your were in bed with them.
FULL TEXT: “The CBO just released its analysis of the debt ceiling extension and deficit reduction plan that the House of Representatives is considering. We have been clear in our opposition to this bill, and the President explained why last night. “While we disagree with the approach that Speaker Boehner chose to take in this bill, there is one thing that we all still agree on, and that is the size of the problem. Both the House Republican budget proposal unveiled by Congressman Ryan on April 5 and the President’s fiscal framework that he introduced on April 13, set as our goal deficit reduction of $4 trillion. Since both of these plans were introduced before the agreement on appropriations for FY 2011, the baseline used for them did not reflect the spending cuts enacted this year in that legislation. Indeed, throughout our weeks of talks, all parties have worked off a January baseline because we all recognized that we needed to start from the same place. “That is why it would be confusing to judge the current proposal’s savings from the “adjusted March 2011 baseline” which CBO released in May. Conveniently, CBO notes the January baseline numbers in its analysis, and pegs the savings from the Boehner plan at $1.1 trillion. Furthermore, an additional adjustment was also assumed in the talks for the projected costs of Pell Grants under a special Congressional rule. That adjustment brings the savings up to $1.2 trillion. “Don’t get me wrong: there is a lot in Speaker Boehner’s plan that we do not like and actively oppose. But, as this debate continues and intensifies in the coming days, it’s important that we compare apples to apples, and make sure that we are all understanding the facts.”
Reid’s plan “includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” More here:
There won’t be anybody to sell yogurt or donuts to if nobody has any money. If the people lucky enough to have jobs have stagnant wages and rising obligations to help support a widening circle of permanently unemplyed friends and lovers the little luxuries will be out of reach for everybody but the CEOs. Are they just going to retreat into their gated communities or what?
ilsm – “CoRev, The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.”
Where did you find your $546 billion figure for the FY2012 defense bill?
ilsm – “CoRev, The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.”
You act as though no Democrats in the U.S. House voted for the national defense bill.
I included the CBO analysis of the House plan as revised in my summary list above. I listed both of the CBO analyses for Speaker Boehner’s two proposed bills.
I can support program expense reductions across the board for the government departments and agencies with a few notable exceptions, none of which by the way are the Department of Defense and other security agencies. I can support all kinds of expenditure reductions if the House members were to go through the federal programs using the CBO deficit reduction options list, GAO government waste and duplication reports, and Senator Coburn’s 621 page $9 trillion deficit reduction plan. There is no question that the government could save perhaps as much as $2 trillion through elimination of department/agency duplication and identified waste.
Having stated that, let me add that, in my opinion, the majority of United States voters do not want a large share of the FY2012-2021 federal budgets’ deficits reduction to be placed on the backs of poor citizens, elderly citizens, or both. Those are wrong groups of citizens to be targeted. The is the message that must sink in with the House and Senate Republicans. While cuts to social safety net programs will occur, such must be accomplished in a very fair manner to those affected.
Hence, I am concerned about the second stage of Speaker Boehner’s deficit reduction plan. I’m concerned about it whether Boehner’s plan is passed or not passed by the Congress. Obviously, the House Republicans still intend to cut many of the entitlement and social support programs whether accomplished in such a plan or during fiscal years’ authorization and appropriations processes. There are many government programs which can be targeted before the Republicans start cutting on the muscle of social safety net programs. If the Republicans do not understand that, then they need to be voted out of office. The bottom line is simple: Cutting the social safety net programs should be the last group of programs put under the budget reduction knife.
Improve the efficiencies of all government programs as necessary, but initially targeting such programs as House Budget Chairman Ryan did earlier this year is absurd. And it’s not going to fly.
I see no reason to expect that Speaker Boehner’s second step in his deficit reduction plan will receive majority House and Senate support. Maybe the second step shouldn’t receive support until the House has demonstrated that it has carefully reviewed all other alternatives including increased net revenue streams prior to putting the knife to any social safety net programs.
Meanwhile, it appears to me that Senator Majority Leader Reid’s deficit reduction plan is a sham. At best, Reid’s plan may cut roughly $1.1 trillion excluding the winding down of national defense expenses for the wars. That’s not going to get the deficit reduction job done.
I posted a brief collection of reports and proposals on the last Open Thread that address the Federal Budget deficits and long-term fiscal outlook.
