Conservative Approach to Spending

[road kill]

Another excellent read;

Conservatives Must Lead Where Obama Has Failed

In his Tuesday State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said Americans must "understand [that] if we don’t take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery—all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes." This is all true. But then in a total failure of leadership, President Obama went on to completely abandon his own deficit commission’s spending cut proposals.

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed that our nation simply can’t afford President Obama’s failed leadership for much longer. This new CBO 10-year budget baseline shows an unprecedented $1.5 trillion deficit for this fiscal year—an increase of $95 billion over their last estimate. This will be the third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits.

And the reality is even worse than the CBO report suggests. By law, the CBO is forced to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about federal spending and taxes, including that (1) the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire, (2) the Alternative Minimum Tax will not be annually adjusted for inflation, and (3) non-war discretionary spending will grow no faster than inflation through 2021.

The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl has constructed a more realistic baseline that fixes the distortions mentioned above, and the results are scary. First, the federal government will add an astonishing $19.1 trillion in new debt between 2009 and 2021—$140,000 per household over those 13 years. Annual budget deficits will never drop below $1 trillion, as the debt is now projected to reach 100 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020.

Second, these eternal trillion-dollar deficits are being entirely driven by rising government spending. By 2018, recession-depleted tax revenues are scheduled to rebound to their historic average of 18 percent of GDP. By contrast, federal spending (historically 20.3 percent of GDP) is projected to reach 26.4 percent of GDP by 2021.

In just four years (2007 through 2011), the federal budget is set to have expanded by nearly $1 trillion, from $2.729 trillion to $3.708 trillion. This represents a 36 percent expansion of government. The new Congress has already begun force the Obama Administration to make some responsible discretionary spending cuts. And these will help. Discretionary spending increased 25 percent between 2007 and 2010—not counting the $311 billion in discretionary stimulus spending and approximately $170 billion in annual spending on the global war against terrorism. Forcing President Obama and his Progressives allies to reverse this trend is a necessary first step.

But it will not be enough. Much of this spending growth will be driven by entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Between 2008 and 2021, the annual cost of these three programs is set to rise from $1.2 trillion to $2.2 trillion. Thanks to Obamacare, Medicaid costs alone are projected to soar 129 percent faster than inflation over that period. Our nation will drown in debt unless serious reforms to long-term entitlements are made.

The Heritage Foundation has solutions for our entitlement crisis. First and foremost we must repeal Obamacare. But that is not enough. We must also transition away from Medicare’s inefficient price-controlled fee-for-service system into a new defined-contribution system. Medicaid’s long-term care benefit must be transformed from an open-ended entitlement to an insurance-based model of private coverage. And Social Security should be reformed into real insurance, focusing benefits on those who really need them during retirement while strengthening the safety net for poorer retirees.

Yesterday at The Heritage Foundation, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spoke about the United States fall from the ranks of the economically "free" countries of the world as measured by the Index of Economic Freedom: "Today, I don’t hesitate to say that we have arrived at a critical moment in American history. We as a nation are at a crossroads. This year our overall score fell again, in large measure because of the increase in government spending." He is right. Which is why conservatives must lead on real solutions to end our entitlement crisis.

__________________________________________________ ____________

stan b

[dnf777]

Stan, I hope you'll agree with me on this.

All we've seen, and are seeing, is WORDS.

Actions speak louder than words, so I'm pretty much ignoring the rhetoric, and waiting to see what the budgetary committees come up with.

THEN we can talk about who's doing what.

Both sides talk a good talk. Both promise to give everybody everything they want, and say they're for responsible fiscal policy. BOTH sides talk out of BOTH sides of their mouths.

[road kill]

I get the "Morning Bell" from the "Heritage Foundation."

I read it most every day.

It is thought provoking and stimulating.
Since it is in line with my beliefs, I share it.

As far as rhetoric....yeah I saw the SOTU address too.

Congressman Ryan has some great ideas to curb & cut spending, yet "middle of the road independents" use avoidance tactics to say it's just talk.
You ask for what ideas I would like to see implemented, here they are.

stan b

[Roger Perry]

Another excellent read;



The Heritage Foundation has solutions for our entitlement crisis. First and foremost we must repeal Obamacare.

