Debt Debate in Congress

[Hoss]

A good David Brooks column, in its entirety because of pay wall limitations.

Dammit, I posted this article in a separate thread before I read yours...it is a VERY good read, so I'll leave it to the moderators to axe it or not.  My apologies.

[Conan71]

OK. I think VA should be off the table, though. They're already cash-strapped enough as it is.

What should be on the table is a return to pre-Bush tax rates, at least until we get all this under control. We've been running deficits ever since the cuts were enacted. Every moment we delay is that much more interest we have to pay later. And yes, if it takes taking away the middle class tax cuts also, so be it. Obama is stuck on stupid on that part.



Yeah, it won't solve the problem, at least barring a blockbuster recovery, but it will buy us the time we need to solve the problem in a more permanent way. As it stands, both middle income and upper income taxpayers are paying the lowest effective tax rates they've had since the 50s. I think we can all kick in a little more.

I've still got a burr under my saddle about several incredibly wasteful energy projects at VA hospitals locally and over in Akansas which have such a poor return on investment to the tax payer it's embarrassing.  These projects do nothing to benefit vets directly, nor do they do much to improve the overall conditions within the facilities though they are done under the guise of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency.  

The way the packages are engineered, there's very little savings and the PITA costs of dealing with the VA and all their moronic compliance issues (I'm not talking about basic EPA and OSHA issues, VA has some seriously dysfunctional requirements) plus having to deal with the on-site potentate literally drives costs up 20 to 25% on construction projects.  Throw in preference programs for business incubation projects or disabled vet, female-owned, or minority organizations and the VA can wind up paying nearly 50% more than a similar construction project for a non-government entity.  Within my industry it's somewhat of a running joke about being more relieved to find out you were not the successful bidder on a VA project rather than dealing with the horror of winning the project.  That's not just my perspective, this is vendors we deal with as well as competitors.

At the other end of the scale, I've seen the government purchase complete schlock which ends up costing them more in replacement and repair costs in a short time span.

That's all the detail you will get publicly out of me, if you wish to know more, send me a PM.  Trust me my cynicism for government waste doesn't come from Beck, Hannity, or Limpbaugh.  It's well earned through life experience.

And for what it's worth, I've been relatively shocked at what my taxes were the last two years as a "middle-classer" and some of the credits I've been eligible for.  They've been appreciated though as I got favorable treatment on a year that should have kicked my donkey on taxes right when the bottom fell out of the economy.  As the model predicted though, I was able to afford keeping money circulating in the economy even when I took a $30K hit in income over a year's time.  I bought and renovated a house, managed to keep a child in college without taking on debt, and still put money away for retirement.  I have no problem if my taxes go back up as my personal situation has improved so long as the government takes the proper steps to reduce it's dependence on my tax dollars.  

[guido911]

Baits in the water, will Obama bite?

[Gaspar]

Baits in the water, will Obama bite?

I like Ryan.  If you have ever seen him debate he is terrifying.  I would love to see that debate.

Dick Chenney once commented "I worship the ground the Paul Ryan walks on, I hope he doesn't run for president because that would ruin a good man who has a lot of work to do."

[nathanm]

I've still got a burr under my saddle about several incredibly wasteful energy projects at VA hospitals locally and over in Akansas which have such a poor return on investment to the tax payer it's embarrassing.  These projects do nothing to benefit vets directly, nor do they do much to improve the overall conditions within the facilities though they are done under the guise of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency.  

I'm not arguing that there is no government waste to be eliminated. I'm saying that you could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and it wouldn't solve the problem. It's a place to look for some savings, but it is not the only place.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts need to go away. Even for those of us making under $250,000 a year. Skin in the game, as guido says.

[Conan71]

I'm not arguing that there is no government waste to be eliminated. I'm saying that you could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and it wouldn't solve the problem. It's a place to look for some savings, but it is not the only place.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts need to go away. Even for those of us making under $250,000 a year. Skin in the game, as guido says.

Millions add up to billions.  Hell, I'd even be for financial incentives for government employees to find ways to cut waste and costs within their departments.

Aaaaand, everyone will feel a whole lot better about paying more in taxes if they felt the government was being more responsible with our money and figuring out ways to need less of it and paying down the ridiculous debt.

Lowering taxes while increasing spending and borrowing rates is poor policy, as what happened in the Bush Admin.  We should have reversed course in late 2005 after the Katrina disaster and it was becoming apparent we were going to be at war in the Middle East for quite a few more years.

Edit: sorry incomplete thoughts as I got distracted by the phone last night.  As well, my original point was to say that lowering taxes while increasing spending and borrowing was poor policy.

