GOP TARGETS MEALS ON WHEELS!

[Conan71]

The maneuver that the House budget committee is attempting is to modify "budget sequestration," or more specifically the across the board cuts -- including to the defense budget -- that come as a result of the failure of the Supercommittee.  So:  the Supercommittee failed to come up with a method of deficit reduction, and according to the Budget Act of 2011, a Supercommittee failure triggers these across the board cuts.  These are cuts to everything -- defense, social programs, everything in the federal budget -- to the tune of $1.3T.  The GOP in the House is trying to rejigger the automatic cuts to only affect social programs, while completely sparing military budgets.  This legislation just left the (GOP-controlled) House budget committee, and is projected to clear the (GOP-controlled) House, but is not projected to see a vote in the Senate.  If by some miracle it does and becomes law, Obama has pledged to veto it. 

Sadly, it's just another example of the GOP trying to pay off the deficit on the backs of the poor. 

Across the board cuts are really the only way to do it.  Everyone's sacred cow gets led to slaughter that way and everyone learns to be a little less dependent on the government.  The Pentagon needs to take their cuts too, there will still be plenty of money to maintain a strong national defense.

[Teatownclown]

Across the board cuts are really the only way to do it.  Everyone's sacred cow gets led to slaughter that way and everyone learns to be a little less dependent on the government.  The Pentagon needs to take their cuts too, there will still be plenty of money to maintain a strong national defense.

You use baloney math, Conan. You'd be a terrible administrator. Yea, it's easy to just cut across the board but it's lazy thinking.

You cut inefficiencies and you fund potential. Why do you never address calibrating the tax rules to close off loss of revenue by scam artists and billionaires?

Oh yeah, it's an election year?

[Conan71]

You use baloney math, Conan. You'd be a terrible administrator. Yea, it's easy to just cut across the board but it's lazy thinking.

You cut inefficiencies and you fund potential. Why do you never address calibrating the tax rules to close off loss of revenue by scam artists and billionaires?

Oh yeah, it's an election year?

It's funny because I was thinking your idea of imposing taxes on religions was lazy thinking.  Raise taxes rather than cut waste- now that's laziness.  Glad to see you are on the cutting waste band-wagon.  

You still never explained why MOW needs government assistance if they aren't even spending all they take in.

Here's the problem, one man's waste is another Congressman's pork, that's why across the board takes the politics out of it and helps neutralize the lobby cash.  What's there to lobby for if everyone gets a 3% cut or whatever it amounts to.  Every Congressman has to suffer the consequences.

A two or three percent cut isn't catastrophic to someone on a fixed income.  Sure it hurts, but it's not as bad as eventually taking away 25% of benefits because we were too afraid of austerity earlier.

[nathanm]

You still never explained why MOW needs government assistance if they aren't even spending all they take in.
...
A two or three percent cut isn't catastrophic to someone on a fixed income.  Sure it hurts, but it's not as bad as eventually taking away 25% of benefits because we were too afraid of austerity earlier.

In the case of government supporting a group that accepts donations from the public, perhaps it would make sense to make the appropriation contingent upon necessity. We shouldn't really have a program like Meals on Wheels subject to the whim of private donors who could decide to redirect their donations to something more likely to have their name attached should that become fashionable. Your point that they don't actually need the money at the moment is a good one, and deserves consideration.

Social Security is easily fixed. Eliminate the cap and the problem is pushed out for 30 or more years, and even then the shortfall will be caused by upward adjustments in benefits based on increased collections built into the law. We can fight it out later about how to means test benefits or adjust the benefits formula to compensate. I figure SS benefits ought to be phased out for those with income other than from a 401k or qualified defined benefit pension over $75,000 or so, but that's just my personal opinion. The real problem is Medicare, but even there fixing the underlying health care system will largely solve Medicare's problems.

What we ought to be focusing on is our broken political system. It would be nice if a large enough group of us could agree to put aside our differences on the social and spending issues and work out how to reduce the influence of money in politics, break the stranglehold of the two party system, and force our elected representatives to be more responsive to their constituents rather than their donors. All this other smile is just a side show, since it's nearly impossible to tackle the problems without first addressing our politics.

[Teatownclown]

In the case of government supporting a group that accepts donations from the public, perhaps it would make sense to make the appropriation contingent upon necessity. We shouldn't really have a program like Meals on Wheels subject to the whim of private donors who could decide to redirect their donations to something more likely to have their name attached should that become fashionable. Your point that they don't actually need the money at the moment is a good one, and deserves consideration.

Social Security is easily fixed. Eliminate the cap and the problem is pushed out for 30 or more years, and even then the shortfall will be caused by upward adjustments in benefits based on increased collections built into the law. We can fight it out later about how to means test benefits or adjust the benefits formula to compensate. I figure SS benefits ought to be phased out for those with income other than from a 401k or qualified defined benefit pension over $75,000 or so, but that's just my personal opinion. The real problem is Medicare, but even there fixing the underlying health care system will largely solve Medicare's problems.

What we ought to be focusing on is our broken political system. It would be nice if a large enough group of us could agree to put aside our differences on the social and spending issues and work out how to reduce the influence of money in politics, break the stranglehold of the two party system, and force our elected representatives to be more responsive to their constituents rather than their donors. All this other smile is just a side show, since it's nearly impossible to tackle the problems without first addressing our politics.