That listing wasn’t intended to be a comprehensive collection, but rather one that focused primarily on spending reductions. Sammy and Amateur Socialist pointed out that the listing didn’t include the Ryan Roadmap, Simpson Bowles plan, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus FY2012 budget. True enough. All three of those plans are worthy reads. What I didn’t want to do was overshadow the CBO and GAO spending reduction analyses as well as Senator Coburn’s proposal which targets $9 trillion in deficit reductions, $8 trillion of which is focused on spending cuts.
The Ryan Roadmap, Simpson Bowles plan, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) FY2012 budget should be addressed. All three of the plans are worthy of main posts. Absent that effort, I encourage everyone to read those plans and share their opinions about these three plans in the Open Thread comments. I drafted a post regarding the CPC budget plan two months ago which I intended to share in an Open Thread, but it needs more work. The CPC budget is heavy on revenue increases, defense/security cuts, and additional spending.
I believe it is important also to track Congressional actions on budget authorizations and appropriations. CoRev has taken the lead on that effort; he is doing a great job of identifying the latest status in the House and Senate. I encourage others to undertake similar efforts on key legislation in the House and Senate. Every effort helps keep AB readers informed.
CoRev,
The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.
Republican extortion.
We needed the extortionists in 2004 when the deficit was just blowing up. We should have had a Volcker in thefed at that time, as well.
Aside from extortion to kill the New Deal there are 16 million unemployed reasons not to try to do what should have been done in 2004 when the economy was good.
Another story documenting our newest emergent underclass: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?_r=1&hp
Employment has become redefined as a one-way process. Once an employer rejects you you’re out for good. Or once he closes your plant/office/store for that matter. The layoffs at Cisco, Borders etc. have only magnified this problem. Can anybody imagine a regulatory or political response to this? Or for that matter an entreprenurial or market based solution?
By my understanding this is exactly the kind of discretion and prejudice implicitly protected by free enterprise/markets. If I put on my manager/owner hat I can easily justify this winnowing as a time saver if nothing else. Why bother considering people who aren’t already accustomed to the existing regime of unpaid overtime and declining wages and benefits?
I posted this at the end of the last open thread right before Rdan started this one. I still think it’s important and quite relevant to the deficit crisis – How are revenues supposed to recover if we keep throwing perfectly good workers/taxpayers over the side of the economy permanently?
reagan – h.w.bush senior policy advisor bruce bartlett thinks the bush/obama tax cuts are at the root of our fiscal problems…
Now here’s an interesting side light to the debt ceiling controversy. The original source, a brief notation in the WSJ, is already one year old. It would be interesting to know what the current profit picture on the investment described has been. Eric Cantor short on T-Bills to the tune of $15,000.
http://renaissancepost.com/politics/more-proof-gop-wants-us-to-fail-eric-cantor-shorts-t-bills/
The link to the Journal article iworks, but the full article is behind a subscriber only wall. Does anyone know more about Mr. Cantor’s investment strategy? Very interesting given his position in the Congress and his professed political ideology, or lack thereof.
FY 2012 Appropriations Bills
House Actions:——————————————————– Passed –Passed
Bill Subcommittees ————————————————- Committee — House
Agriculture,Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies ——————————————————X———–X
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies——————–X
Defense———————————————————————–X———-X
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies—————X————X
Financial Services and General Government—————————-X
Homeland Security———————————————————-X———–X
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education,
and Related Agencies
Legislative Branch———————————————————–X ———–X
Military Construction, Veteran Affairs,
and Related Agencies——————————————————–X———–X
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs———————–X
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies
Jack,
Big Deal….we all went short on T-Bills. There were plenty of signs pointing out that it was a good strategy.
I’m shocked, shocked to learn Cantor may be gambling on throwing the US into default…
I thought it was just plain old extortion…………………………
Do you actually beleive him?
Ilsm,
Where is the Democratic Plan? Where is the Presidents plan? Why has the H of R been the only ones who have passed a peiece of legilsation on the subject?
If Demorcats are that concerned abot the credit of the United States, then they should agree to cut spending, and quit holding the country and the markets hostage. Some call that Extortion!
In 2006, ALL Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling, including:
Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, and Barack Obama.
http://reddogreport.com/2011/07/all-45-demcrat-senators-voted-against-a-debt-ceiling-increase-in-2006/
Here’s what Obama had to say then about his vote:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Wow.
