Not the only game in town

By Mustang Bobby

Charlie Pierce explains that while the Paul Ryan exercise in repetitive motion syndrome for budgets is getting all the attention, there’s actually another plan that makes more sense and actually works. Which means it has no chance whatsoever of getting debated, much less passed.

There’s a lot of buzz at and around the Cool Kidz table today because, glorioski, there’s actually another budget proposal out there, the one put together by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and it not only seems to make more sense to more people than, for example, Paul Ryan’s exercise in Magical Unicorn Math, or even than the principles underlying the president’s proposal, which seem to be that, before we act on it, we should carefully check the Magical Unicorn’s work before appointing the unicorn to the Council Of Economic Advisers. Moreover, that budget is certainly more consonant not only with the blog’s First Law Of Economics — Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money — but also with the results of the latest Gallup Poll, the sub-themes of which latter is, quite clearly, “Why In Hell Are We Listening To Joe Scarborough On This Stuff Anyway?”

That’s 77 percent of the respondents who want some sort of WPA 2.0 to make sure the bridges don’t fall down while we’re driving to work. That’s 75 percent who want a federal jobs creation program. These two numbers include, respectively, 63 percent and 56 percent of Republican respondents. You could poll Paul Ryan’s immediately family and not get these numbers. Neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Bowles could score this well on Christmas morning with the grandkids. You could ask Americans the question, “Would you favor immediate federal action that would provide you with unlimited whiskey and the sexual favors of your favorite movie stars?” and come close. Maybe. Does the House progressive budget, which proposes programs that track these numbers, have a chance in hell of passing? Of course not. It’s barely in the conversation.

The main reason it’s barely in the conversation is because the plan bears the unfortunate label of “progressive.” That immediately dooms it among the Villagers because as we all know, progressives never win elections or the White House. The only people who are serious about reducing the deficit and not blowing all sorts of money on wasted efforts like schools, roads, and bridges in America are conservatives. After all, look at all the money we spent on stuff like that in Iraq and where did it get us?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Familiar sound

By Mustang Bobby

As previously noted, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) came out with his budget proposal. Not only is it that same thing he’s proposed before, he didn’t even bother to change the title: it’s still calledPathway to Prosperity. What, Pathway to Prosperity – The Movie was already taken?

The only difference is that this time it craters the economy and nails the middle class in ten years, not forty. And what it lacks in revenue it makes up for in irony: it keeps the tax increases the GOP screamed about in the fiscal cliff deal because, well, that law has passed and it’s a done deal. But then he calls for the repeal of Obamacare (but keeps the tax increases from it) because, well, he doesn’t like the law. Hamana hamana.

Ezra Klein chimes in:

Here is Paul Ryan’s path to a balanced budget in three sentences: He cuts deep into spending on health care for the poor and some combination of education, infrastructure, research, public-safety, and low-income programs. The Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts remain, but the military is spared, as is Social Security. There’s a vague individual tax reform plan that leaves only two tax brackets — 10 percent and 25 percent — and will require either huge, deficit-busting tax cuts or increasing taxes on poor and middle-class households, as well as a vague corporate tax reform plan that lowers the rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

But the real point of Ryan’s budget is its ambitious reforms, not its savings. It turns Medicare into a voucher program, turns Medicaid, food stamps, and a host of other programs for the poor into block grants managed by the states, shrinks the federal role on priorities like infrastructure and education to a tiny fraction of its current level, and envisions an entirely new tax code that will do much less to encourage home buying and health insurance.

Ryan’s budget is intended to do nothing less than fundamentally transform the relationship between Americans and their government.

Read more »

There's an old African saying...

By Carl

When two elephants battle, it is the grass that suffers. Welcome to my blog, fellow blade! The Dueling Budgets battle has begun, and Republicans, Inc. are playing the banjo:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are sending mixed signals in agreeing to meet with President Barack Obama for talks over the budget impasse, while Obama is conceding that a political accommodation may be impossible.

On the one hand, many Republicans who long have chided Obama for failing to engage their party on the nation's biggest problems are applauding his newfound outreach — part of a concerted effort by the president to mend ties with Congress in hopes of reaching a grand compromise on fiscal issues.

On the other hand, neither side is backing down from entrenched positions that have prevented deals in the past — a status quo scenario that Obama acknowledged could preclude any agreement.

To be sure, Obama is at least going into this phase of things without being deliberately ignorant of what the Republicans are up to, as he has insisted in the past:

President Obama says he's reaching out to Republicans, but isn't sure it will lead to a major budget deal.

"Ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide," Obama told ABC News.

The president added: "It may be that, ideologically, if their position is, 'We can't do any revenue,' or, 'We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid,' if that's the position, then we're probably not going to be able to get a deal."

Read more »

John Boehner's growing Tea Party headache

By R.K. Barry

There were a number of stories over the past few days about how disappointed various Tea Party factions were in the Republican leadership for the budget deal negotiated with the devil himself, a.k.a. the President of the United States.

Not to get into a big thing about "who won" the budget negotiations, or how much money is really being cut, because that's being covered by a lot of people - as interesting a discussion as it is.