[nathanm]

Raising taxes while increasing spending and borrowing rates is poor policy.

The vast majority of the continuing spending increases are on programs like medicaid and unemployment insurance and the security state (including the military).



The economic downturn cut receipts by $455 billion last year, we lost $295 billion by continuing the tax cuts, spent $191 billion on our wars, and $412 billion on stimulus. Get rid of the wars, the tax cuts, and fix the economy, so there's no stimulus, and the deficit would have been $60 billion.

[Conan71]

The vast majority of the continuing spending increases are on programs like medicaid and unemployment insurance and the security state (including the military).



The economic downturn cut receipts by $455 billion last year, we lost $295 billion by continuing the tax cuts, spent $191 billion on our wars, and $412 billion on stimulus. Get rid of the wars, the tax cuts, and fix the economy, so there's no stimulus, and the deficit would have been $60 billion.

CBPP calculations based on data from the CBO.  So basically regurgitated figures by a group which essentially keeps class warfare alive and well from a federal agency which frequently misses its own projections.  Nice.

[Gaspar]

Prepare the moonbats!

As the discussion on budget cuts gets serious, President Obama is starting to make sense.

"Well, you know, here's what I would say. I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I've seen it, where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."

I assure you, this will not be received well.  Children are going to starve and old people thrown from the balconies of their slum retirement homes. 

[Gaspar]

Seeing that the administration has finally gotten serious about budget cuts and has begun to work with the House on what needs to be about a $100billion reduction in federal spending, using liberal math, one of our favorite people already sees that as a surplus ready to spend!

Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate public works committee, said she will propose a two-year, $109 billion bill to pay for U.S. highway and other construction projects.

She says that not approving this spending will cost jobs!. . . (that don't exist yet).

[RecycleMichael]

Prepare the moonbats!

As the discussion on budget cuts gets serious, President Obama is starting to make sense.

"Well, you know, here's what I would say. I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I've seen it, where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."

I assure you, this will not be received well.  Children are going to starve and old people thrown from the balconies of their slum retirement homes. 

I would think that you would have praised President Obama for speaking out and addressing the issue.

[Conan71]

Seeing that the administration has finally gotten serious about budget cuts and has begun to work with the House on what needs to be about a $100billion reduction in federal spending, using liberal math, one of our favorite people already sees that as a surplus ready to spend!

Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate public works committee, said she will propose a two-year, $109 billion bill to pay for U.S. highway and other construction projects.

She says that not approving this spending will cost jobs!. . . (that don't exist yet).

Gaspar, you are completely lost.  In case you haven't been paying attention to Nathan, we don't have a spending problem, except for the military and oh, yeah those tax cuts which cost money except when they are used as part of a stimulus, then they don't count.

I've never seen such partisan math in my entire life.

[RecycleMichael]

Is ending tax breaks for select industries raising taxes? By definition, yes.

But are these not the same breaks often considered pork for powerful politicians?

I want to have someone defend the $126 million giving to horse racing owners in Kentucky last year. GOP leader Mitch McConnell brings it back to his state and I am sure it is important to the people of Kentucky, but why should I in Oklahoma pay to subsidize it?

[Gaspar]

I would think that you would have praised President Obama for speaking out and addressing the issue.

I did.  I said he was making sense.  That's why it's going to tick off the left.

[Conan71]

Is ending tax breaks for select industries raising taxes? By definition, yes.

But are these not the same breaks often considered pork for powerful politicians?

I want to have someone defend the $126 million giving to horse racing owners in Kentucky last year. GOP leader Mitch McConnell brings it back to his state and I am sure it is important to the people of Kentucky, but why should I in Oklahoma pay to subsidize it?

Quit your whining.  It's only $126 million, it's not like a billion or anything.  

Seriously, I agree.  We've got to be able to arrest the self-interests of legislators.  

Interesting to note that the horse racing industry got along just fine until 2008 without these breaks:

"Merkley said horse racing in particular — known as the "sport of kings" — could amount to a poster child for the effort to roll back narrowly targeted subsidies.

"It's a sport for the best-off. And why should we, in this difficult time, be subsidizing this activity for the best-off, while people are on the floor talking about cutting fundamental support for those who are hungry in America?" Merkley asked.

McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses.

"The horse industry employs 50,000 Kentuckians and contributes $3.5 billion to our economy year-round. By adding this provision to the bill, we have ensured that this important part of our farm economy is treated fairly," McConnell said then."

Depreciating race horses?  Are you kidding me?