__________________________________________________ ____________

stan b

Looks like the Republicans main agenda is getting rid of Obama care
Here is what the Republicans say about making cuts to the Department of Defense which takes up 55% of the spending:


“Republicans are facing the difficult question whether, if we’re serious about cutting the debt, defense spending can be exempted permanently from consideration when it represents the biggest part of the discretionary budget,” said Republican strategist John Ullyot.
“The recommendations have put that debate squarely on the table, and have given fiscal hawks much more ammunition than ever on including defense programs as part of the overall budget examination,” Ullyot said.
Wartime Cuts Opposed
Representative Howard McKeon, a California Republican who is likely the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he opposes “cutting defense in the midst of two wars.”

Saturday, Jan 8, 2011 11:01 ET





Saturday, Jan 8, 2011 11:01 ET Republican deficit hypocrisy off to a great start on defense spending

While the national debt is the most important issue in the world, we mustn't cut a single dollar from the Pentagon

By Alex Pareene
AP/Salon
Sen. John Boehner and Robert Gates

Robert Gates would like to cut about $78 billion from our bloated military budget over the next five years. That is, as they say, a start -- we spend more on defense than every other nation in the world, and in the meantime the Republican plan for dealing with our apparently crushing national debt is to threaten to default. But those Republicans who promise austerity have one small problem with Gates' plan: They refuse to cut a single dollar of military spending, even when our Republican defense secretary politely asks them to.
Of course, Gates is only attempting to forestall deeper cuts in Pentagon spending that might be proposed by ... well, no one, because no one besides hippies ever proposes serious cuts in military spending. But the $78 billion in fat to trim was offered up just in case someone else came up with a plan to cut, like, $150 billion of the Pentagon budget. This is all the most discretionary of discretionary spending, of course, because we're not even talking about the money we spend fighting wars. That spending will grow for the next couple years -- we'll be sending 1,000 new troops to Afghanistan, for example, and they will need food and guns and tanks and things. (And drones! We need lots of drones, for assassinating people.)
But uselessness and waste don't matter to our new small-government Tea Party overlords in the House of Representatives. Missouri Republican Todd Akin -- chair of the "House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee" -- tried the old "while we support cuts, we can't support these cuts" argument:

Akin also argued that the fact that a cut to the Pentagon budget was even proposed proves, like everything else, that Obama is a commie who hates America:

"The only department undertaking a serious budget cutting exercise is the Department of Defense," said Akin. "Where are the similar reviews at any other executive department? Our military is at war, and our military is the only department asked to seriously tighten its budget?"

Yes, well, the nation is also facing, according to your party, a debt crisis, and the Department of Defense is responsible for more non-entitlement spending than any other department, by a substantial margin. Just in case you didn't get his point -- Obama hates America, is French, wears a dress, etc. -- Akin proposed an interesting hypothesis: "If the president and the secretary of defense want to get rid of the Marine Corps, they should come out and say that directly."
Yes, I am 100 percent positive that Robert Gates wants to get rid of the Marine Corps. He hates the troops.
Serious Rational Conservatives often like to push their glasses up on their faces and cluck about how we can't solve the deficit problem merely by taxing billionaires. I put forth that we also can't solve the problem by not taxing anyone while also not cutting spending on anything besides $100,000 earmarks for funny-sounding animal research at the University of Peoria.
But what do I know? I'm no Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who apparently wants to take all the money we get in military budget "savings" and spend it on ... the military.

"I'm not happy. We went into today's meeting trying to ensure the $100 billion in targeted savings were reinvested back into our national security priorities.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...ria/index.html

[Granddaddy]

Looks like the Republicans main agenda is getting rid of Obama care
Here is what the Republicans say about making cuts to the Department of Defense which takes up 55% of the spending:

Actually, no Roger, you're statement is not correct. The military takes up 55% of the discretionary spending. Unfortunately if ALL discretionary spending was eliminated, we would still be faced with the issues of over 65% of the total budget - the entitlements & debt service. You see the discretionary spending makes up substantially less than 1/2 of the total federal budget. And Obamacare adds substantially to the entitlements. Our federal government is constitutionally intended to provide for the national defense and to regulate interstate commerce. Why don't we start there, as intended by the Constitution, then see what we can afford beyond those two mandates?

The problem is not a republican/democrat distinction. The real issue is establishment versus the rest of us. The establishment benefits from there being a national debt (they own it along with China, etc), wars and just enough social programs to have the electorate always wanting more. The democrats & republicans just argue about how to divide those items mentioned. Neither really argues for eliminating the nat'l debt in its entirety and operating fully within a balanced budget annually.