What amazed me was the attitude of some of the Tea Party spokesmen. Not that I'm in the habit of feeling sorry for Speaker Boehner, but he does find himself riding quite the beast.

My favourite comment came from someone by the name of Doug Mainwaring, a "real estate agent and local conservative activist from Bethesda, Maryland." Mr. Mainwaring opined that "I'm not sure they (the GOP) have the political willpower to accept the mandate that was handed them by the Tea Party last November."

Elections are won for all kinds of reasons, usually with votes by majorities cobbled together from all sorts of voting blocs, so for the Tea Party to actually think they fully and completely call the tune for the Republicans is, well, just a lot of fun to watch. To put a fine point on it: successful political parties have to keep all manner of constituencies happy and pandering to the loudest to the exclusion of the others is a clear way to lose the next election.

The best part, as the Huffington Post reported, was that:

The budget deal passed the House by a comfortable margin, by a vote of 260 to 167. A total of 59 Republicans voted against the deal, but according to ABC's Jon Karl, only 27 of those no votes came from freshman House Republicans, who comprise the bulk of the conference's Tea Party component.

It seems that even those politicians most closely aligned with the Tea Party have no idea from whom they are supposed to be taking their marching orders. Mostly it seems that the Tea Party is really just a bunch of people who find themselves in front of a camera or talking to a reporter when the media need someone from the radical right to express the appropriate amount of indignation at any given moment in time.

That's hardly any way to run a political party and John Boehner knows it.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

The budget and foreign policy, no easy time of it for the White House

By Carol Gee

Update: The supplemental bill is now in the Senate. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) made a point of order regarding the addition of the $1 billion+ for the "cash for clunkers" program. He lost that vote 60 to 36, by exactly the 2/3 majority required. There are times when 60 votes do matter.

The House approved the 2009 $105.9 billion supplemental war spending bill on Tuesday evening, but not with a big Democratic majority, Politico reports. The result was 226-202. Only 5 Republicans voted for it and 32 Democrats voted to oppose. House Minority Leader John Boehner claims that his "no" vote "protects the troops." The bill included $5 billion in IMF credits, $32.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $7.65 billion to prepare for the H1N1 flu expected this winter and $1 billion towards the new "cash for clunkers" program. Congress actually added to the President's original request, taking care of their local defense contractors. To quote Politico's conclusion:

The total defense spending is larger than Obama’s request and includes about $2.5 billion in new money to deal with personnel cost overruns in, especially, the Army and Army National Guard. Nearly $28.5 billion is provided for procurement, including billions added for the purchase of air transports and armored vehicles.

Eight Boeing C-17s would cost about $2.1 billion, and an additional $504 million would cover seven C-130s, manufactured by Lockheed. General Dynamics has a stake in $312.7 million for the purchase of Stryker armored vehicles for the Army — a $200 million increase over the administration’s request. And the bill adds $1.9 billion to the Pentagon’s requests for more heavily armored, mine-resistant MRAPs.

Total spending for State Department and foreign aid accounts is $9.7 billion; another $700 million is provided for food assistance overseas. Afghanistan and Pakistan are among the major recipients, including $225 million to help the Islamabad government deal with the refugee crisis triggered by recent fighting.

To an unusual degree, even routine foreign aid requests for Middle East countries such as Israel, Egypt and Jordan have been added to the mix. This is all part of a Democratic strategy to shift close to $2.5 billion from 2010 into 2009 and thereby leave more room under next year’s spending caps.

A wartime spending bill passed the House in mid-May but leadership lost 51 Democrats in the process. Anti-war House members opposed the President's new commitments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This time Politico opines that "flu funds have been the cure for the war bill." In addition CQ Politics reported that "the White House cut a deal with Texas Democrats" who were holding back their votes in a dispute over the way that funds in the economic stimulus package are not being spent on public schools in the state. CQ explained that "the White House promised to use a future appropriations bill as a vehicle for language to block Texas from shifting the funds" to its "rainy day" general purpose fund.

Today in the U.S. House, ProPublica reports that there will be a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on civilian contract workers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. ProPublica is a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, who helped ABC News and the LA Times find out that AIG and others routinely denied claims by these injured civilians for medical care and disability benefits, under federal Workers Compensation. The Labor Department is supposed to oversee the program.

The 2009 Supplemental spending bill has been the most contentious issue between Congress and the President this year. Opposition by anti war liberals to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan has been steady and ever-present. Fiscally conservative Democrats are resistant to spending in somewhat the same way as Republicans, although they are certainly not as vocal. And Republicans seem to be dedicated to holding up their reputation as the "party of no," uncharacteristically in the national defense arena.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Focus on Obama Policies

By Carol Gee

Image via Wikipedia

Now into his third month in office, U.S. President Barack Obama has his feet planted firmly on the ground. He has taken a tremendous number of policy steps, however. Today's post will play catch-up with some of the political news that has sped by in just this past week.