I'll go along with this Nate...but good luck getting past the Plutocrats at the gate.

[Teatownclown]

Conan, there's a huge diff between taxing religion (which I never suggested) and moving their support from the taxpayer to the parishioner.

Your austerity program resembles a parsimonious investment in our country's future.

[Teatownclown]

Here, will this pass your test for government expenditures?

| 5/07/2012 @ 4:18PM |2,673 views
Government Watchdog Says AIG Bailout Could Turn $15.1B Profit For Taxpayers


The Government Accountability Office is out with its latest take on the ultimate cost of the rescue that saved American International Group in 2008 and the watchdog reports that the federal government may actual wind up generating more cash than it put in to the ailing insurer.

To be fair, the AIG bailout was a complex bit of financial footwork between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and was reorganized more than once over the past three-plus years. But all that considered, the GAO finds that "the amount the federal government ultimately takes in could exceed the total support extended to AIG by more than $15.1 billion."

The GAO's assumptions are based on conditions through March 22, 2012, when the amount of outstanding assistance to AIG was $46.3 billion, composed of Treasury's $35.9 billion equity stake and the $8.3 billion balance owed to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by Maiden Lane III, a facility created to house a portfolio of collateralized debt obligations.

While those figures are hardly peanuts, they are a far cry from $92.5 billion in March 2011 and $154.7 billion in December 2010. The reductions have been driven by the New York Fed's successful sales of the entire Maiden Lane II portfolio and portions of Maiden Lane III, and repayments on special purpose vehicles that owned businesses AIG has since sold. (See "AIG Turns Lemons Into Lemonade With AIA IPO.")

The GAO's best guess on the result of the AIG rescue was based on a $30.83 closing share price on March 30. Treasury was able to get closer to that with its latest sale of AIG stock over the weekend, selling $5 billion worth of shares at $30.50 apiece. That came after two prior sales went off at $29 a share that seemed to set a ceiling for the Treasury's stake. After the latest sale, Treasury still owns 63% of AIG shares outstanding.

The September 2008 bailout of AIG came just a week after the government declined to rescue Lehman Brothers and let the investment bank fall into bankruptcy while peers either found a dance partner like Merrill Lynch with Bank of America, or became bank holding companies to gain access to Fed lending support, like Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley.

Shares of AIG stumbled after the offering Monday, but recouped a chunk of early losses to finish down just 3.1% at $31.83.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/05/07/government-watchdog-says-aig-bailout-could-turn-15-1b-profit/

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/08/246638.htm
http://money.cnn.com//2012/05/08/news/companies/aig-treasury-bailout/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular

"So, you know, the shot that has been called by the Fed, it's understandable, but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one. " GOV. SARAH PALIN (R), Alaska 2008 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/campaignnews_09-17.html

Austerity sucks. Taxpayers helping each other (bailouts) not so much...

[Teatownclown]

and there's this:

Report: Bush's $80K phone bill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76033.html#ixzz1uIOYDklz


George W. Bush may have raked in $15 million from speeches alone in 2010, but he still expensed $1.3 million to taxpayers, including $80,000 in phone bills, ABC News's Jonathan Karl reported in "Spinners and Winners." And Bill Clinton also made it big on the speech circuit — bringing in $10 million — and billed more than $1 million in expenses to taxpayers. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, received over half a million in expenses, including $15,000 for postage, and taxpayers also paid $830,000 for George H.W. Bush.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is proposing a bill to end taxpayers' funding expenses for any ex-president who brings in more than $400,000 per year. Under his proposal, presidents would receive a $200,000 annual pension and $200,000 in annual expenses if they make less than that combined, ABC News reported.

"Look, presidents should get a compensation package. They should get a retirement, and they should get some expenses," Chaffetz told Karl. "But if they're going to go out on the trail, and they're going to give speeches, write books and make money, then there comes a point where you say, OK, the taxpayer shouldn't be responsible for also footing the bill for the office expenses, and the telephone, and paper, and the personnel to man those offices."

Meanwhile, American citizens are being asked to take a cut in social services.

[Ed W]

Actually, no. At least not in my lifetime which spans the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy eras up to present. In fact I see more activity by churches now trying to take up the slack of reduced or eliminated relief and treatment programs than ever before.

I was doing some research for a story on the VA hospital system and found that local people and local ministries are stepping in to support veterans with PTSD.  The Army has seen the incidence of traumatic brain injury and PTSD rise enormously, far out of the VA's capacity to deal with it.  There are several reasons for this.  First, the VA system relies on tracking patient trends when it has to apply for funding.  That alone puts them 2-3 years behind the curve.  When they have funding, they have to attract and keep medical staff, and they're in competition with every other hospital in the country.  Finally, those staffers have to be trained, taking even more time.

Let's be clear -- the Veteran's Administration hospitals are our only form of socialized medicine.  The facilities belong to the federal government and the employees are federal workers, yet despite the braying on the right about the evils of socialism, not one politician has proposed doing away with the VA.  We owe a considerable debt to our service men and women, one that we do not fully repay at present.  They deserve far better treatment, and I defy any politician to insist that we do away with those hospitals and simply give our veterans some form of voucher for medical treatment.  We could see a re-enactment of the Bonus March.