Yep, they voted against passage because they knew it would pass anyhow. Kinda different from saying you won’t vote to pass an increase no matter what when you know that the clock is running out. Ya know, you can bring down the government that way. Extortion? You decide. NancyO
Nancy,
Oh Stop It!………you sound ridiculous….just recognize how big of a hypocrit Obama is and leave it at that.
Darren
As I might have expected, that is one truly stupid reply. Mr. Cantor swore an oath of office. In his position he could likely influence the market by influencing his party’s strategy. You are either goofing on the entire dismal episode or you are one dumb ass hole.
Darren,
The House of Representatives is where the plundering appropriations bill for the war machine starts, by the US constitution, which few care for any more it seems.
When the rethugs demand cuts to social programs and support spending more money in real terms next year on war profiteering than during Vietnam, that is extortion.
How can one throw Grandma under the bus?
The fleecee standing up to the extorter is no more an extorter than the man shot by the robber for resisting makes the dead guy the murderer.
Don’t you read Lincoln?
Lincoln was given the same illogic from the south as they threatened to secede about being a newly “elected republican president”, if he did not step down he was the extorter who dissolved the union.
Don’t work that way, but I appreciate you giving me a chance to explain the lack of sense of your statement by citing the Great Emancipator.
Darren,
You would have loved Herbert Hoover.
When the economy is good you reduce debt, Eisenhower did it, Nixon started, but went Watergate, Bush I reduced debt, Clinton, Kennedy, Truman all reduced the debt when times were good.
Maybe Obama and them should have called in Paul Volcker to make an economic case.
With 16 M under or unemployed the US really does not need to cut the flow!!!
Great depression Hooverism at large in the world again.
Let’s do the 1937 and Lucky Lindy thought the US should befriend Adolph……..
Disclaimer I was born shortly after WW II raised by veterans some of whom were scarred more by the depression than by killing nazis.
Darren,
I believe Bartlett, and I have looked at other reporting and a few theories which support Bartlett.
I would add that the war profiteers helped alot.
Jack,
The personal finances of key members of the Executive Branch and all elected members of the House and Senate can be accessed here. Representative Eric Cantor’s personal financial holdings and transactions through 2009 are available here.
Jack, folks in Congress are smarter investors than most of us ( http://insidertrading.procon.org/sourcefiles/abnormal-returns-of-us-house-of-representatives-2011.pdf ). As MG notes, they make their financial holdings public, or at least they say that they publicly declare everything, just like Clarence Thomas did. I suspect some digging would turn up many “apparent” conflicts of interest on both sides of the aisle. But we all know in our hearts that they do extremely well with their investments only because we elect the best and brightest, and all are ethically above reproach. 🙂
Generally lousy NPR segment this morning on the debt limit deal did contain one useful observation: The announced GOP presidential candidates have been largely silent on the debt limit. Rommney was asked about it but basically demurred to the house bill already passed.
You think they might be imagining how much they will need to increase it during their terms? Hmm.
Nancy
actually, I think Sammy has a point, though he’s got it backwards. Our Leaders are perfectly willing to play politics… not strange considering they are politicians. And we know for sure that O is willing to play politics.
What we don’t have is leaders who are willing or able to do what’s right for the country.. and that’s both sides of the aisle.
So just to be sure Sammy understands me… I tend to agree that that the Dems are just as bad… well, almost… as the R’s. That does not make the R’s good.
am soc
i posted a reply to your question on the last open thread if you are still interested in it.
you rephrase it here as a rhetorical, but i think the answer here may be that we are NOT supposed to recover from this recession. the workers are superfluous. as long as you can find cheap labor abroad you don’t need american workers, or work, or skills. until you run out of customers. my guess is that the plutocrats expect to do well selling to the “new rich” in china. not sure what will happen when chinese plutocrats decide they don’t need american plutocrats any more.
Thanks. I think. heh. Gee I thought I was pessimistic.
Ilsm,
“I would add that the war profiteers helped alot.”
I am Shocked!
ilsm,
Lets go thru the 2010 Defense Budget! And you can point out exactly where the War Profiteering overwhlemes the 2010 Defense Budget.
Keep in mind that you and your ilk claimed that it was an absolute requirement that Barack Obama be elected President running on a platform of withdrawl from the Middle East. But what did he do? He ended spending more than Bush, and started another War. And your whinning us? It’s Pathetic!