The answer really is to payoff the nat'l debt and maintain a budget within the revenues collected through taxation (i.e., a balanced budget). Just to put that in prospective, if our nat'l debt was paid off, the money now paying nat'l debt service (interest on the debt) would more than cover all of our entitlements & Obamacare. But we can't have both a large nat'l debt with huge debt service and the entitlements. So the answer is to eliminate the debt. But we will never eliminate the debt unless the establishment is ousted, which will only happen with terms limits. Meaning until we have men & women in office who don't aspire to the establishment, we will never eliminate the national debt and operate under a balanced budget. And unfortunately we probably won't ever get there because we as the non-establishment won't give up our entitlements, we always have our hands out too, wanting a little more.

[Marvin S]

I get the "Morning Bell" from the "Heritage Foundation."

I read it most every day.

It is thought provoking and stimulating.
Since it is in line with my beliefs, I share it.

As far as rhetoric....yeah I saw the SOTU address too.

Congressman Ryan has some great ideas to curb & cut spending, yet "middle of the road independents" use avoidance tactics to say it's just talk.
You ask for what ideas I would like to see implemented, here they are.

stan b

I believe there is immense room to cut costs! While I agree with the Speakers 5% across the board in the House, it's purely ceremonial. If a budget is 20% higher than affordable revenuewise, 22% needs to be cut.

& that's where I would start!! Then If a Dept said it couldn't operate under those conditions, maybe that Dept is no longer needed which would free up more funds. I pay attention to government spending at all levels as it's my money they are spending & I'm not happy with the results.

What have the Dept of E's done, that's education & energy?

But let's understand a few things: Social Security & Medicare should be funded if the program has been adequately managed, it was paid for by recipients mostly. The Medicare Drug program is unfunded by the recipients. Am I in favor of that - NO - but it is there & occupies the prime space, you either belong or pay through the nose. We do pay a fee, just not sure if it covers costs. But Bush43 was as bad as Bush41 when it came to acting like a Rockefeller Republican, so we got much unnecesssary spending. Bush was a spender but no one offered a reasonable alternative come election time, which is par for the course.

But Medicaid is welfare & should not be mentioned in the same breath as programs where there was an entry fee beyond being a loser. I recognize some are disabled & need some sort of help, just believe it is too much!!

& I would whack the Farm programs, viciously. Other than research there is no need for the program. We survived through the depression without the government's assistance . & FEMA, why is it there are floods in the heartland & everyone helps each other but in the strongly D states, they wait for the government? SBA is another one, set it up so banks can loan, eliminate the Govenment as middleman!

I consider myself a reasonable person, but I'd bet anyone that I could ID $200 Billion in cuts in a month that wouldn't hurt anyone but the people providing unnecessary input. & I'm not an insider, bet Julie R could do even better .

[paul young]

The Heritage Foundation has solutions for our entitlement crisis. First and foremost we must repeal Obamacare. But that is not enough. We must also transition away from Medicare’s inefficient price-controlled fee-for-service system into a new defined-contribution system. Medicaid’s long-term care benefit must be transformed from an open-ended entitlement to an insurance-based model of private coverage. And Social Security should be reformed into real insurance, focusing benefits on those who really need them during retirement while strengthening the safety net for poorer retirees.


if this isn't "re-distribution of wealth" i don't know what is.......

i thought conservatives were opposed to this?-Paul

[duckheads]

Good points David. Cavuto is all over the debt srvice issue, 4 billion dollars a day, 28 billion a week and 120 billion a month!

And I believe there are republicans introducing bills to cut some spending. You have to start somewhere. Hey Roger tell me where have the democrats introduced anything to cut spending?

[M&K's Retrievers]

.....

And I believe there are republicans introducing bills to cut some spending. You have to start somewhere. Hey Roger tell me where have the democrats introduced anything to cut spending?

Yeah, Roger. What he said!

[Granddaddy]

Good points David. Cavuto is all over the debt srvice issue, 4 billion dollars a day, 28 billion a week and 120 billion a month!

And I believe there are republicans introducing bills to cut some spending. You have to start somewhere. Hey Roger tell me where have the democrats introduced anything to cut spending?

Unfortunately what the republicans have introduced would be akin to using a siphon hose to control a flooding MS River. Sure it's better than nothing but if you are dying (which our country is in terms of debt) washing your face won't help. There are no proposals, democrat or republican, which seem to understand the seriousness of the situation. They are all lip service. We can't continue this spending and have this nation survive as we know it. I won't be affected seriously because I don't rely upon government programs & I am getting old. But my children & grand children will face a world where America becomes a 2nd or 3rd world country with nothing left in the cupboard. And do we think, China and the other then-powers of the world will deal graciously with the US? But our politicians are more concerned about staying in office than serving their country.