North Korea -- "Make a strong statement." The recent missile launch has reignited the debate over nuclear disarmament, according to Politico (4/5/09). President Obama has called for the United Nations to act against North Korea. American voters actually support a military approach to eliminate North Korea's nuclear capabilities; 57% for and 15% against in the Rasmussen poll. Quoting,

"The White House says the launch only underscores the importance of Obama’s call Sunday for “a world without nuclear weapons.” Hard-line critics say North Korea’s move makes the president’s no-nukes aspirations all the more unrealistic, even dangerous."

General Motors and the economic crisis --"Do what you need to do." The White House is questioning the viability of GM and Chrysler, to the point of instituting a big shake-up at the top at GM. Politico says GM is already planning for bankruptcy. Paul Krugman has become increasingly critical of the administration's economic strategy. But the administration's financial reform proposal does not go as far as Wall Street expected or as Progressives wanted. The administration has been hampered by a lack of anyone but the President to "sell" his approaches, though that is getting better as Timothy Geithner gains confidence.

The Obama administration budget -- "Priorities survived." The Senate and House have approved competing budget plans, both short of what the President actually wanted, though the administration is putting the best face on it. A few - 38 - House Republicans defected during the final vote. Politico speculated that "fierce fights may follow [a] budget victory" for the Democrats. And Democrats are not united regarding the President's agenda. Public opinion will certainly be a factor. The President's approval ratings remain high - 66% approve - and 42% of Americans still think we are on the right track, Ed Kilgore reports at The Democratic Strategist. One of the reasons has always been the President's capacity for effective public speaking, for his willingness to be unusually personal in his speeches, Policito explained.

Af-Pak and Defense -- "Think new thoughts, focus more on diplomacy and less on cold war weapons systems." President Obama's strategy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the Middle East already has a certain amount of qualifiied support, according to J.P. Green at The Democratic Strategist. Today the Secretary of Defense, Robert is rolling out his defense spending plan that represents a fundamental shift in priorities. A significant number of large-scale weapons systems will be on the line. To quote from Congressional Quarterly - Politics:

The fiscal 2010 funding choices in the announcement will represent the first major defense policy decisions of President Obama’s administration. Specific budget details are not expected until the first week of May, but Gates will make the unusual move of announcing several major program decisions weeks ahead of the budget release, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

“These are not changes to the margins,” Morrell said April 3. “This is a fundamental shift in direction. And the secretary’s point of view argues for an unconventional approach in explaining that shift to the American people.”

. . . Morrell said Gates plans to brief congressional leaders Monday morning. A press conference will follow.
“The fact of life is that since Sept. 11, 2001, the military has been engaged in irregular warfare activities that require more of our focus, more of our energy, and more of our resources than we have been dedicating to them,” Morrell said. “So Gates is trying to shift between the large-scale conventional near peer conflicts that we have to prepare for down the line and the very real conflicts we are engaged in now.”

Reference: Exclusive Obama interview with The Financial Times (3/29/09)

Related articles by Zemanta

• John King: A dramatic day for Obama (cnn.com)
• Obama Urges Nuclear Arms Reduction (nytimes.com)
• Despite Warnings, North Korea Launches Rocket (time.com)
• Analysts: NKorea Launch Not a Total Failure (abcnews.go.com)

The GOP budget

By Creature

Crafted as if we weren't in the depths of the worst recession since forever. These are very unserious people (taken way too seriously, unfortunately).

Bush balances budget on backs of the elderly

By Libby Spencer

So let me get this straight. We're in a health care crisis in this country. Almost 50 million Americans can't afford health insurance and Bush recently told us that it's not a problem because anyone can go to the ER for critical care. We'll leave aside that this still leaves millions without the ability to get preventive care that would keep them out of the ER in the first place.

Now comes Bush with his budget proposal designed to cure the deficit he created by 2012 and how does he propose to do that? Our compassionate conservative came up with the brilliant plan to cut billions in spending from the two programs that assist those who have to rely on near death experiences in the ER for their health care, namely Medicare and Medicaid.

The cuts won't be made to corporate welfare payments to private insurers who offer overpriced supplemental plans. No, he wants to slice the guts out of the safety net that the poor literally rely on to stay alive. He proposes to kill Medicare by cutting already inadequate reimbursements further.

Most of the Medicare savings in the budget would be achieved by reducing the annual update in federal payments to hospitals [especially teaching hospitals], nursing homes, hospices, ambulances and home care agencies.

So I guess the plan is that the elderly and the poor are supposed to wait until their health has critically failed to go to ERs that won't exist because hospitals will fail without proper reimbursement, which will solve the problem of the doctor shortage since there won't be there any place for them to practice. I don't know if Bush has come up with one of those pithy Orwellian names for this proposal, but I think I'm going to call it the Genocide Budget. I can't think of more accurate description.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

How would you have spent your $8,000?

By Edward Copeland

$8,000: that's the total it is estimated each man, woman and child in the U.S. has "paid" for the debacle in Iraq, according to new figures reported today in USA Today:

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release today.

A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.

More startling and discouraging numbers from the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office:

The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a "very speculative" projection, though it's not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute. As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

For those who have forgotten, prior to the Iraq invasion, the Idiot-in-Chief estimated the cost for toppling Saddam would be only $50 billion.