Operations & Maintenance-$283 Billion-(+4.2%)
Military Personell————$154 Billion-(+5.0%)
Procurement—————–$140 Billion-(-1.8%)
Research & Dvelopment—-$79 Billion–(+1.3%)
Military Construction——–$24 Billion–(+19.0%)
Family Housing————–$ 3.1 Billion-(-20.2%)
Total————————-$685 Billion-(+3.0%)
AS,
I have always been told that its much easier to find a job if you have one vs. being unemployed. Employers have been discriminatting all along, just now its become fairly blantant. I’m not sure its legal either (it may be though), but just lately its gotten very obvious. I have always had a job when looking for the next.
The market solution would be to understand that some people lost their job not due to anything they did and thus there is some valuable people out there that can be hired if you can find them. Right now though its hard to find them and there is a risk premium to hiring anyone. So you (theoretically) lower the risk of getting a dude by hiring people who have jobs.
Not sure how to regulate it since its not an easy thing to quantify (Do I have to hire the 18 month unemployed over a more skilled employed guy from the business donw the street?).
From policy you could have a government incentive that pays a proportion of the new hires salary for say 6 months. This would lower the risk even if you hired a dud. I believe Germany does something like this. There is still problems with this – I read of a place that had this type set-up and the new-hire would get fired once the government checks stopped and another gov supported guy hired to replce them.
A lot of people though have trouble taking jobs that either pay less or have less social standing than the job they had before. Just humans being human. (I would have a hard time working side by side with my 18 year old son at a Yogurt shop).
Eventually, assuming the economy comes back, the need for workers will overcome this problem and they will get employed.
Islam will change
AS,
Its Risk Assessment. There is not much to gain and all to lose about saying anything at this point. Better to sit it out and watch the fireworks. Obama is giving them plenty of material for campaign adds.
Islam will change
Buff, watch the election polls after there actually is a campaign against what he did and said!
Darren,
ilsm is a Buchanonite Isolationist. Not even close to either parties mainstream of thought. Not only not in the ballpark, but not withen shouting distance of the parking lot.
But he’s a harmless 1 note troll. Just ignore him.
Islam will change
buff
i’d have no trouble working for my daughter at a donut shop. but she and i have a pretty good relationship and she knows more about managing a donut shop.
what i couldn’t face would be working for a bureaucracy again, public or private. didn’t like the sawmill much either.
but the state had a policy of hiring “temp” for six months. that way they could get rid of you without firing you. and … well there are lots of ways.
buff
sometimes its hard to be nice to you when you are rude and stupid.
ilsm likes to remind us about military waste. we need the reminding. we would need it less if we actually did something about it. i have not heard him recommend isolationism… unless you feel that all wars are just and sensible and anyone who thinks otherwise is an isolationist.
not being close to either party’s mainstream of thought is a sign of sanity.
Darren’s comment offered the kind of non sequiters and unfounded assumptions that i would expect from a six year old, a mental patient, or a couple of our regular trolls. hadn’t quite realize your were in bed with them.
FEDERAL BUDGET REALITY CHECK 7.0
Speaker Boehner’s $3 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan
Plan Statement:
Speaker Boehner’s Two-Step $3 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan
July 25, 2011
Holtz-Eakin: Two Steps on Debt Limit “Appropriate,” White House Position Is “Political”
July 25, 2011
McConnell Offers Strong Support for Speaker’s Deficit Reduction Plan
Jul 27 2011
Analysis of the Impact on the Deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Proposed in the House
Letter to the Honorable John Boehner
CBO
July 26, 2011
Analysis of the Impact on the Deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Revised in the House
Letter to the Honorable John Boehner
CBO
July 27, 2011
Baseline Basics
by Jack Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget
OMB
July 26, 2011 at 07:56 PM EDT
——
Senate Majority Leader Reid’s $2.7 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan
Plan Statement:
Senate Majority Leader Reid’s $2.7 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan
July 25, 2011
Pelosi Statement on Proposals to Reduce the Deficit, Avoid Default
July 25, 2011
Statement by the White House Press Secretary
July 25, 2011
Analysis of the Impact on the Deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Proposed in the Senate
Letter to the Honorable Harry Reid
CBO
July 27, 2011
The OMB Director set the record straight on Speaker Boehner’s deficit reduction plan.
Baseline Basics
by Jack Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget
OMB
July 26, 2011 at 07:56 PM EDT
FULL TEXT:
“The CBO just released its analysis of the debt ceiling extension and deficit reduction plan that the House of Representatives is considering. We have been clear in our opposition to this bill, and the President explained why last night.
“While we disagree with the approach that Speaker Boehner chose to take in this bill, there is one thing that we all still agree on, and that is the size of the problem. Both the House Republican budget proposal unveiled by Congressman Ryan on April 5 and the President’s fiscal framework that he introduced on April 13, set as our goal deficit reduction of $4 trillion. Since both of these plans were introduced before the agreement on appropriations for FY 2011, the baseline used for them did not reflect the spending cuts enacted this year in that legislation. Indeed, throughout our weeks of talks, all parties have worked off a January baseline because we all recognized that we needed to start from the same place.
“That is why it would be confusing to judge the current proposal’s savings from the “adjusted March 2011 baseline” which CBO released in May. Conveniently, CBO notes the January baseline numbers in its analysis, and pegs the savings from the Boehner plan at $1.1 trillion. Furthermore, an additional adjustment was also assumed in the talks for the projected costs of Pell Grants under a special Congressional rule. That adjustment brings the savings up to $1.2 trillion.
“Don’t get me wrong: there is a lot in Speaker Boehner’s plan that we do not like and actively oppose. But, as this debate continues and intensifies in the coming days, it’s important that we compare apples to apples, and make sure that we are all understanding the facts.”
Reid’s plan “includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” More here:
Obama kills bipartisan deal, then Reid resorts to smoke and mirrors
July 25, 2011
Now, the Senate Democrats and news media supporters are pushing lies:
It’s Official: Senate Plan Cuts Budget Deficits by $1.3 Trillion More Than Boehner Plan
Jul 27, 2011, 10:52 AM
United States Senate Democrats
There won’t be anybody to sell yogurt or donuts to if nobody has any money. If the people lucky enough to have jobs have stagnant wages and rising obligations to help support a widening circle of permanently unemplyed friends and lovers the little luxuries will be out of reach for everybody but the CEOs. Are they just going to retreat into their gated communities or what?
ilsm – “CoRev, The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.”
Where did you find your $546 billion figure for the FY2012 defense bill?
ilsm – “CoRev, The extortionists in the H of R holding the credit of the US hostage passed a $546B 2012 war trough aka defense appropriation which is 66% too much; but good for the war profiteers they wish to send grandma’s SS to.”
You act as though no Democrats in the U.S. House voted for the national defense bill.
There were 322 members (75% of all members) of the U.S. House who voted for H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. There were 95 Democrats who voted for the bill. A simple majority required 210 votes.
These were the only U.S. Representatives who voted NO for the FY2012 national defense bill:
Arizona – AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
California – CA-33 Bass, Karen [D], CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D], CA-28 Berman, Howard [D], CA-23 Capps, Lois [D], CA-32 Chu, Judy [D], CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D], CA-17 Farr, Sam [D], CA-15 Honda, Michael [D], CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D], CA-48 Campbell, John [R], CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
Colorado – CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
Connecticut – CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D], CT-4 Himes, James [D], CT-1 Larson, John [D]
Georgia – GA-5 Lewis, John [D]
Hawaii – HI-2 Hirono, Mazie [D]
Illinois – IL-7 Davis, Danny [D], IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D]
Iowa – IA-1 Braley, Bruce [D]
Maryland – MD-4 Edwards, Donna [D]
Massachusetts – MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D], MA-4 Frank, Barney [D], MA-10 Keating, William [D]
Michigan – MI-13 Clarke, Hansen [D], MI-14 Conyers, John [D], MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
Minnesota – MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Missouri – MO-1 Clay, William [D], MO-5 Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
New Jersey – NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
New York – NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D], NY-7 Crowley, Joseph [D], NY-22 Hinchey, Maurice [D]
Ohio – OH-11 Fudge, Marcia [D], OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Oregon – OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D], OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Pennsylvania – PA-14 Doyle, Michael [D], PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
Rhode Island – RI-1 Cicilline, David [D]
South Carolina – SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
Tennessee – TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D], TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Texas – TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Utah – UT-3 Chaffetz, Jason [R]
Wisconsin – WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
NOT VOTING:
Arizona – AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D], AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
California – CA-51 Filner, Bob [D], CA-10 Garamendi, John [D]
Illinois – IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D], IL-19 Shimkus, John [R]
Louisiana – LA-7 Boustany, Charles [R]
Missouri – MO-7 Long, Billy [R]
North Carolina – NC-9 Myrick, Sue [R]
Washington – WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
Here’s CBO’s scoring of Boehner’s latest 7/27/2011 V1.0. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/27/cbo-scores-boehners-new-bill-22-billion-in-savings-this-year-917-billion-over-10-years/
Looks a whole lot better than $4B in 2012.
CoRev,
I included the CBO analysis of the House plan as revised in my summary list above. I listed both of the CBO analyses for Speaker Boehner’s two proposed bills.
I can support program expense reductions across the board for the government departments and agencies with a few notable exceptions, none of which by the way are the Department of Defense and other security agencies. I can support all kinds of expenditure reductions if the House members were to go through the federal programs using the CBO deficit reduction options list, GAO government waste and duplication reports, and Senator Coburn’s 621 page $9 trillion deficit reduction plan. There is no question that the government could save perhaps as much as $2 trillion through elimination of department/agency duplication and identified waste.
Having stated that, let me add that, in my opinion, the majority of United States voters do not want a large share of the FY2012-2021 federal budgets’ deficits reduction to be placed on the backs of poor citizens, elderly citizens, or both. Those are wrong groups of citizens to be targeted. The is the message that must sink in with the House and Senate Republicans. While cuts to social safety net programs will occur, such must be accomplished in a very fair manner to those affected.
Hence, I am concerned about the second stage of Speaker Boehner’s deficit reduction plan. I’m concerned about it whether Boehner’s plan is passed or not passed by the Congress. Obviously, the House Republicans still intend to cut many of the entitlement and social support programs whether accomplished in such a plan or during fiscal years’ authorization and appropriations processes. There are many government programs which can be targeted before the Republicans start cutting on the muscle of social safety net programs. If the Republicans do not understand that, then they need to be voted out of office. The bottom line is simple: Cutting the social safety net programs should be the last group of programs put under the budget reduction knife.
Improve the efficiencies of all government programs as necessary, but initially targeting such programs as House Budget Chairman Ryan did earlier this year is absurd. And it’s not going to fly.
I see no reason to expect that Speaker Boehner’s second step in his deficit reduction plan will receive majority House and Senate support. Maybe the second step shouldn’t receive support until the House has demonstrated that it has carefully reviewed all other alternatives including increased net revenue streams prior to putting the knife to any social safety net programs.
Meanwhile, it appears to me that Senator Majority Leader Reid’s deficit reduction plan is a sham. At best, Reid’s plan may cut roughly $1.1 trillion excluding the winding down of national defense expenses for the wars. That’s not going to get the deficit reduction job done.
MG, I missed it in the list.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
SSA OASDI 50 63 64 53 44 50 63 82 102 125
SSA SSI 47 53 54 55 62 58 54 61 63 64
Subtotal 97 116 118 108 106 108 117 143 165 189
Medicare 471 512 542 565 613 633 654 713 765 818
Medicare SGI 12 19 23 26 29 […]
NET MANDATORY OUTLAYS BY FISCAL YEAR
IN $ BILLIONS
NET MANDATORY OUTLAYS FOR PROGRAMS LISTED
IN $ BILLIONS
2010 2011 2012-2021
SSA OASDI (a) 37 52 632
SSA SSI (b) 47 53 571
Subtotal 84 105 1,203
Medicare 446 477 6,285
Medicare SGI (c) 298
Medicaid 273 274 4,081
Health Ins. subsidies
and exchanges […]
2010 2011 2012-2021
SSA OASDI (a) 37 52 632
SSA SSI (b) 47 53 571
Subtotal 84 105 1,203
Medicare 446 477 6,285
Medicare SGI (c) 298
Medicaid 273 274 4,081
Health Ins. subsidies
and […]
2010 2011 2012-2021
SSA OASDI (a) 37 52 632
SSA SSI (b) 47 53 571
Subtotal 84 105 1,203
Medicare 446 477 6,285
Medicare SGI (c) 298
Medicaid 273 274 4,081
Health Ins. subsidies
and […]